Date post: | 03-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | vladimir-carter |
View: | 37 times |
Download: | 0 times |
An Epistemology Update
John Rafferty MA MSc PGCE
Senior Lecturer Social Sciences
Langside College [email protected]: 0141 272 3875
Section 1
Philosophical Issues in Epistemology
Outcome 1 Demonstrate an understanding of
the philosophical issues in the area of epistemology: The Tripartite Theory of Knowledge Philosophical Problems with the
Tripartite theory Scepticism, Rationalism and Empiricism
Question 1
Why are knowledge claims a problem in
philosophy?
Appearance and Reality Perceptual problems
• Colour blindness; hallucinations
Optical illusions• The stick in water isn’t bent
Atmospheric effects • Mirages as they appear; Stars don’t twinkle
Time lapse illusions• Some stars no longer exist
Radical philosophical doubt• Descartes’ Demon; Plato’s Cave; The Matrix; Brain in
a Jar
Illusions of perspective
Light refraction
Objects on the horizon
Railway tracks
Very small objects Can you guess what this is?
Belief, Knowledge & Certainty
Belief• A proposition that is held to be true but
without evidence
Knowledge• A proposition that is believed, is true and
can be supported by evidence
Certainty • A proposition where there is no doubt about
its truth
Question 2
What is knowledge?
‘Knowing how’ v ‘knowing that’ A distinction associated with Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976)
Knowing that• Facts and information; propositional knowledge; “I know that
Berlin is in Germany” Knowing how
• An ability or skill; a dispositional or operational knowledge; “I know how to bake bread”
Most of epistemology has been concerned with knowing that, especially classical debates
Can all cases of ‘knowing how’ be reduced to collections of ‘knowing that’?
• E.g. Knowing how to drive a car Is knowing that useless without knowing how? Is innatism only tenable as applied to knowing how?
The Tripartite Theory of knowledge A classical definition of knowledge An agent (A) can be said to know a
proposition (P) if: P is true (the truth condition) A believes P (the belief condition) A has sufficient evidence for P (the evidence
condition This definition of knowledge is called
“Justified true belief” Having two of these conditions is not enough
to count as knowledge.
The Hesitant Student
Teacher: Billy, what is 3x7?
Billy: Er…(guesses) is it 21? In this case p is true (3x7
is 21) and Billy has evidence for p (he has been to the classes) but he doesn’t believe P.
Is this a case of knowledge?
The Lucky Punter A gambler finds a four leaf
clover so bets on a horse that day believing that his horse will win now that he has this lucky charm. The horse does win. In this case p is true (the horse
did win) and the punter believed p (he sincerely thought the horse would win) but his evidence for this belief seems inadequate.
Is this a case of knowledge?
Santa’s Visit Many children believe in Santa Claus.
They leave cookies out for him that are eaten the next morning and as promised the presents arrive every Christmas day. Parents, shopkeepers and teachers all reinforce this belief. In this case the children believe P (they
think Santa is real) and have evidence for believing P (teachers and parents confirm it) but P isn’t true
Is this knowledge?
Problems with the tripartite theory The Gettier Problem
Smith has applied for a job, but has a justified belief that "Jones will get the job". He also knows that "Jones has 10 coins in his pocket". Smith therefore concludes that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket".
In fact, Smith gets the job but, as it happens, also has 10 coins in his pocket. So his belief that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket" was justified and true but isn’t knowledge.
Infinite regress argument Every justification in turn requires justification and arguably this
demand for justification is never stated. Some justifications are unreliable
Sense experience is prone to deception Innate ideas are controversial Analytic truths are trivially true
Question 3
Can knowledge claims be justified?
Rationalism and Empiricism Rationalism
Reason is the source of all knowledge
Mind contains innate ideas
Maths is a model for knowledge
Knowledge can be gained a priori
Knowledge can be certain The senses are easily
fooled Examples: Plato,
Augustine; Descartes; Leibniz
Empiricism The senses are the source
of all knowledge Mind is a ‘tabula rasa’ Biology is a model for
knowledge Knowledge is only gained
a posteriori Knowledge can only ever
be probable Reason only gives us
access to uninformative tautologies
Examples: Aristotle (?) Locke; Berkeley; Hume
Section 2
Classic Texts in Epistemology
Outcomes 2 & 3 Critically analyse a standard philosophical position in the
area of epistemology: Describe the epistemology of Descartes or Hume Explain the reasoning and assumptions on which this account
is based Cite specific extracts
Critically evaluate a standard philosophical position in the area of epistemology: Explain the strengths and weaknesses of Descartes or Hume Present a conclusion on the persuasiveness of this account Give reasons in support of this conclusion
Section 2: Option 1
René Descartes
René Descartes
Meditations on First Philosophy
Historical Context The Renaissance The end of
Scholasticism Rebirth in knowledge Flourishing in the arts Architecture Painting Science
Historical Context
The Reformation Split in the church Birth of Protestantism Catholic dominance ends Europe divided Martin Luther
Historical Context Discovery of the New World
New cultures and peoples New world view
René Descartes
Meditation 1The Sceptical
Method
Method Assume nothing Start afresh Re-examine his beliefs Focus on foundational beliefs Reject obvious falsehoods But also reject even slightly doubtful beliefs Looking for 1 certainty to base his knowledge on Architectural metaphor Barrel of apples analogy
Attacking Sense Experience Objects in the distance Small objects Other arguments from illusion are
possible But surely apart from these the senses
are reliable?
Dreaming Argument A stronger argument
against sense experience
Any given sense experience can be replicated in dreams
Hence sense experience is unreliable
In fact, there is never any sure way of distinguishing dreams from reality
A Priori truths Dreams are like paintings They must be based on
reality Or at least the colours
and shapes must be real Whether awake or asleep
a square still has 4 sides Hence maths and
geometry escape the dream argument and may be reliable
Do all dreams contain some knowledge?
The Demon Hypothesis An argument against a priori
knowledge The ultimate in scepticism A test which any candidate for
certainty must pass Imagine a demon were fooling
us in everything we see and think
If this scenario were true, could anything still be certain?
This idea has reappeared in different forms
René Descartes
Meditation 2Finding Certainty
The Search for Certainty Restates his sceptical
approach Like Archimedes he is
looking for 1 fixed point Assumes he has no body Assumes everything
revealed by the senses is a lie
Assumes the Demon fools him at every turn
Can anything be known if we assume all this?
The Cogito Cogito ergo sum
I am, I exist (Meditations) I think therefore I am (Discourse)
Defeats the Dreaming Argument you must exist to dream
Defeats the Demon Hypothesis You must exist to be fooled
A self-authenticating statement You affirm its truth each time you think
it But surely we know external objects
better than we know the mind?
The Wax Example Wax has one set of properties when
cold But all its properties change when
heated Yet we still think it’s the same wax.
Why? It can’t be the senses that tells us
this - they give conflicting reports Can’t be imagination either - wax
can change more ways than we can imagine
So it must be pure mental scrutiny that reveals the true nature of the wax
Hence Rationalism should be adopted over Empiricism
Perception In fact all perception is
really a case of mental judgement
We say we see a man crossing the square
Yet all we see are a hat and cloak which could conceal an automaton
Our judgements go beyond what we strictly have sense experience for
René Descartes
Meditation 3 Rebuilding knowledge
Rebuilding Knowledge Descartes’
strategy in rebuilding knowledge rests on 2 central claims:
1. The clear and distinct rule
2. The existence of a benevolent God
The Clear and Distinct Rule What is it that convinces us of the
truth of the Cogito? It is a “clear and distinct” perception A psychological state which gives rise to
irresistible certainty Hence anything else which is clear
and distinct must also be certain This rule can now be used to rebuild
knowledge by identifying other truths God’s existence, for example, can be
known clearly and distinctly
The Trademark Argument This argument in Meditation 3 helps
support the clear and distinct rule We have an idea of God in our mind This idea must have a cause There must be as much reality in an effect
as in its cause The cause of the idea is God The idea is like a trademark left in our
minds by God The idea of God includes the notion that he
is benevolent Hence God is no deceiver Hence whatever we perceive distinctly
must be true since a benevolent God wouldn’t allow this level of deception
René Descartes
Meditation 6Resolution of Earlier
Doubts
Naïve Realism The simplistic view that unreflective
people have External objects present themselves to
the senses unbidden They are more distinct than those
presented by memory or imagination They can’t come from within so must
come from without It seems that the sense come first and
the intellect later So nothing is present to the mind that
was not first present to the senses
Rejection of Naïve Realism Descartes refers to arguments from
Meditation 1 Objects at a distance Phantom limbs
Demonstrate the fact that senses don’t always report the truth
Dreaming argument I don’t believe the objects in
dreams are located outside of me so why make this assumption when awake?
But must we resort to scepticism?
Rejection of Scepticism Although we shouldn’t heedlessly accept
sense reports, neither should we heedlessly reject them
We have a passive faculty for receiving ideas of objects but there must be an external cause to the ideas we receive
These causes can only be: External objects God The demon
God is not a deceiver so wouldn’t allow us to think that these ideas were caused by external objects when they weren’t
Sense Experience There is an outside world However it may not exist in the way it is
presented by my senses Everything I am taught by nature contains
some truth God equips us with a number of faculties:
Reason The Senses Memory
It is impossible that there could be any falsity in my opinions which couldn’t be corrected by some faculty supplied by God
How is Error Possible? Some things which my senses appear to be telling
me are in fact a misjudgement of reason “Grass is green”
• Grass stimulates sensations of green in us “The tower is small”
• The tower simply appears small and my memory and other senses can confirm its true size
“My amputated foot causes pain”• Feelings of pain from a distant body part could equally be
caused by stimulating parts in between With the judicial use of clear reasoning we can
correct the errors of the senses
The Dream Argument Dreams have no consistency
between one dream and the next. Life picks up from where it
left off but dreams do not The laws of nature are broken
in dreams People can fly or talk to
dead people By the application of reason
we can distinguish the two states when we are awake
The Demon Hypothesis If there were a
demon, a benevolent God would not allow him to interfere with our perceptions
The hypothetical possibility of the demon is therefore no longer a threat
Section 2 Option 2
David Hume
David HumeEnquiry Concerning
Human Understanding
Background Empiricist Philosopher and Historian A pivotal figure of the Scottish Enlightenment
along with Adam Smith (1723-1790) and Thomas Reid (1710-1796)
Key Works: A Treatise of Human Nature (1740) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779)
Influences Heavily influenced by John Locke (1632-1704), Sir Isaac
Newton (1642 – 1727) and Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753).
Hume gets his notions of Empiricism, Representative
Realism, and Scientific Method from them.
Hume’s Enquiry Inspired by the empirical successes
of Isaac Newton wants to do the same for the human mind.
He is undertaking a psychological study of man.
Trying to uncover the fundamental principles of human reasoning.
His method is one of empirical observation.
Usually this involves introspection on his own thoughts and feelings.
Impressions and Ideas
T h o ug h ts a n d M e m o ries
Im ag in a tion
IdeasF a in t C o p ies
E m otio nsL o ve ; H a te ; A ng er
S e n se E xp e rien ces
Im pressionsL ive ly o rig in a ls
Perceptions of the M ind
Idea of apple
Impression of apple
The Outside World?
Supporting Arguments It is impossible to have an idea without first
having had a prior impression Hume challenges us to find counter examples Even God is just a complex idea Blind men can’t imagine colours Laplanders can’t imagine the taste of wine Selfish people can’t imagine generosity Some animals have additional senses hence can
access additional ideas
Simple and Complex Ideas
Our imagination seems unlimited in its powers
However all complex ideas must be based on on simple ideas we have previously copied from an impression
Golden Mountain Virtuous Horse God
We do this by taking simple ideas and: Augmenting Diminishing Transposing Compounding
This supports the empiricist doctrine that “all ideas are ultimately based on sense experience”.
Complex Ideas
Simple Ideas
Simple
Impressions
Critical Comment
Are all impressions more vivid than their ideas? Faint impressions when drunk; morning after
embarrassment Are all ideas more faint than their impressions?
Nightmares or traumatic memories Is Hume’s account of perception too simplistic?
Cocktail conversations Do all ideas have a prior impression?
Ultraviolet; Infrared; gravity Can you ever conceive of simple ideas on their own
without thinking of other ideas? E.g. Stripes
Hume provides no ‘grammar’ to tell us how to link these ideas up.
watch + pocket; zebra + crossing. Can we ever compare an impression with an idea in
practice? (Barrier of Ideas) Can we ever compare impressions with the outside
world? (Barrier of Impressions)
The Missing Shade of Blue Hume’s own counter example! Imagine You had seen every shade
of blue but one Then all shades of blue were
arranged on a scale from darkest to lightest
Hume asks if we could imagine the missing shade without a prior impression
Hume surprisingly says yes but “…it’s so singular and obscure an example it should not alter our general maxim…”
Comments on the Missing Shade of Blue The example is not
“singular and obscure”. Missing shade of red;
missing note on a scale; missing type of architecture.
If not based on impressions the idea must be innate!
Threatens to undermine the whole of Empiricism!
The example is not insuperable. Hume could say that the
missing shade is a complex idea based on simpler ideas.
But doesn’t see the solution because he thinks colours must be simple ideas.
Demonstrates Hume’s rather cavalier attitude.
The Association of Ideas
Why does the thought of one idea lead on to the thought of another?
Ideas don’t come randomly they follow an order or pattern and are always related
There are 3 principles of the association of ideas: Resemblance Contiguity (In time or space) Cause and Effect
So every idea is always related to the next for one of these three reasons
Comments and Criticisms
What is the difference between contiguity and cause and effect in Hume’s analysis?
Is there really no such thing as a truly random chain of thought? What about people with “Butterfly Brains”? What about people with dementia or Tourettes’?
Is the subconscious mind available to us? (Freud)
Seems incapable of proof or disproof. Hume says that even if we can’t see the
connection in people’s thought it will be apparent to them.
What if we ourselves are not even aware of the connection?
Hume’s Fork
All Objects of Human Enquiry
Relations of Ideas“3 x 5 = 1/2 x 30”
Necessary; Analytic; A Priori Propositions
Matters of Fact“My cat has three legs”
Contingent; Synthetic; A PosterioriPropositions
Comments on Hume’s Fork Hume confuses An
epistemological distinction with a semantic distinction A Priori Analytic A Posteriori Synthetic
Kant claimed that there were synthetic a priori beliefs which tell us about the world but aren’t derived from experience E.g. Every event has a
cause.
Hume’s fork itself falls foul of the distinction. Is it a matter of fact or a relation of ideas?
Hume can’t just say we should disregard all exceptions as nonsense.
If he is right exceptions shouldn’t even occur. If they occur at all then his distinction is nonsense
Matters of Fact Many knowledge claims concern unobserved
matters of fact. Statements about the future (Physics) Statements about the past (History) Statements about far away places (Geography) Even day to day knowledge claims
The basis of all our reasoning concerning matters of fact is “cause and effect”
But where does our idea of cause and effect come from?
An analysis of causes reveal that they have three features: Priority Contiguity Necessity
Causation
We all have an idea of necessary connection but where does this idea come from?
Is it a ‘matter of fact’ or is it a ‘relation of ideas’? Is it acquired by experience a posteriori?
No. We have no impression of the ‘necessity’ or ‘power’ transferring between causes and their effects.
Is it acquired a priori by reason? No. It’s not true by definition that apples must fall to the
ground. Causes don’t resemble effects so we can’t know a priori what the effects of any cause will be.
The Origin of our Belief in Causation
Hume provides a psychological justification for our belief in necessary connections
Our belief in causes connection is based on ‘custom and habit’
We don’t observe necessary connections, we only actually observe ‘constant conjunctions’.
But once we see them often enough we develop an expectation that the future will resemble the past.
But this belief is actually irrational. It’s just a fact about human psychology that our brains work this way. It’s basis is simply “custom and habit”.
The only reasoning here is the “reason of animals”.
Comments Does Hume’s analysis of causation undermine the
whole of science? Does Hume’s analysis of causation undermine his whole
project? Is Hume claiming that there is no difference between
causation and correlation? E.g. Tiredness and the 10 O’Clock News
Is temporal priority the only way to distinguish causes from their effects?
What about contemporaneous causes? Is Hume’s psychological account a sufficiently complex
psychology? E.g. Compulsive gamblers; Alcoholics; abusive partners?
Do we need constant conjunction to infer causal connections?
E.g. food poisoning or electrocution How significant is contiguity in leading us to infer causal
connections?
Hume’s Scepticism After rigorously applying his “fork”, Hume admits that his
position is in many respects a sceptical one
The Outside World: Impressions come “unbidden into the mind…we know not
from where”. There may be no world out there. God:
Is neither true by definition nor observed. The self:
We have no constant impression of a unified self. We are just a bundle of impressions.
Moral Values: These aren’t revealed by reason or experience. Just a fact
of psychology that we approve of some acts and disapprove of others.
Comments on Hume’s Scepticism
A surprising outcome for an empiricist philosopher. “Hume developed empiricism to its logical
conclusion and more or less destroyed it by doing so” Richard Osborne
Leaves us knowing not very much for certain.
Descends into Solipsism Must we accept Representative Realism? Must we accept foundationalism?