Last modified: Monday, November 25, 2013
1. A "Source of knowledge" refers to a point from which knowledge originates.
Contemporary discussions of source of knowledge are focus on sense experience (Markie 2013).
That is, contemporary discussions focus on sense experience as a point from which knowledge originates.
Careful students will define each epistemological position, such as empiricism or rationalism, in its own terms.
But some with an empirical bias define other positions in terms of sense experience.
Assuming the object of knowledge is truth, there are four categorical relationships between sense experience and knowledge:
(A) Universal affirmative: All truths about the world which can be known are known by one's sense experience of the world.
(E) Universal negative: No truths about the world which can be known are known by one's sense experience of the world.
(I) Particular affirmative: Some truths about the world which can be known are known by one's sense experience of the world.
(O) Particular negative: Some truths about the world which can be known are not known by one's sense experience of the world.
2. Using these four categorical propositions, various epistemological positions can be formulated in terms of sense experience.
I take empiricism about source of knowledge to be the universal affirmatives claim that:
(A) All truths about the world which can be known are known by one's sense experience of the world.
I take rationalism about source of knowledge to be the particular negatives claim that:
(O) Some truths about the world which can be known are not known by one's sense experience of the world.
Rationalism should be defined in its own terms and some rationalists formulate rationalism about source of knowledge in terms of intuition.
If rationalism is formulated in terms of intuition as in (Markie 2013), then it is the claim that:
Some truths about the world which can be known are known by one's intuition and deduction from those intuited propositions.
If view from the standpoint of sense experience, this translates as (O).
3. In the following discussions, it is useful if the reader keeps the Square of Opposition in mind (Parsons 2012):
Corresponding A and O propositions are contradictory of one another.
That is, they cannot both be true and they cannot both be false; if one is true, the other must be false.
Since empiricism and rationalism are defined as contradictory of each other, one of them must be true and the other false.
A contradictory pair of propositions is also mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.
So from an empirically biased standpoint, empiricism and rationalism are mutually exclusive of one another and they jointly exhaust all possibilities.
The diagram indicates that (A) and (O) are not the only contradictory pair of propositions.
According to the Square of Opposition, (E) and (I) am also a contradictory pair.
4. What is Gordon H. Clark's position with respect to these four claims?
(a) Clark rejects (A) (Empiricism).
(b) Clark endorses (E).
(c) If Clark endorses (E), then he must reject its contradictory (I).
(d) If Clark rejects (A), then he must endorses its contradictory (O) (Rationalism).
5. Did Gordon H. Clark endorse Rationalism?
There is a confusion going on around that Clark is a rationalist.
But have you just written above that Clark must endorse rationalism (O)?
Yes, I have.
But if Clark endorses (O), then isn't he a rationalist?
No, he is not.
I say there is a confusion because in Clark's writing, (O) is not rationalism.
If define in terms of sense experience, then in Clark's views rationalism is the stronger claim (E) the universal negative:
(E) No truths about the world which can be known are known by one's sense experience of the world.
(Clark 1973, 9): "Rationalism then is the theory that all knowledge, and therefore all religious knowledge, can be deduced from logic alone, i.e. logic apart from both revelation and sensory experience."
So far as I can tell, Clark's definition of rationalism might be historically accurate up until sometime in the 20th Century.
But in the 20th Century, there is a contraction in scope of the rationalist's claim: the "all" became "some".
And in Three Types of Religious Philosophy (1973), Clark rejected both empiricism (A) and rationalism as he defined it.
Clark rejects rationalism in either the Global (All) or Local (Some) formulation:
(a) Rationalism is the theory that all knowledge can be deduced from logic alone.
(b) Rationalism is the theory that some truths about the world which can be known are known by one's intuition and deduction from those intuited propositions.
Gordon H. Clark is not a rationalist.
6. Clark endorsed a third option he called Dogmatism (Clark 1973, 7): "The term Dogmatism therefore designates that method of procedure which tries to systematize beliefs concerning God, science, immortality, etc. on the basis of information divinely revealed in the sacred writings."
The contemporary empirical biased to define rationalism by (O) constituted a narrowing of options.
Defining empiricism (A) and rationalism (O) as contradictory is a narrowing of options because in a contradictory pair, one or the other must be true.
One must be either an empiricist or a rationalist, and cannot be both.
A position such as Clark's where he is neither an empiricist nor a rationalist in this sense is by definition disqualified.
A further implication of using sense experience as the basis of definition is that Dogmatism is translated as (E).
This when Dogmatism affirms both (E) and (O).
This creates the seeming impression that Clark is a rationalist.
For when defining all sources of knowledge by sense experience, Clark is forced into the straight-jacket of simultaneously:
(a) endorsing (E) and rejecting it’s contradictory (I); and
(b) rejecting (A) and endorsing it's contradictory (O).
Clark got lumped together with rationalism (O).
The seeming impression is created by the inadequacy of stating all positions regarding source of knowledge in terms of sense experience.
Each position must be stated on its own terms.
7. Summary:
A theory should be stated on its own terms.
There is a contemporary prejudice by some to view all sources of knowledge in terms of sense experience.
For the four categorical propositions about sources of knowledge formulated in terms of sense experience:
(a) Clark rejects (A) the universal affirmative.
(b) Clark accepts (E) the universal negative.
(c) Clark rejects (I) the particular affirmative.
(d) Clark accepts (O) the particular negative.
Thus:
Clark rejects all affirmatives about sense experience, whether universal or particular.
Clark accepts all negatives about sense experience, whether universal or particular.
Clark's view of the nature of rationalism and dogmatism should not be state in terms of sense experience but rather on their own terms.
The bias by some to define all positions regarding source of knowledge in terms of sense experience is a reflection of the increasing dominance of empiricism in the last few centuries.
8. A promissory note redeemable in the indefinite future:
The concept "source of knowledge" needs further clarification.
In what way is sense experience a source of knowledge?
In what way is logic a source of knowledge?
In what way is Biblical revelation a source of knowledge?
References:
Clark, Gordon H. 1973. Three Types of Religious Philosophy. Nutley, New Jersey: The Craig Press.
Markie, Peter. 2013. Rationalism vs. Empiricism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta.
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
(Summer 2013 Edition),
Parsons, Terence. 2012. The Traditional Square of Opposition. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta.
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/square/
(Fall 2012 Edition).
End.
