Seminar Paper - Epistemology

Epistemology can be defined as the theory of knowledge and truth. How do I know that what I am being told is true, and how certain am I that I know the truth? Epistemologists believe that experience has a place in knowledge. If you were there you know how it happened, you believe it. The knowledge has been learned and it is not a priori.

It can be split into two opposite metaphors. The first is that of a pyramid where the philosopher will build up a sturdy base of information and work it up until their point has been proven. The solid foundations and evidence of the claims are a sound defence if anyone tries to disprove them. The other metaphor is a boat where the ideas are much weaker but they have strong links that help convince people that they are portraying the truth. However, it is easier to pick holes in the boat and sink it, so to speak, as the evidence is weaker than the evidence that is used to build the pyramid. It is much more open to skepticism. In a court of law a good lawyer will build his case in the form of the pyramid, whereas a bad one will use the boat and hope for the best.

There is also an issue of Epistemic Relativism in Epistemology where in different cultures different truths are told that are contradictory of one another. An example of this is terrorism - one side believes that they are fighting for the freedom of their people, whereas the other sees themselves as being under attack.

Epistemology was adopted by two notable Empiricists: Mill and Newman.

In Mill's 'System of Knowledge' he states that all knowledge derives from experience, including mathematics. He says that the axioms of geometry and the first principles of mathematics are "not withstanding all appearances to the contrary, results of observations and experiences, founded, in short, on the evidence of the senses." This means that you can see numbers portrayed in different ways - you'll see one cow, a pair of cows, a trio of cows, and so on.

The definition of each number, according to Mill, always involves an assertion of fact - one will always be single, two will always be a pair. You can see physical differences between these groups of numbers, a pair of apples is clearly distinguishable from a single apple, but it's much harder to distinguish between 102 apples and 103 apples.

Mill also says that numbers are a generalisation of truth based on ideas, but maintains that they are not known a priori and instead continues to insist that they are inductive. To back this up he says that in another galaxy two plus two may equal five, all dependant on their definition of the numbers.

Newman says that our only direct acquaintance with things outside ourselves is through our senses - you can touch a dog, you can smell a dog, you can see it, you can hear it. You don't, however, have the same relation with immaterial things such as objects, events, beings and facts in the past and in the future as they are beyond the range of sense. To interact with these you must reason.

For Newman, reasoning takes two skills: inference and assent. To infer you must start with a premise. If my premise is 'there is a war in Iraq' I must then build to a conclusion to prove that my statement is true. That is the process of ascension and it is very similar to the boat and pyramid models I described earlier. Evidence in my pyramid would strongly support the point, whereas if I had a wealth of dodgy evidence it would build the boat. You can also assent to the wrong conclusion if your evidence is wrong. Again, using the court of law as an example, a defence may use bad evidence when there is better evidence available, which could lead to the jury convicting an innocent person.

There are two versions of assent - simple and complex. Simple assent is rash and unconscious, it's like a jury convicting someone because they "look guilty." Complex ascension follows on from proof and intellectual contentment, and must be irreversible. In the case of a jury, CCTV evidence would be proof of someone being at the crime scene and DNA evidence would provide the intellectual contentment. The two combined are irreversible and the suspect would clearly be guilty.

C.S. Pierce states that inquiry always originates in doubts and ends with belief: "The irritation of doubt is the only immediate motive for the struggle to obtain belief." This is different to Descartes' Cartesian doubt as it is a doubt that is based on a premise and an actual reason, rather one that has been plucked out of thin air. An example of genuine doubt, again, using the example of a court room, would be if I was to say "I'm not sure if that person is guilty." Eventually you'll build up evidence until you obtain belief that they are guilty or innocent.

Pierce suggests that there are four ways to obtain belief:

The first is through 'tenacity.' With this method you repeat the propositions and supporting evidence that you already have, but you ignore anything that suggests it isn't true. This is a one-sided approach as the person has a closed mind to any other ideas. One of the main issues with this, aside from any false information you have leading you to the wrong conclusion, is that it will cause a belief conflict with people who use the same method but to form the opposite opinion.

To escape this Pierce suggests the use of authority to back up opinions - if an institution says that we are the only planet with life on you could cite that to help argue your point. The problem with this is that it may cause a case of moral terrorism where they shove their opinion down your throat to try enforce a conformity of opinion. Another problem with this is that no institution can regulate opinion on every subject, causing free-thinkers to look at other institutions and cultures for different answers to the same question. This is an example of Epistemic Relativism - the answers given will only be in line with what the culture or institution wants you to think.

Following authority, the third step is using a priori knowledge - evidence that is based on existing universally valid metaphysics.

As metaphysical ideas draw up answers without proof, Pierce settles on the science method as the fourth and final step on the route to obtaining belief. Experiments leave us with answers that are true whether we believe them to be or not. We may not believe that nothing can travel faster than light, but until it is proven otherwise it is true. With this method each different experiment may bring up different results, but as each experiment is refined the results of all of them will get closer and closer together, drawing us in to a 'destined centre' where the truth can be found.

However, this is not to say that reality isn't independent of thought. There is always a possibility that the revolutions and results that we get hooked up on could be false and that we will never get to the truth as a result of it.

Frege agreed with Descartes in that epistemology was wrongly applied to Philosophy when it should have been assigned to Logic. He adapted Kant's approach of a priori and a posteriori knowledge so that it would not get confused between psychology and logic. It could get confused with psychology because it could help find the truth about someone's inner demons, but as everyone is different it would not be an absolute truth, as it would in Logic.

He says that it is possible to discover the content of a proposition before we hit on the truth of it. This makes sense as we need to know what the content of the proposition is and what it consists of before we can start to find ways of justifying it. If what we know is wrong then we won't come to the right conclusion. We need the knowledge a priori. To prevent this Frege says that there is no such thing as an a priori mistake as we can only know what is already true, otherwise we don't know anything at all. Frege's definition of a posteriori knowledge is that it's a judgement based on the fundamental ground of proposition that we believe to be true, in other words, the evidence.

On the subject of maths, Frege says that mathematical propositions can only have mathematical justifications. If psychology can answer why ten squared is 100 it would be different to a mathematical justification as psychology is interested in the way we think and maths is interested in the proof of the thoughts. They are two different entities.

In his Epistemology, Frege says that for someone to understand what someone means when they say "I am injured" they first have to understand the concept of 'I.' By knowing that 'I' means themselves, or in this context, the person talking, they can understand who the subject of the conversation is. This contradicts his idea that thoughts are private but to cover himself he says that there are two worlds: an inner world and an external, physical world world. The external world is physical and is accessible to everyone, whereas the inner world consists of feelings, images, desires, wishes, and other such things. Because everyone experiences both of these worlds it is easy to convey an idea from the inner world, in this case 'pain', in the physical world.

In answer to Descartes' idea that nobody exists aside from you and there is no external world, Frege says "Either the thesis that only what is my idea can be the object of my awareness is false, or all my knowledge and perception is restricted to the range of my ideas, to the stage of my self-consciousness. In this I should have only an inner world and I should know nothing of other people." This raises the point that we could be an idea ourselves as we would only the know the inner world, which only consists of ideas. If this is the case, how can we own ideas?

Husserl's Epoche is the suspension of judgement on the existence of extra-mental activity, such as the 'outside world', and is an extension on Descartes' methodological doubt. He denies that Descartes' cogito 'I think therefore I am' is proof of our existence and instead argues that it is just proof of our feelings and state at that moment of time. It does not prove that we are always existing. He believed, along with Descartes, in his own feelings and states, as well as the words he uses to describe them, as they can both exist without the external world because they are internal.

This way of thinking does bring up the issue of solipsism - the idea that you are the only person who exists, but, like any philosopher who does not want to be tarred with this brush, Husserl has an answer: he says that when you have thoughts your mind is active and exists, but when you don't it is not active and doesn't exist. This is called transcendental consciousness.

Wittgenstein argues against Descartes' doubt using two arguments: the first is that doubt needs grounds, which Descartes would counter with his evil genius, and the second is that doubt must affect someone's behaviour - someone using their hands on a daily basis clearly doesn't doubt the existence of them, but Descartes would say that the doubt is theoretical, not practical.

Doubt, according to Wittgenstein, pre-supposes a language game. To doubt 'p' one must know what 'p' means. If you were to say that a demon is "deceiving me totally" the statement would take an entirely different meaning through the use of the word 'totally' as it is all encompassing. Wittgenstein says that this would mean that the demon is also deceiving you on the definition of 'deceiving.'

Wittgenstein distinguishes between a mistake and other forms of misbelief. If you simply miscount the number of cows in a field it would go down as a mistake, however if you think you've been living somewhere you have never been all your life you probably have mental issues that should be addressed. The difference between this madness and a mistake is that with a mistake a false judgement has been made, whereas with madness no judgement has been made at all.

On certainty, Wittgenstein is equally clear. He says that empirical propositions such as 'I can't flap my wings and fly to the moon' have not been proving through experiments, but instead through research. In this case we know that we can't fly by flapping our arms so we definitely know that we can't get to the moon using that method. These propositions form a world picture that isn't learned through experience but can be used as background information for different experiments.

HCJ Seminar Paper Plan - Notes - PMW Chapter 6

Epistemology

Theory of knowledge, relationship between certainty and knowledge. I may know something to be true but how certain am I of it? The place of experience in generating knowledge - learned knowledge.

Dominated by two metaphors of constructing the truth:

1) The pyramid - the philosopher must develop strong foundations to his claims for them to be correct, can be easily defended as the evidence is strong /\

2) The boat - A strong structure of weaker ideas that link together well (coherence) but as the ideas are weaker it leaves it more open to criticism

Similar to a court of law - the jury hear the evidence and make a decision based on it

Epistemic relativism: The idea that something claimed to be true by one culture is not necessarily true in another. War - Islamic extremists claim it is true that the Western World is evil, whereas in the Western World they see things the other way round.

Two Eloquent Empiricists

Mill

System of Logic - All knowledge derives from experience. All science and mathematics derived from experience. The axioms of geometry and the first principles of mathematics are "not withstanding all appearances to the contrary, results of observations and experiences, founded, in short, on the evidence of the senses."

The definition of each number involves the assertion of a physical fact: Two is always a pair, 12 is always a dozen. These are clearly physical as there is a difference between a trio of apples (three) and a pair of apples (two). Senses do find it difficult to see the difference between large numbers such as 102 and 103.

Very clear that numbers were inductive, a generalisation of truth based on experiences (a kilometre is 1000 metres) rather than a form of a priori knowledge that is just known.

Mill maintained that in a different Galaxy 2 + 2 might equal 5, to prove that it is based on experience rather than prior knowledge.

Newman

Only direct acquaintance with things outside ourselves is through our senses - you can smell, see, touch, etc. We don't have direct knowledge of immaterial things. Got to be close to things to touch them, can't see or hear the past or future so our senses can let us down.

For these times there's reason: Knowledge of things beyond our senses (beings, facts, events) is attained beyond range of sense.

Two different operations of intellect are used when we reason: inference (from premisses) and assent (to a conclusion). This supports the pyramid and boat metaphors of epistemology, but you can also assent to a bad conclusion if your pyramid/boat is made out of incorrect arguments. Assent can be given without adequate arguments or evidence. Again, court example, could lead to miscarriage of justice...

Two versions of assent:

Simple assent may be unconscious and rash - [court] "He looks guilty so he is guilty"

Complex assent must follow on proof, be accompanied by a specific sense of intellectual contentment and must be irreversible - [court] "We've looked at the evidence - CCTV footage shows he was there, we have DNA evidence, this puts you at the scene and NOWHERE else."

Pierce on the Methods of Science

Inquiry always originates in doubt and ends in belief - "The irritation of doubt is the only immediate motive for the struggle to obtain belief." Different to Descarte's cartesian doubt - genuine doubt is doubt of a proposition for an actual reason.

In order to settle beliefs four different methods are used: Tenacity, Authority, A Priori and Scientific Method

Tenacity: We repeat propositions to ourselves and supporting evidence, but turn away from stuff that may change our minds. Provides comfort and peace of mind. Could cause belief conflicts with equally tenacious people with other opinions.

Authority: Remedies the above. By citing an institution who has the correct info you'll know you're right. Two disadvantages: accompanied by cruelty - moral terrorism enforces uniformity of opinion. No institution can regulate opinion on every subject and independent thinkers will compare between cultures and see differences (link to Epistemic Relativism).

A Priori: Produce universally valid metaphysics.

Scientific Method: Existence of a reality independent of our minds - things that are true whether we think they are or not. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light. "...by taking advantage of the laws of perception, we can ascertain by reasoning how things really are, and any man, if he has sufficient experience and reason enough about it, will be led to the one true conclusion." Task of logic is to give us guidance to find out what we don't know by using what we do, so our approximations get better.

Experiments trying to find out the same thing may use different methods and get different results, but with every method getting perfected it will push the results towards a 'destined centre' where the truth can be found.

Still possible that reality can be independent of thought - if what we discover is wrong and no one tries to correct it, what we think is true could always be wrong. "Our perversity and that of others may indefinitely postpone the settlement of opinion."

Frege on Logic, Psychology and Epistemology

Agreed with Descarte that Epistemology had been assigned to philosophy when it should be assigned to logic.

Adapted Kant's a posteriori and a priori knowledge. To make sure there was no confusion between psychology and logic he says that it is possible to discover the content of a proposition before we hit on truth of it. Must distinguish how we believe in a proposition, and how we justify it. Knowledge needs justification. No such thing as an a priori mistake as one can only know what is true

A posteriori knowledge is a judgement on the fundamental ground of a proposition with believe to be true, in other words, the evidence.

Mathematical propositions can only have mathematical justifications. Even if psychology can give an explanation to why ten squared is one hundred it would be different to a mathematical justification. Psychology is interested in the cause of our thinking, mathematics in the proof of our thoughts. Two different things.

In his epistemology he says that to say 'I am wounded' you need the other person to grasp what 'I' means - in this case it would be the person talking. Contradicts his idea that thoughts are private, but he says this works because perceptible things in the physical world are accessible to everyone, so someone can relate to the pain and apply it to someone else. Inner world is made up of 'ideas' (images, feelings, desires, wishes) so pain is an idea that is applicable to others as well.

In answer to Descartes' idea that nobody exists aside from you and there is no external world, Frege says "Either the thesis that only what is my idea can be the object of my awareness is false, or all my knowledge and perception is restricted to the range of my ideas, to the stage of my self-consciousness. In this I should have only an inner world and I should know nothing of other people." Raises question that we could be an idea, so if we own our ideas, what is the point of us owning them?

Husserl's Epoche

Suspension of judgement on existence of extra-mental reality, refinement of Descartes' methodological doubt.

Denied that "I think therefore I am" (the cogito) to affirm our existence, instead says that it's just describing the subject of your current feelings and sensations. Like Descartes, believed in the certainty of his mental states and processes, as well as the language he used to express them - both can survive without doubt in external world.

Solipsism - The epoche causes this as by doubting the existence of the world outside your own consciousness you're alluding to the idea that the world is created by you. Counters this with transcendental consciousness - when you have thoughts your mind is active, when you don't have thoughts your mind is not active.

Wittgenstein on Certainty

Counters Descartes' First Meditations: 1) Doubt needs grounds (countered by evil genius) 2) Genuine doubt must make a difference to someone's behaviour - hands - someone isn't doubting their existence if he uses them like we all do. (countered by saying the doubt it theoretical, not practical)

Doubt pre-supposes the outcome of a language game - In order to express doubt of 'p' one must know what 'p' is. If evil genius is deceiving me totally, then he is deceiving me about the meaning of the word deceive. The word totally suggests that because it is all encompassing.

Distinguishes between mistakes and other forms of misbelief - if someone thought they saw seven cows instead of six it's a mistake, but if someone believed they were living somewhere they weren't that is a form of a mental disturbance. Difference between madness and mistake is that a mistake involves a false judgement, but with madness no judgement has been made at all.

Certainty - empirical propositions like "one can not fly to the moon by flapping arms" is a different kind of one as it is not a result of an experiment, but research. They form channels for ordinary, fluid propositions - form world picture that isn't learnt through experience - background which you use to distinguish between true and false.