Observations on Empiricism

It is interesting to reflect upon the quasi-empiricist mindset of the common times. Empiricists, for those of you just joining us, is the belief that all true knowledge about the world and reality can only be gained through observation and experience. This presents a very distinct contrast to rationalists, who hold that reasoning and logic tell us about reality and throw out (for the most part) the things we observe--mostly because the senses can be deceived. (This is not to say that empiricists are necessarily unthinking bundles of memory and senses--they simply only use reasoning and such that is grounded in observation, as any other thoughts and processes are simply the flutterings of an idle mind.)
Yet I digress overmuch on semantics. Empiricists supposedly got their start in Aristotle, who rejected the huffle-puffle put forward by Plato regarding the "Forms" and the way reality was supposedly put together with concepts that only provided images based on said concepts. Aristotle supposed, rather, that the very essence of any given object was not in its reflection of a Form or concept but was in the object itself. This was a crucial diversion from the thought-centered ways of the somewhat-rationalistic philosophers of old. Instead of saying that the objects weren't actually real and that we were just perceiving them to exist as a result of the Forms (from outside our senses) interacting with our mind and senses, the objects actually existed and were actually self-contained.
Fast-forward a ways to Locke and Berkeley. John Locke, a physician in Jolly Olde Britain, used the concept of Occam's Razor to help explain why it was likely that we learned everything through experience (rather than somehow simply knowing it already deep inside ourselves--the concept of innate ideas, which I have mentioned in previous posts). Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest explanation to any problem is most likely the correct one, and that making a long-winded explication of a concept is rarely the proper way to go--brevity is key. By Occam's Razor, it makes more sense that people have to actually learn things by experience, instead of simply knowing them somehow and just having to remember them--it's just simpler that way. Rationalism relies on innate ideas rather heavily, so this was practically tantamount to a declaration of war between the philosophical parties.

In the interest of brevity (thank you, Occam's Razor!), I won't bore you with the long and debate-filled history of empiricism. Suffice it to say that through the efforts of vociferous philosophers ancient and not-so-ancient, empiricism was established as the experience-, object-, and observation-based branch of epistemology. That brings me to the point I originally brought up--that we as a culture are largely empiricist. The average person is unlikely to trust any new concepts presented to him or her unless they concur with already-established experiences. Thoughts are of little relevance unless they also concur. We have become a culture defined by the things we've seen and done, and not the logic that we should probably apply more of to the craziness that is common to modern times. Agnosticism and atheism are on the rise, as people become less inclined to believe in a God they cannot experience with their senses--that they can only feel with their heart and think about with their mind.
Think before you do, peoples. We might just make philosophers out of you yet.