+ All Categories
Home > Documents > An Epistemology Update

An Epistemology Update

Date post: 03-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: vladimir-carter
View: 37 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
An Epistemology Update. John Rafferty MA MSc PGCE Senior Lecturer Social Sciences Langside College Glasgow [email protected] Tel: 0141 272 3875. Section 1. Philosophical Issues in Epistemology. Outcome 1. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Popular Tags:
73
An Epistemology Update John Rafferty MA MSc PGCE Senior Lecturer Social Sciences Langside College Glasgow [email protected] k Tel: 0141 272 3875
Transcript
Page 1: An Epistemology Update

An Epistemology Update

John Rafferty MA MSc PGCE

Senior Lecturer Social Sciences

Langside College [email protected]: 0141 272 3875

Page 2: An Epistemology Update

Section 1

Philosophical Issues in Epistemology

Page 3: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 4: An Epistemology Update

Question 1

Why are knowledge claims a problem in

philosophy?

Page 5: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 6: An Epistemology Update

Illusions of perspective

Page 7: An Epistemology Update

Light refraction

Page 8: An Epistemology Update

Objects on the horizon

Page 9: An Epistemology Update

Railway tracks

Page 10: An Epistemology Update

Very small objects Can you guess what this is?

Page 11: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 12: An Epistemology Update

Question 2

What is knowledge?

Page 13: An Epistemology Update

‘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?

Page 14: An Epistemology Update

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.

Page 15: An Epistemology Update

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?

Page 16: An Epistemology Update

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?

Page 17: An Epistemology Update

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?

Page 18: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 19: An Epistemology Update

Question 3

Can knowledge claims be justified?

Page 20: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 21: An Epistemology Update

Section 2

Classic Texts in Epistemology

Page 22: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 23: An Epistemology Update

Section 2: Option 1

René Descartes

Page 24: An Epistemology Update

René Descartes

Meditations on First Philosophy

Page 25: An Epistemology Update

Historical Context The Renaissance The end of

Scholasticism Rebirth in knowledge Flourishing in the arts Architecture Painting Science

Page 26: An Epistemology Update

Historical Context

The Reformation Split in the church Birth of Protestantism Catholic dominance ends Europe divided Martin Luther

Page 27: An Epistemology Update

Historical Context Discovery of the New World

New cultures and peoples New world view

Page 28: An Epistemology Update

René Descartes

Meditation 1The Sceptical

Method

Page 29: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 30: An Epistemology Update

Attacking Sense Experience Objects in the distance Small objects Other arguments from illusion are

possible But surely apart from these the senses

are reliable?

Page 31: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 32: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 33: An Epistemology Update

Do all dreams contain some knowledge?

Page 34: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 35: An Epistemology Update

René Descartes

Meditation 2Finding Certainty

Page 36: An Epistemology Update

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?

Page 37: An Epistemology Update

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?

Page 38: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 39: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 40: An Epistemology Update

René Descartes

Meditation 3 Rebuilding knowledge

Page 41: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 42: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 43: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 44: An Epistemology Update

René Descartes

Meditation 6Resolution of Earlier

Doubts

Page 45: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 46: An Epistemology Update

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?

Page 47: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 48: An Epistemology Update

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

                                                                  

Page 49: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 50: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 51: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 52: An Epistemology Update

Section 2 Option 2

David Hume

Page 53: An Epistemology Update

David HumeEnquiry Concerning

Human Understanding

Page 54: An Epistemology Update

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)

Page 55: An Epistemology Update

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.

Page 56: An Epistemology Update

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.

Page 57: An Epistemology Update

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?

Page 58: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 59: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 60: An Epistemology Update

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)

Page 61: An Epistemology Update

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…”

Page 62: An Epistemology Update

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.

Page 63: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 64: An Epistemology Update

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?

Page 65: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 66: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 67: An Epistemology Update

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

Page 68: An Epistemology Update

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.

Page 69: An Epistemology Update

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”.

Page 70: An Epistemology Update
Page 71: An Epistemology Update

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?

Page 72: An Epistemology Update

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.

Page 73: An Epistemology Update

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?


Recommended