Where does knowledge come from?

Rationalists approaches to knowledge open the public up to the cult of common superstition

Question: Where does knowledge come from?
Position1 of 4›: Knowledge can only be gained through empirical data
Argument1 of 2›: Rationalists approaches to knowledge open the public up to the cult of common superstition

Reason and logic through rationalism are subject to change and many interpretations, more likely leading to superstition than empirical methods to knowledge

The argument

Reason cannot be a method of gaining true knowledge. Reason constructs knowledge or new information based on innate knowledge embedded in us that is subjective. For example, our knowledge of what is good or bad depends on the socially constructed principles of morality that can vary with time and location. Commonly held cultural beliefs and other opinions may impact reason which leads to inconsistent knowledge. Assuming we have innate knowledge that is beyond doubt is flawed. Building knowledge upon innate knowledge is subjective. Believing this assumption leads to superstition because innate knowledge is not evaluated or proved. Everything needs to be questioned and not be based on assumptions and interpretations. The only method that allows for accurate questioning and evaluation of answers is by collecting empirical data. Empirical methods are the most accurate ways of gaining knowledge.

Context

Rationalism is the belief that knowledge comes from pure reason. Humans are rational creatures; we have innate knowledge and reason that we can use to find the truth. Knowledge cannot come from subjective experiences or our senses because reason will eventually bring us to truth. Is rationalism a reliable way to find truth?

Premises

[P1]Reason builds new knowledge on top of innate assumptions that are subjective and shaped by socially constructed, time- and place-dependent beliefs, so reasoning yields inconsistent conclusions. [P2] Treating unproven innate knowledge as beyond doubt invites superstition, whereas collecting and evaluating empirical data is the only method that permits accurate questioning and verification of answers. [C] Because only empirical methods allow knowledge to be properly tested, knowledge can only be gained through empirical data.

Counter-arguments

Rationalism can tackle questions that science cannot address. There is knowledge beyond sense experiences that humans can only achieve through innate reason and common sense, like questions on morality and other philosophical questions that are still outside the realm of science. Reason is still necessary to gain knowledge. Reason can be backed by a warrant: a proper justification for a belief that prevents superstition. If people are able to come up with justifications for their beliefs, then their beliefs are reliable. Philosophers are still trying to map the nature of the warrant more specifically. Reason backed by proper justifications prevents superstition.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Variation in moral belief across time and place is not evidence that reasoning is unreliable; it is what disagreement about premises produces. The premise also equivocates on 'innate' — an assumption absorbed from a culture is not the innate knowledge rationalists claim — and mathematics and logic are the standing counterexample, since their conclusions are reached by reason and do not vary by locality. [Rejecting P2] The claim that empirical data is the only method permitting accurate questioning is self-undermining, since it is not itself an empirical result but a philosophical thesis reached by argument. Observation cannot proceed without reason either: the inference from data to conclusion, the reliability of induction and the standards for what counts as evidence are not read off the measurements. And superstition is a charge about believing without justification, which is met by requiring warrant for a belief rather than by discarding reason.