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.
No comments:
Post a Comment