Problem: Philosophical empiricists hold no knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced unless it is derived from one's sense-based experience. This view is commonly contrasted with rationalism, which states that knowledge may be derived from reason independently of the senses. For example, John Locke held that some knowledge (e.g. knowledge of God's existence) could be arrived at through intuition and reasoning alone. Similarly Robert Boyle, a prominent advocate of the experimental method, held that we have innate ideas. The main continental rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz) were also advocates of the empirical "scientific method".

Aristotle's explanation of how this was possible was not strictly empiricist in a modern sense, but rather based on his theory of potentiality and actuality, and experience of sense perceptions still requires the help of the active nous. These notions contrasted with Platonic notions of the human mind as an entity that pre-existed somewhere in the heavens, before being sent down to join a body on Earth (see Plato's Phaedo and Apology, as well as others). Aristotle was considered to give a more important position to sense perception than Plato, and commentators in the Middle Ages summarized one of his positions as "nihil in intellectu nisi prius fuerit in sensu" (Latin for "nothing in the intellect without first being in the senses").
1. Where does their knowledge come from?
2. What is this generally contrasted with?
3. what is that?
4. what is Aristotle's explanation?
5. based on what?
6. was Plato's position more important?
7. how did commentators summarize this?
8. what is that in Latin?
9. what wasn't emipiricist?
10. who had knowledge of God's existence?
Answer: 1. one's sense-based experience
2. rationalism
3. knowledge may be derived from reason independent of senses
4. experience of sense perceptions still requires the help of the active nous
5. his theory of potentiality and actuality
6. no
7. nothing in the intellect without first being in the senses
8. nihil in intellectu nisi prius fuerit in sensu
9. Aristotle's explanation
10. unknown

Problem: CHAPTER VIII

It was a fine summer evening, and Richard and Carloman were playing at ball on the steps of the Castle-gate, when a voice was heard from beneath, begging for alms from the noble Princes in the name of the blessed Virgin, and the two boys saw a pilgrim standing at the gate, wrapt in a long robe of serge, with a staff in his hand, surmounted by a Cross, a scrip at his girdle, and a broad shady hat, which he had taken off, as he stood, making low obeisances, and asking charity.

"Come in, holy pilgrim," said Carloman. "It is late, and you shall sup and rest here to-night."

"Blessings from Heaven light on you, noble Prince," replied the pilgrim, and at that moment Richard shouted joyfully, "A Norman, a Norman! 'tis my own dear speech! Oh, are you not from Normandy? Osmond, Osmond! he comes from home!"

"My Lord! my own Lord!" exclaimed the pilgrim, and, kneeling on one knee at the foot of the steps, he kissed the hand which his young Duke held out to him--"This is joy unlooked for!"

"Walter!--Walter, the huntsman!" cried Richard. "Is it you? Oh, how is Fru Astrida, and all at home?"

"Well, my Lord, and wearying to know how it is with you--" began Walter--but a very different tone exclaimed from behind the pilgrim, "What is all this? Who is stopping my way? What! Richard would be King, and more, would he? More insolence!" It was Lothaire, returning with his attendants from the chase, in by no means an amiable mood, for he had been disappointed of his game.
1. What season was it?
2. Who was playing ball?
3. Where?
4. Steps of what?
5. Who was standing at the gate?
6. How was he dressed?
7. What did Carloman say to him?
8. Where did the pilgrim think Carloman was from?
9. Whose hand did the pilgrim kiss?
10. What is Walter?
11. Who came back with his attendants?
12. Was he happy?
13. Why?
Answer: 1. summer
2. Richard and Carloman
3. on the steps
4. Castle-gate
5. pilgrim
6. long robe of serge
7. To come in, sup and rest the night
8. Normandy
9. young Duke
10. huntsman
11. Lothaire
12. no
13. disappointed of his game

Problem: Today there are policemen everywhere, but in 1700, London had no policemen at all. A few old men used to protect the city streets at night and they were not paid. About 300 years ago, London was starting to get bigger and more and more people began to live there. The city was very dirty and many people were poor. There were so many thieves who stole money in the streets that people stayed in their homes as much as possible. In 1750,Henry Fielding started to pay a group of people to stop thieves. They were like policemen and were called "Bow Street Runners" because they worked near Bow Street. Fifty years later, there were 120 "Bow Street Runners", but London had become very big and needed more policemen. So in 1829 , the first Metropolitan(or London)Police Force was started with 3,000 officers. Most of the men worked on foot, but a few rode horses. Until 1920 all the police in London were men. Today, London police are quite well paid and for the few police officers who still ride horses, the pay is even better than for the others.
1. How many police were in london in 1700?
2. What group did Henry Fielding start to stop thieves?
3. Did any of the offices patrol on horseback during in 1829?
4. Were there any policewomen in 1920 or before?
5. 300 Years before, why did everyone stay indoors as much as possible?
6. Who protected the town before 1700?
7. When was the first official metro workforce created?
8. And how many?
9. Are today's workforce underpaid?
10. Are horseback riders used today?
Answer:
1. none
2. "Bow Street Runners"
3. yes
4. no
5. thieves stole money in the streets
6. A few old men
7. in 1829
8. 3,000 officers.
9. no
10. yes