The Mind’s New Science by Howard Gardner presents the marriage between the disciplines of philosophy and neuroscience through the works of various philosophers. The fourth chapter of Gardner’s book is entitled, “Reason, Experience, and the Status of Philosophy.” In this chapter, Gardner discusses various philosophers and their contributions to the fields of philosophy and neuroscience. After discussing René Descartes, Gardner then introduces empiricist responses to Descartes’s rationalist explanation. John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume introduce their opposing beliefs in this chapter that challenge the views of the rationalist. As a neuroscience major, I found these competing models to be quite compelling for the realms of philosophy
…show more content…
Descartes however, used introspection to accomplish his goals set for himself and the sciences. Descartes wished to dispel all of his former false beliefs not only for himself, but also to create a firm foundation for the sciences. He accomplished his goal by creating a “method of systematic doubt,” as Gardner calls it. Any evidence that he was not absolutely certain of was doubted by Descartes, leaving behind his own states of consciousness and his own doubts. Through introspection and reasoning (as a rationalist), Descartes created a secure foundation for both philosophy and science. As an opposing empiricist, Locke believed the only reliable source of evidence could be found in sensory experience. “The knowledge of the existence of any other thing we can have only by sensation,” according to Locke. The rationalists believe that the mind is capable of reasoning, whereas the empiricists believe the mental processes either affect or are the basis of external …show more content…
Descartes’s famous formulation, “I think therefore I am” starkly contrasts with Locke. Locke declared, “For the having the idea of anything in our mind, no more proves the existence of that thing, than the picture of a man evidences his being in the world, or the visions of a dream make thereby a true history.” While Descartes believed that mere belief/thought was sufficient evidence, Locke blatantly opposes this idea. Locke insisted that experience was the only manner in which to acquire knowledge and reason. According to Locke, perception is the first step to experiencing the world. The concept of complex ideas growing from simple ideas is the brainchild of Locke, too. As an empiricist, Locke believed the only manner in which to culminate a rational, conscious self was through experience. Next, Locke’s successors Berkeley and Hume continued to refute Descartes’s rationalist beliefs. Berkeley denied the existence of the material world apart from ones perception of it. He also challenged the status of mathematics, a blatant blow to Descartes’s ideology as a mathematician. Berkeley saw mathematics as a barrier to communication which then causes imprecision and inconsistency. Instead, he placed his faith in experiencing the self and perceiving the mind, which makes it possible to have sensations or conceive
Descartes however, used introspection to accomplish his goals set for himself and the sciences. Descartes wished to dispel all of his former false beliefs not only for himself, but also to create a firm foundation for the sciences. He accomplished his goal by creating a “method of systematic doubt,” as Gardner calls it. Any evidence that he was not absolutely certain of was doubted by Descartes, leaving behind his own states of consciousness and his own doubts. Through introspection and reasoning (as a rationalist), Descartes created a secure foundation for both philosophy and science. As an opposing empiricist, Locke believed the only reliable source of evidence could be found in sensory experience. “The knowledge of the existence of any other thing we can have only by sensation,” according to Locke. The rationalists believe that the mind is capable of reasoning, whereas the empiricists believe the mental processes either affect or are the basis of external …show more content…
Descartes’s famous formulation, “I think therefore I am” starkly contrasts with Locke. Locke declared, “For the having the idea of anything in our mind, no more proves the existence of that thing, than the picture of a man evidences his being in the world, or the visions of a dream make thereby a true history.” While Descartes believed that mere belief/thought was sufficient evidence, Locke blatantly opposes this idea. Locke insisted that experience was the only manner in which to acquire knowledge and reason. According to Locke, perception is the first step to experiencing the world. The concept of complex ideas growing from simple ideas is the brainchild of Locke, too. As an empiricist, Locke believed the only manner in which to culminate a rational, conscious self was through experience. Next, Locke’s successors Berkeley and Hume continued to refute Descartes’s rationalist beliefs. Berkeley denied the existence of the material world apart from ones perception of it. He also challenged the status of mathematics, a blatant blow to Descartes’s ideology as a mathematician. Berkeley saw mathematics as a barrier to communication which then causes imprecision and inconsistency. Instead, he placed his faith in experiencing the self and perceiving the mind, which makes it possible to have sensations or conceive