DOCSLIB.ORG

Empiricism and Skepticism: an Overview of Hume Philosophy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Empiricism and Skepticism: an Overview of Hume Philosophy Journal of Interdisciplinary Cycle Research ISSN NO: 0022-1945 Empiricism and Skepticism: An Overview of Hume Philosophy Sandeep Sharma Lecturer in Philosophy Government Degree College, Akhnoor [email protected] ABSTRACT The present paper has attempted to give insight about Hume philosophical ideas about empiricism and skepticism. It is because of the metaphysical as well as the epistemological uncertainty, which developed due to giving undue importance to innate principles accepted by modern rationalist; utmost importance is started given to the experience. But, what happens when experience itself push you in the field of skepticism. Empiricist believes that reason is not sufficient to explore the nature of ultimate reality. Therefore, Empiricism as an epistemological school develops in reaction to rationalism. Their primary aim was to take philosophy at zenith, as they accepting empiricism as a scientific approach as well as philosophical techniques to philosophizing. Empiricism came into existence with Locke, who survives with Berkeley and culminates in the writing of Hume. It is Hume who gave us the world view of empiricism as a system of philosophical enquiry, by limiting everything to experience which he has tried well to show how everything’s end up in skepticism. Focusing on this piece of writing the present paper has put light on the empiricism as a tool of philosophical inquiry and also its limitation which Hume has focused upon. Volume XII, Issue VI, June/2020 Page No:104 Journal of Interdisciplinary Cycle Research ISSN NO: 0022-1945 KEYWORDS: Empiricism, Skepticism, Knowledge, Causation, Impression, Ideas, Relation, Experience INTRODUCTION The epistemological turn in modern western philosophy attained a new height with the introduction of Locke’s work ‘The Essay Concerning Human Understanding’, where he explains the foundational doctrines of the empiricist school of philosophy. In the beginning, he was influenced by Descartes, but later condemned his philosophical ideas and developed the foundations of empiricism. The concept of empiricism given by Locke became a very vital and influential philosophical thought during the modern period. Locke begins his philosophical journey with this simple question how knowledge is obtained? He also tried to show the importance of experience in the formation of knowledge. He has uncovered some fundamental flaws of the rationalist tradition, which stresses on knowledge that is gained by the mind a priori. With his stress on sensations and reflections, Locke initiates a new beginning in philosophy that makes empirical observation and experience at the center stage. Locke philosophy ends up in realism and Berkeley ends up in subjective idealism. These both philosophical positions are not logically defendable by accepting experience as the sole source of knowledge. Interesting points in these philosophical views is that they are not pure empiricist philosophers as they fail to deny the importance of reason. One of the fundamental assumptions of empiricist school is the belief that knowledge is linked with the ideas the mind has. Locke thought that there exists a world outside our mind from where we get ideas through sensations. It can be seen in the Locke's classification of knowledge into empirical, intuitive and demonstrative knowledge. Realism being a philosophical position surpasses experience as a source of knowledge and it is more grounded in reason rather than experience. The coming into being of idealism out of empiricism is also challengeable; this is the only reason G. E. Moore challenged Berkeley's famous dictum 'Esse est percepi', and Moore in his simple argument proposed that, Berkeley failed to make the distinction between subject and object. The distinction between subject and object as clearly known to us by experience but Berkeley failed to recognize it and gave the world idealism which is untenable.. Volume XII, Issue VI, June/2020 Page No:105 Journal of Interdisciplinary Cycle Research ISSN NO: 0022-1945 When it comes to Hume, he has a clear plan as compare to his empiricist predecessors. Locke and Berkeley focused more on building a theory of knowledge rather than exploring the principles which help us to acquire that knowledge. Therefore they simply declared that everything is known to us by experience. But, unlike both, Hume gave more importance to principles of knowledge than knowledge itself. This is the only reason Hume chooses to begin with critically examining these basic questions like, how knowledge originated, and also explore the very possibility of knowledge. Therefore, along with his own vision of knowledge, Hume also accepts the empirical theory of the origin of knowledge proposed by Locke and also Berkeley’s doctrine of ‘Esse Est Percipi’. He deduces from these basic assumptions a radical form of empiricism that makes room for skepticism and even nihilism. Hume understood that only knowledge which is not founded on observation and experience has no claims to be called as knowledge. For this reason, he undertakes the task of reinterpreting many commonly accepted notions of his time and considered them with great philosophical skills to arrive at the truth about their nature. A very important contribution of Hume in this regard is his reinterpretation of the relations of cause and effects and the problem of induction and interlink between the both. The entire enterprise of Hume’s empiricism exists around impressions and ideas. Only realty is impressions for Hume. Impressions are received through perception and sensation (an experience we get when we see, feel, love, hate, desire, or will anything). According to Hume, impressions are more 'lively' than ideas, by which he seems to mean that they are clearer and more detailed. Ideas are the fainter copies of impressions; we form the idea because of impression. Impressions are distinguished from ideas being livelier and vivid, whereas ideas are the copies of impression. This was his copy principle. All our knowledge is restricted to impressions, if there are no impressions and then there is no idea, so we have nothing to philosophize. There are also no innate ideas as all as accepted by rationalist, as our ideas are copies of impressions. It is impossible for us to have an idea of something which we have not first experienced as an impression. Therefore, formation of all the content of human consciousness in the form of ideas is reduced to impressions. Hume proposed three types of connections between ideas. There is a secret tie between the ideas. These provide an explanation of how it is that we move from one thought to another. These connections are known as the ‘principle of association’- Resemblance, Contiguity, and Volume XII, Issue VI, June/2020 Page No:106 Journal of Interdisciplinary Cycle Research ISSN NO: 0022-1945 Causation. Hume believes that once the distinction between impression and ideas is understood and knowledge of the three principles of association of ideas is worked out properly, only then we are able to account for all the working of our conscious mind. Of these three, cause and effect relation is the strongest or philosophical one; in fact, this is the only principle which supports us to go beyond the scope of senses and memory. Since Hume accepts that nothing exists beyond impressions and ideas; this is how Hume accounts for the relation like cause and effect will worth considering. Hume opines that we can observe the various phenomenon are going around us which seem related to each other. Causation, in simple words, means, to observe two different things occurring in such a close connection that it seems to us that they are connected. For instance, when we sit around the fire we experience its warmth; since Hume is the believers of an impression only. We have an impression of fire, therefore it is the impression of the cause which is the fire in this context, and we have the impression of warmth which is the effect in this regards, so we have the impression of both cause as well as effects but we don't have the impression of the relation between cause and effects. Then how, we can claim for that, as it has been claimed by philosophers. In fact, we cannot have impressions of the relations of cause and effects. Causation is also an idea but from where this idea comes. Hume in his ‘copy principle’ argues that if there is no impression then there is no idea. Causation is a relation that exists between A and B, i.e. cause and effect, we either have the impression of the cause or impression of the effect but we never have the impression of the relationship that exists between cause and effect. Therefore, it is important to argue that if we don’t have a direct impression of the relationship that exists between cause and effect then the knowledge of the causation as relation seems absurd and meaningless when observed from an empirical point of view. As Hume argues, we observe things happening in connections, and also our bulk of understanding is based on causation. All our thinking about the ‘matter of fact’ involves arguing from known cause to expected effects or from perceived effects to probable cause. This type of reasoning about the future based on past regularities is known as induction. Induction is based on probability and it cannot be considered as Logical or Philosophical. Hume believes that Causation has its ground in the principle of induction. So from the logical point of view, it is also liable to doubt. Volume XII, Issue VI, June/2020 Page No:107 Journal of Interdisciplinary Cycle Research ISSN NO: 0022-1945 For Hume, we have no absolute, self-evident, or certain knowledge of 'matter of facts'; our knowledge never reaches absolute certainty. We base our conclusions on experience, we believe that the future will be like the past, but we have no absolute assurance that things will not change.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Beyond Skepticism Foundationalism and the New Fuzziness: the Role of Wide Reflective Equilibrium in Legal Theory Robert Justin Lipkin
    Cornell Law Review Volume 75 Article 2 Issue 4 May 1990 Beyond Skepticism Foundationalism and the New Fuzziness: The Role of Wide Reflective Equilibrium in Legal Theory Robert Justin Lipkin Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert Justin Lipkin, Beyond Skepticism Foundationalism and the New Fuzziness: The Role of Wide Reflective Equilibrium in Legal Theory , 75 Cornell L. Rev. 810 (1990) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol75/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BEYOND SKEPTICISM, FOUNDATIONALISM AND THE NEW FUZZINESS: THE ROLE OF WIDE REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM IN LEGAL THEORY Robert Justin Liphint TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................. 812 I. FOUNDATIONALISM AND SKEPTICISM ..................... 816 A. The Problem of Skepticism ........................ 816 B. Skepticism and Nihilism ........................... 819 1. Theoretical and PracticalSkepticism ................ 820 2. Subjectivism and Relativism ....................... 821 3. Epistemic and Conceptual Skepticism ................ 821 4. Radical Skepticism ............................... 822 C. Modified Skepticism ............................... 824 II. NEW FOUNDATIONALISM
    [Show full text]
  • Defense of Reductionism About Testimonial Justification of Beliefs
    Page 1 Forthcoming in Noûs A Defense of Reductionism about Testimonial Justification of Beliefs TOMOJI SHOGENJI Rhode Island College Abstract This paper defends reductionism about testimonial justification of beliefs against two influential arguments. One is the empirical argument to the effect that the reductionist justification of our trust in testimony is either circular since it relies on testimonial evidence or else there is scarce evidence in support of our trust in testimony. The other is the transcendental argument to the effect that trust in testimony is a prerequisite for the very existence of testimonial evidence since without the presumption of people’s truthfulness we cannot interpret their utterances as testimony with propositional contents. This paper contends that the epistemic subject can interpret utterances as testimony with propositional contents without presupposing the credibility of testimony, and that evidence available to the normal epistemic subject can justify her trust in testimony. I. Introduction There has recently been a considerable interest in anti-reductionism about testimonial justification of beliefs, according to which we cannot justify our trust in testimony by perceptual and memorial evidence.1 The reason for the interest is not the enticement of skepticism. Recent anti-reductionists hold that we are prima facie justified in trusting testimony simply because it is testimony. This means that there is a presumption in favor of testimony that it is credible unless contrary evidence is available. I will use the term “anti-reductionism” to refer to this non-skeptical version of anti-reductionism about testimonial justification. The more traditional position is reductionism, of which the most prominent advocate is David Hume.
    [Show full text]
  • Following the Argument Where It Leads
    Following The Argument Where It Leads Thomas Kelly Princeton University [email protected] Abstract: Throughout the history of western philosophy, the Socratic injunction to ‘follow the argument where it leads’ has exerted a powerful attraction. But what is it, exactly, to follow the argument where it leads? I explore this intellectual ideal and offer a modest proposal as to how we should understand it. On my proposal, following the argument where it leaves involves a kind of modalized reasonableness. I then consider the relationship between the ideal and common sense or 'Moorean' responses to revisionary philosophical theorizing. 1. Introduction Bertrand Russell devoted the thirteenth chapter of his History of Western Philosophy to the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. He concluded his discussion with a rather unflattering assessment: There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better: If he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times (1945: 463). The extent to which this is a fair assessment of Aquinas is controversial.1 My purpose in what follows, however, is not to defend Aquinas; nor is it to substantiate the charges that Russell brings against him.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Induction
    The Problem of Induction Gilbert Harman Department of Philosophy, Princeton University Sanjeev R. Kulkarni Department of Electrical Engineering, Princeton University July 19, 2005 The Problem The problem of induction is sometimes motivated via a comparison between rules of induction and rules of deduction. Valid deductive rules are necessarily truth preserving, while inductive rules are not. So, for example, one valid deductive rule might be this: (D) From premises of the form “All F are G” and “a is F ,” the corresponding conclusion of the form “a is G” follows. The rule (D) is illustrated in the following depressing argument: (DA) All people are mortal. I am a person. So, I am mortal. The rule here is “valid” in the sense that there is no possible way in which premises satisfying the rule can be true without the corresponding conclusion also being true. A possible inductive rule might be this: (I) From premises of the form “Many many F s are known to be G,” “There are no known cases of F s that are not G,” and “a is F ,” the corresponding conclusion can be inferred of the form “a is G.” The rule (I) might be illustrated in the following “inductive argument.” (IA) Many many people are known to have been moral. There are no known cases of people who are not mortal. I am a person. So, I am mortal. 1 The rule (I) is not valid in the way that the deductive rule (D) is valid. The “premises” of the inductive inference (IA) could be true even though its “con- clusion” is not true.
    [Show full text]
  • “Forms of Philosophical Skepticism”
    “Forms of Philosophical Skepticism” James Conant Handout of Quotations, Examples, and Other Things I. Russell and the Nomads 1. Bertrand Russell’s Table Any statement as to what it is that our immediate experiences make us know is very likely to be wrong. It seems to me that I am now sitting in a chair, at a table of a certain shape, on which I see sheets of paper with writing or print…. All this seems to be so evident as to be hardly worth stating, except in answer to a man who doubts whether I know anything. Yet all this may be reasonably doubted, and all of it requires much careful discussion before we can be sure that we have stated it in a form that is wholly true. To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate attention on the table. To the eye it is oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is smooth and cool and hard; when I tap it, it gives out a wooden sound…. [Then Russell proceeds to consider each of these qualities of the table.] The shape of the table is no better. … [T]he 'real' shape is not what we see; it is something inferred from what we see. And what we see is constantly changing in shape as we, move about the room; so that here again the senses seem not to give us the truth about the table itself, but only about the appearance of the table. … Thus it becomes evident that the real table, if there is one, is not the same as what we immediately experience by sight or touch or hearing.
    [Show full text]
  • Contextualist Responses to Skepticism
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Philosophy Theses Department of Philosophy 6-27-2007 Contextualist Responses to Skepticism Luanne Gutherie Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Gutherie, Luanne, "Contextualist Responses to Skepticism." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2007. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/22 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Philosophy at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONTEXTUALIST RESPONSES TO SKEPTICISM by LUANNE GUTHERIE Under the Direction of Stephen Jacobson ABSTRACT External world skeptics argue that we have no knowledge of the external world. Contextualist theories of knowledge attempt to address the skeptical problem by maintaining that arguments for skepticism are effective only in certain contexts in which the standards for knowledge are so high that we cannot reach them. In ordinary contexts, however, the standards for knowledge fall back down to reachable levels and we again are able to have knowledge of the external world. In order to address the objection that contextualists confuse the standards for knowledge with the standards for warranted assertion, Keith DeRose appeals to the knowledge account of warranted assertion to argue that if one is warranted in asserting p, one also knows p. A skeptic, however, can maintain a context-invariant view of the knowledge account of assertion, in which case such an account would not provide my help to contextualism.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Varieties of Skepticism
    1 2 3 4 Two Varieties of Skepticism 5 6 James Conant 7 8 This paper distinguishes two varieties of skepticism and the varieties of 9 philosophical response those skepticisms have engendered. The aim of 10 the exercise is to furnish a perspicuous overview of some of the dialec- 11 tical relations that obtain across some of the range of problems that phi- 12 losophers have called (and continue to call) “skeptical”. I will argue that 13 such an overview affords a number of forms of philosophical insight.1 14 15 16 I. Cartesian and Kantian Varieties of Skepticism – A First Pass 17 at the Distinction 18 19 I will call the two varieties of skepticism in question Cartesian skepticism 20 and Kantian skepticism respectively.2 (These labels are admittedly conten- 21 tious.3 Nothing of substance hangs on my employing these rather than 22 23 1 The taxonomy is meant to serve as a descriptive tool for distinguishing various 24 sorts of philosophical standpoint. It is constructed in as philosophically neutral a 25 fashion as possible. The distinctions presented below upon which it rests are 26 ones that can be deployed by philosophers of very different persuasions regard- 27 less of their collateral philosophical commitments. A philosopher could make use of these distinctions to argue for any of a number of very different conclu- 28 sions. Some of the more specific philosophical claims that I myself express sym- 29 pathy for in the latter part of this part (e.g., regarding how these varieties of 30 skepticism are related to one another) do, however, turn on collateral philo- 31 sophical commitments.
    [Show full text]
  • How Not to Argue from Science to Skepticism
    international journal for the study of skepticism 4 (2014) 21-35 brill.com/skep How not to Argue from Science to Skepticism Stephen Maitzen Acadia University [email protected] Abstract For at least several decades, and arguably since the time of Descartes, it has been fash- ionable to offer scientific or quasi-scientific arguments for skepticism about human knowledge. I critique five attempts to argue for skeptical conclusions from the findings of science and scientifically informed common sense. Keywords skepticism – knowledge – science – appearance – eliminativism – underdetermina- tion – veil of perception 1 Introduction For at least several decades, and arguably since the time of Descartes, it has been fashionable to offer scientific or quasi-scientific arguments for skepti- cism about human knowledge. Indeed, when W. V. Quine describes this kind of skeptical program, he makes skepticism out to be as old as science itself, and science as old as common sense itself: Scepticism is an offshoot of science. The basis for scepticism is the aware- ness of illusion, the discovery that we must not always believe our eyes. … The sceptic’s example of the seemingly bent stick owes its force to our knowledge that sticks do not bend by immersion; and his examples of mirages, after-images, dreams, and the rest are similarly parasitic upon positive science, however primitive. … [S]ceptical doubts are scientific doubts. Quine 1975: 67–8 © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2014 | doi 10.1163/22105700-03031081 <UN> 22 Maitzen In what follows, I critique five attempts to argue for skeptical conclusions from the findings of science and common sense.1 In my view, all five attempts fail.
    [Show full text]
  • Psychology, Epistemology, and Skepticism in Hume's Argument
    PSYCHOLOGY, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND SKEPTICISM 1 IN HUME'S ARGUMENT ABOUT INDUCTION Do we yet understand Hume's project in his main argument about induction in Treatise I.iii.6? Is the argument skeptical? Is it even so much as epistemological, skeptical or otherwise? Or is it merely psychological? Although the literature has made much progress on these questions, we have not reached a full understanding of Hume's position. I hope to fill in some missing pieces of the interpretive puzzle. 1. THE SKEPTICAL INTERPRETATION OF I.iii.6 According to the skeptical interpretation of I.iii.6, the section advances the problem of 2 induction, in the fashion of Russell in the Problems of Philosophy. This interpretation, which held 3 sway for decades in the middle of the twentieth century, has its attractions. It is philosophically interesting. Also, it coheres with the Beattie-Reid tradition of interpretation, on which Hume is utterly destructive, an arch-skeptic with respect to causal necessity, the causal principle (that every new existence, or new modification of existence, has a cause), the external world, the substantial self, 4 and so forth. Finally, the skeptical interpretation, unsurprisingly, has some basis in the text. Section I.iii.6 does supply key premises of the skeptical problem: first, inductive inference presupposes that nature is uniform (T 88-89); second, there is no demonstrative argument to show that nature is uniform (T 89); and third, no probable argument could show that nature is uniform, without begging the question (T 89-90). Hume would also seem to draw the argument's conclusion, that there is no justification whatsoever for belief in the uniformity principle and hence for inductive inference: he writes in I.iii.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Skepticism and Beyond
    Skepticism and Beyond Skepticism and beyond: A primer on Stroud’s later epistemology In Sképsis VII.14: 76-99. October 2016 Jason Bridges University of Chicago 1. Understanding the skeptical challenge A. The initial reflections in Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy purport to reveal that we are incapable of acquiring knowledge of the world around us. How is such an extraordinarily sweeping, and devastating, result supposed to be reached? Whatever we make of the details, the general strategy, at least, seems straightforward. In the course of his reflections, Descartes raises a question that we might express as follows, “How is it possible for us to have knowledge, by means of the senses, of things located outside us?” He then brings to bear an array of related considerations on this question, and on their basis arrives at an answer that can be put as follows: “Sorry to say, but it’s not in fact possible for us to have any knowledge, by means of the senses, of things located outside us.” The assessment, then, seems to be reached in an eminently familiar way: by argument. If we don’t like the assessment, it falls to us to find some error in the arguments for it. Central to Barry Stroud’s approach to skepticism is a suspicion of this straightforward accounting of the skeptic’s progress. Certainly it appears as if the skeptic raises a general question about our capacity for knowledge, and then argues toward a negative answer to that question. But are things as they appear? 1 Skepticism and Beyond B.
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatism As American Exceptionalism
    University of New Orleans ScholarWorks@UNO Senior Honors Theses Undergraduate Showcase 5-2012 Pragmatism as American Exceptionalism Philip L. Wells University of New Orleans Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uno.edu/honors_theses Recommended Citation Wells, Philip L., "Pragmatism as American Exceptionalism" (2012). Senior Honors Theses. 23. https://scholarworks.uno.edu/honors_theses/23 This Honors Thesis-Unrestricted is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by ScholarWorks@UNO with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Honors Thesis-Unrestricted in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Honors Thesis-Unrestricted has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRAGMATISM AS AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM An Honors Thesis Presented to the Department of Philosophy of the University of New Orleans In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts, with University Honors and Honors in Philosophy by Philip L. Wells May 2012 Table of Contents 1. Abstract.....................................................................................iii 2. Introduction................................................................................1 3. Pragmatism the Philosophy........................................................4 4. Peirce and James........................................................................6 5. Dewey's Politics and Experimental Philosophy.......................11 6. Kuhn's Description of Science Applied to Philosophy............13 7. Quine's Web of Belief..............................................................14 8.
    [Show full text]
  • PHI 515 Galen, Outline of Empiricism.Docx
    PHI 515: Topics in the History of Philosophy Hendrik Lorenz and Benjamin Morison Galen’s Outline of Empiricism In this short treatise, Galen provides a fairly detailed presentation of the views of an ancient medical school according to which medical knowledge, the knowledge by possessing which one is a medical doctor, is just a matter of experience, without reason, conceived of as a power to grasp imperceptible essences or natures of things, playing any role either in the constitution or in the formation of such knowledge. We want to understand this way of thinking about medical knowledge in its own right by carefully studying Galen’s treatise. But we also want to study it in the broader context of ancient theories and debates about the nature of expert knowledge. Medical Empiricism needs to be understood in part as a reaction to the high-powered theoretical conceptions of reason introduced or relied on by Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, to the effect that reason is a power to grasp imperceptible natures of things and to grasp imperceptible relations such as logical consequence and incompatibility. But it also needs to be understood as presupposing and building on a tradition of thinkers who held that expert knowledge was just a matter of observation, memory, and experience, like Polus (Aristotle, Metaphysics A 1, 981a3-5) and Alcmaeon of Croton (?) (Phaedo 96 b). In fact, Medical Empiricism is the most fully articulated or anyhow the best- preserved example of this tradition that is available to us. Another kind of context that is relevant background to a study of Medical Empiricism is the context of debates among it and its rival medical schools, namely various forms of Rationalism, and Methodism.
    [Show full text]