What do empiricists argue about the nature of knowledge?

Empiricists argue that knowledge is fundamentally derived from sensory experience and the process of learning through observation and interaction with the world. This perspective emphasizes that individuals gather information through their senses, and that understanding and knowledge are built up over time as experiences accumulate and are connected through associations.

The view that knowledge is an accumulation of ideas reflects the core tenet of empiricism, which posits that reliable knowledge arises from what can be observed and measured, rather than being something innate or purely rational. Empiricists like John Locke proposed that the mind begins as a "tabula rasa," or blank slate, and that experiences shape an individual’s knowledge base.

In contrast, the other options suggest views that do not align with empircism's foundational principles. The idea of inherited knowledge implies a genetic or innate transmission of information, while intuitive knowledge suggests an intrinsic understanding that doesn’t rely on experience. Lastly, claiming that knowledge is based solely on logical reasoning implies a rationalist approach, which prioritizes intellectual deduction over experiential learning. This distinction highlights why the correct interpretation of knowledge from an empiricist standpoint is linked to experiential accumulation and associative learning.