How do empiricists argue against rationalism?

Empiricists argue against rationalism by emphasizing the primacy of sensory experience and observation as the foundation of knowledge. They believe that all knowledge is derived from our senses and that reason alone cannot provide us with true understanding of the world.

One of the main arguments put forth by empiricists is the concept of tabula rasa, or the blank slate. They argue that at birth, the mind is devoid of any innate ideas or principles, and all knowledge is acquired through sensory experiences. This stands in contrast to rationalists who believe in the existence of innate knowledge or concepts that are independent of experience.

Empiricists also criticize rationalists for their reliance on deductive reasoning and innate ideas. They argue that rationalists often make claims about the world based on abstract reasoning alone, without any empirical evidence to support their claims. Empiricists contend that this approach is prone to error and can lead to unfounded conclusions.

Furthermore, empiricists highlight the importance of empirical evidence and experimentation in the scientific method. They argue that knowledge is gained through observation, experimentation, and the accumulation of evidence. This emphasis on empirical evidence allows for the testing and verification of hypotheses, leading to a more reliable understanding of the world.

In summary, empiricists argue against rationalism by asserting that sensory experience and observation are the primary sources of knowledge. They criticize rationalists for their reliance on innate ideas and abstract reasoning, advocating for the importance of empirical evidence and experimentation in acquiring true understanding.