Empiricist contend that the mind is a Tabula Rosa, or blank slate when a person is born. They believe that all knowledge of the world comes through experience and observation, and that is what shapes our being. Rationalism is the concept that some of our thoughts and mental abilities are innate within our brain and not dependent on experience.("Rationalism")

Rationalist using the observational method would look for patterns of innate behaviors when observing a subject encountering an event. Empiricist would look for learning or changed behavior when observing subjects encountering new events. In case studies, Empiricist would look at early childhood experiences and the sum of the experiences of a persons life to explain novel or abnormal behaviors. Whereas, rationalists would look for structural changes in the brain to explain the novel behaviors of the subjects. With controlled experiments the rationalist would look for patterns of behavior without prior experience and empiricist would look to show how stimuli effects Learning and future choices.

The five methods in psychology research are: observational methods, case studies, surveys, correlation studies, and controlled experiments. The observational method the researcher observes behavior in its natural environment, unencumbered and unobstructed by researcher interference. The advantage is that the behavior is what actually occurs in the environment. The disadvantages are that observations are a slow process and desired new variables are hard to introduce. Observer bias can be problematic. Case studies are examination of behaviors associated with specific people and often involve novel or abnormalities of those people. The advantage is that it can provide detailed analysis of the abnormality which can shed light on to normal processes. The disadvantage are that the abnormal phenomenon might not necessarily shed light accurately on the normal situations, and medical, legal, and ethical concerns may arise. Correlation studies can show the positive or negative relationship between variables which can be used to validate predictions. However correlation studies cannot say with certainty that a causal relationship of the correlation exists. Controlled experiments can determine the cause-and-effect relationships between variables. It gives the greatest insight into the true relationship of the variables. The disadvantage is that often experimental errors are introduced which can lead to false conclusions.

Experiment start with observation of phenomenon and then questions emerge about the phenomenon. One question is in selected to be studied. A possible solution to the question is suggested, a hypothesis. Experiment is designed to test one aspect of the phenomenon. And independent variable which is a variable that the experimenter can change is selected. The experimenter changes the independent variable to gain knowledge through the outcome of the response to the independent variable. The dependent variable is what is measured by the experiment. Dependent variable is not changed by the experimenter, but it is the result from presenting the independent variable to the subject. In order to have validity, there has to be a control group which has the experiment presented in the exact same way to the except the independent variable is substituted by the control. In the control group the independent variable is replaced by a placebo or something else other than the independent variable. Results should be collected in an unbiased manner and conclusion made. Examples of independent and dependent variables are: if we wanted to see if adrenaline has an effect on the heart rate we could design an experiment. We could take 100 people randomly selected from the phonebook and divide them into two groups of 50. Place a heart monitor each person. in the test group that has the independent variable, a shot of adrenaline is administered and then the dependent variable, which is heart rate is analyzed by the heart monitor. In the control group the independent variable is a placebo, a shot of saline is given and then the dependant variable , heart rate is monitored.

Or text presents antidotal evidence for a determinism with the story of the two twins that were separated at birth. The twins lived in greatly different environments,but had the same preferences including smoking same cigarettes, sports teams, and they joined the army at the same time. They also had the same IQ. Determinists would also cite the fact that crime tends to run in families. If the determinists are correct,@ then peoples' brains are hardwired to be moral or amoral without or limited free will. Although I cannot cite any Scientific studies, I have heard that other sets of twins separated at birth vary greatly. If twins separated at birth do vary greatly in behavior that would tend to support the Empiricist's Tabula Rosa. If the empiricist are correct and the brain is this sum of your experiences, then your experiences are the cause of your morality, which again negates free will. I think that there are very few people that are truly evil and amoral to the core. Most people are moral sometimes and amoral other times. What turns that moral/amoral switch on and off? The chapter discussed the existence of glial cells and their effect on changing synapses, regulating neuron growth, and changing blood flow and the chemical environment in the brain. The chapter also presented epi-genetics which states that he events within the cell can alter the function of genes and change the expression of the genes and potentially alter the structure of genes in response to environmental influences, such as stress. The book also talked about the cerebral cortex and higher areas of thought in the brain. Who or what determines the ability of glial cells and epi-genetics to alter the environment and function of the brain? I think there is free will because if not, people would not have moral conflicts and decisions to make. My guess - my belief- is that the higher centers of thought in the brain make decisions that changes the chemistry in the brain through their interaction with the glial cells and epi-genetics. I think it is possible that some people have different abilities that are genetically determined that help them make free will moral decisions. I partially agree with the Empiricists that the environment and experiences can I have affect on brain synapse which would affect behavior and strength of your free will. However, I think people themselves can change the chemical and physical environment of their brain through their own thoughts, if they can then that is free will.

"Rationalism vs. Empiricism." Quart Hill School of Theology

Reply to Thread

What do you think abou this? I need to a comment about this and can someone help me?