Empiricism(Pro) vs rationalism(Con)

f I were to throw a rock in the air, no matter who was watching it would always fall down because of the law of gravity.

Man did not create the laws of the natural world but with clear logic one can understand it.

Rationalists decree that from independent observation of simple principles one can then find complex dogmas within it through logic.

Logic is not blinded by emotional impulses unlike empiricists whose very base of knowledge is based upon biased conclusions from observations.

Who is to say that the same thing that is shown to multiple people will result in the same conclusion.

People are different and people will see certain patterns much more easier then others resulting in inconsistencies of conclusions.

For example the geocentric model of the world was based upon the observations of early scientists which were wrong. The later model, heliocentrism was true because not only did it gain empirical evidence but laws of other stature was used to get to that conclusion.

All modern innovations came from logic as their is a limit to how much man can observe but logic does not have a limit

This is correct, but "clear logic" is only gained from observation and experiments. So is knowledge of the laws of the natural world.

There are some cases where direct observation is impossible, hence we must use the indirect observation to gain knowledge.

Is something that applies to rationalism as well. In fact, in rationalism, the people only agree that we should "use logic". They dont tell us what is a correct logic to use. They dont even tell us how logic works. They disagree all the time, which indicates that "everyone has different logic" and "everyone will think differently", creating conclusion that "there is no way to know which logic is true if we dont do observation and experiments to observe if logic is correct".

Is false. The early observations were not wrong. They were incomplete, making it impossible to know what is right.

Further, just because "observation is done" does not mean "observation was complete". Sometimes people get wrong conclusions due to lack of complete observation.

We only know that later model was true due to observation. The knowledge of natural laws is not gained from "some logic". It is gained from observation of things.

We would never know that gravity exists without observation

logic cannot prove itself right. It can only be proven through observation.

The philosophy of nature was the early primitive sciences of physics, biology, and chemistry. This primitive science was based upon observation and empirical studies. But this branch of philosophy is now invalid and separated into distinct fields because of its growing complexity.

Rationalists still do believe that observation plays a role, reasoning is what propels it.

Physicists, biologists and chemists in modern day do not use so much so using observations but mostly mathematical formulas or unconscious patterns. These mathematical formulas that modern day scientists use to create our advanced technology is no longer soley based on observation but from complex reasoning. This is the reason why many educational institutions put critical thinking skills as one of the highest rated skills any student can have.

Define "Indirect observation."

This is a fallacy as you are assuming that hard science can be easily manipulated by emotions.

Statistics can not change if I view the world differently or I am in a different mood. No matter if I am disheartened, impulsive, and generally have a clouded mind, two plus two will always equal to four.

Logic: A logic is just a set of rules and techniques for distinguishing good reasoning from bad. A logic must formulate precise standards for evaluating reasoning and develop methods for applying those standards to particular instances.

The incompleteness of observation is an example of the primitiveness of empiricism.

The laws of gravity was founded by observation as you mentioned but this observation was then made into a mathematical law which only logic can make.

This mathematical law founded heliocentrism, not the other way around.

Logic can prove itself true and logic is the definition of truth if based upon stable premises.

If unstable premises are built then logic, however flawless will end with a bad conclusion.

Although the premise that logic is built upon is mainly from empirical observation.

Observation does not explain all events and much of the deficiency of empiricism is made up fore through rationalism.

Observation can not prove that if X=Y and Y=Z, then X=Z but logic can.

Indirect observation is based on observation of similarities of "one completely observed thing" with "one partially observed thing" to reach a conclusion about partially observed thing.

It is usually done with statistics.

Indirect observation is not complete observation, it does not provide us with correct knowledge. It provides us with knowledge that "seems likely to be true" based on things we observed so far.

direct observation is impossible, hence we must use the indirect observation to gain knowledge.

  My argument was not about "hard science". Hard science is by definition easily proved correct through observation and experiments.

So logic can create a bad conclusion despite being flawless.

Very well said but you just gave me the definition of deductive logic, which is a tool used by rationalists to analyze data logically.

Deductive reasoning is less based on observation then reasoning as clearly it has "reasoning" in its name. When one uses statistics you are using logic to analyze patterns.

You even mentioned in your first argument that people must use indirect observation to gain knowledge since direct observation is "impossible."

One cannot indirectly look at something or do indirect experimentation.

Because as you have noted, indirect observation "seems likely to be true." This shows that if you do claim that indirect observation is considered a empiricist's claim then you are claiming that observation in some cases are imperfect.

This is opposite of your statement that states, "We can only gain knowledge through observations and experiments."

Therefore you have proved yourself wrong.

You are overestimating the power of just mere observation. If it only took mere observation to figure out the world then humans would not be as intelligent.

Animals see the world around them every day and observe the laws of gravity and understands somewhat that if they jump they will fall. But they lack reason which man has.

Reason is what gave man the ability to not just understand what is gravity but the theory of how gravity came to be and the mathematical patterns of gravity. This is something mere observation cannot justify.

Logic can only create a bad conclusion on a bad premise, the premise is the basic principles that one takes note in observation.

Biased and false conclusions that experimentation may make will inevitable result in bad logic.

Data from experiments are not always perfect as many experiments are needed to be completed in order to even create a scientific theory.

A scientific theory isn't even fact, it is just a theory that has a good amount of data supporting it.

But scientific laws on the other hand are always true since it is proved with a mathematical equation. Math is in essence logic at its purest form.

One can never trust statistics at the fullest and every time one analyzes statistics they should take it in with a little salt.

For example, if I were to ask one million people in the whole world if they like vanilla or chocolate ice cream better and in the end I got 40% of people liked vanilla and 60% of people liked chocolate. It wouldn't mean anything as their is 8 billion people and one million is just 1/1000 of the world's population. This proves that statistics has many fallacies.