Rationalism and Empiricism: the yin and yang of knowledge
How academic subjects are either Rational or Empirical and what makes it so difficult to separate or reconcile them
The academic hierarchy expresses how certain subjects are derivative of one another: biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied physics, physics is applied math, and math is essentially applied philosophy. These subjects can be described based on how empirical and rational the knowledge they concern are. Moreover, empiricism and rationalism are important when discussing the nature of human knowledge. It is important to realise that they are inherently inseparable, but also seemingly irreconcilable. But both aspects of their dynamic can definitely still be appreciated and explored.
But first, it would be important to actually differentiate between the two. Instead of the traditional definitions, however, empiricism and rationalism can be defined based on how such knowledge is accumulated rather than simply what that knowledge is:
Rational Subjects: relies on human reasoning and thought to obtain and convey knowledge.
Empirical Subjects: relies on the senses to make observations about nature and the world.
It would be helpful to note that a subject cannot be purely rational nor purely empirical, as people use both reasoning and observation to draw conclusions. An individual’s reasoning is affected by empirical senses. Similarly, empirical senses are processed through reasoning. In the words of Jack LaLanne, “you can’t separate the body and the mind.”
In practice, the inseparability of the two can be seen in math and the study of nature in general. Although math deals with abstract concepts, these concepts are visualized through concrete phenomena or objects. Number theory as a whole is reliant on how people write numbers down. Certain divisibility rules for instance are only true for base-10 number systems. And Arabic numerals are not necessarily universal, yet it is troublesome to think outside of that convention. It is extremely difficult, for example, to separate the concept of ‘four’ not just from four objects, but the word and symbol that represents the quantity as well. This is because interacting with the natural world invariably creates associations between the abstract and concrete for the former to be understood in the first place; like four ducklings in a pond.
Similarly, there is no objectively pure way to record and make observations. The sensory experience itself is subjective. Cold for one can be hot for another. So one must resort to systems and units to take data, which despite standardization, are still imperfect. The frustration of empiricism can be seen simply by trying to describe the color red without using the word red. Any description would be biased by a person’s experience with the color red. The association between the abstract and the concrete is just as evident in empirical observation as it is in rational conceptualization. Wittingly or not, everyone makes judgements and assumptions of everything they observe: from the things they feel to the things they see.
Nevertheless, it is important to consider that such dynamic between the two faculties is just as inevitable as it is beneficial. Although one may be biased toward the other, true knowledge can only be found through both reason and observation.
Reason is undoubtedly a powerful tool. But it can be led astray without concrete and real-world basis. Additionally, logically sound ideas lack significance without meaningful application. On the other end, observation lays a bountiful banquet of information to be devoured. However, without rational thought, such information cannot be consumed properly. And only with reason can facts and figures be generalized into rational truths.
In the academic context, the subject’s derivation of one another is not so much a hierarchy as it is a relationship. It shows the connection of one field of study to another with respect to the nature of knowledge being discussed. It is also a reminder that rational thought and empirical observations should ideally be present in all fields. In fact, there exists the field of mathematical sociology, which tries to unify the opposite ends of the spectrum: math finds application in society, and sociology can express its patterns and theories more formally. In summary, it is important for theories to be supported by concrete application, and for observation to be accompanied with sound reasoning.
The beauty in chaos and uncertainty
In an ideal world, rationalism and empiricism would agree on everything; a universe where logic and reasoning completely conform with natural observations. But of course, this is not the case. Abstract theories such as those in quantum physics are not fully reconcilable with what an individual experiences on the macro scale. On the other hand, seemingly random patterns of human behavior are extremely difficult to generalize into patterns and theorems. Yet this does not necessarily entail that it is impossible to do so. Perhaps there are just lapses in knowledge or understanding that when filled can better bridge the gap between the theoretical and the practical. Or perhaps this gap is what makes life so interesting. As human connections are more than just neural networks or behavior patterns, and there is indeed wonder in the complexity of theories and equations. Truly, beauty lies in the abstraction of thought and the unpredictability of nature; and of course the quest to understand them both.
