TAS midterms

"Socrates, ""what is knowledge""?"

2 approaches: Rationalism & Empiricism

Rationalism

our reason is the source of true knowledge

Empiricism

Our senses are the source of knowledge

plato (6 points)

- rationalist
- perception is subjective (hot/cold water)
- everything is flux (nature of appearances)(childhood self)
- behind appearances, real eternal world
- plato's cave
-plato's theory Meno & Meno's slave

Heraclites

nothing is everything becomes

explain socrates' essence

- not knowing was the only thing he knew
- asking people questions to seee presuppostion
- concepts like beatuy/truth you need to see their unique identifying processes -> essence

Aristotle (6 points)

- empiricist 
- imminent world 
-peripatetic axom (explain)
-syllogism
-he also recognized thast we discover our senses by using our reason: causation is reason (4 causes)
-anthoropomorphic worldview

Who & What : imminent world

• Aristotle

• only one world, our mind absorbs the essence of objects

Who & What: Peripatetic Axom

• aristotle

  • there is nothing in our mind that wasnt in our senses first

Who & What: Syllogism

• Aristotle

• we only have knowledge of something when we know its cause → deduction

Who & What: 4 causes of reasoning

• Aristotle (example of statue Apollo

• 1: formal cause (the shape of Apollo

• 2: Material cause (marble)

• 3: Efficient cause (the sculptor, primary source of change)

• 4: Final cause (devotion, the end goal)

Who & What: anthropomorphic worldview

Humans purpose behaviour is the model for everything else

Copernicus

geocentric to heliocentric

what is the scientific revolution

radical assault traditional way of thinking

no more faith on authority but experiment & observation

5 terms of the scientific revolution

1. rejection of authority

2. observation over possible faulty reasoning

3. application of induction

4. use of experiments

5. rediscorvery of mathematics as a tool for model building (=universal mathematics)

3 guys constituting the scientific revolution

Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton

Johannes Kepler

• astronomia Novia

  • planets dont move in perfect circles but in elliptical trajectories

Galileo Galilei

• improvements on the telescope

• Moon is not a perfect sphere

Isaac Newton

• the same force that makes an apple fall tot he ground is what holds a planet in its orbit around the sun

mechanical philosophy (empirical) after the scientific revo. to scepticism

• if a model predicts reliable than it is true

• so everything is a prediction? but we have free will and intuition

• what if all our predictions are wrong? and what if something cannot be predicted → scepticism

Francis Bacon (4)

• empiricist

• aristotle was right but had fatal flaws

  • inductions too little observation

  • possible biases

• 4 potential biases (idols) that warp our perception

• “Idea” idea

Who & What: 4 idols

• Francis Bacon

  1. Idols of tribe
     false idea as a result of being human (conformation bias e.g.)

  2. Idols of the cave/den
     thinking influenced by education and upbringing

  3. Idols of marketplace
     influence of language

  4. Idols of theatre
     systems you are part of

Who & What: “idea” idea + criticism on empiricism

• Francis Bacon & Montaigne

• reality is perceived indirectly

• we sense everything first

• you dont see world in direct manner → through biases → e.g. optical illusions, senses trick us! (= criticism on empiricism)

• example Montaigne with portrait

Montaigne

• sceptist

• like portrait we cannot sense what is real.

• ‘Que Sais-Je?’ what do I know?

René Descartes (5)

• rationalist

• Method of doubt

• ‘dubito, cogito, ergo sum’.

• innate ideas by god

• is god evil?

Who & What: Method of doubt

• René Descartes

knowledge should be built on absolute certain statements

‘anything that can be doubted is uncertain’

• e.g. senses might deceive us thus cannot be trusted

Who & What: Dubito, Cogito, Ergo sum

• René Descartes

• you doubt (=mode of thinking), so you think (only something that exists thinks), therefore I am.

similarity Descartes & Plato

we already have all ideas in our heads.

• for plato we only have to be able to access it (Meno’s slave)

• Descartes: innate ideas are put in head by God. like idea of perfect, only perfect values , can only come from a perfect being → God

John Locke (6)

• empiricist

• no universal principles

• passive aspect of mind

• mind = white paper (Plato: mind= wax tablet)

• primary and secondary qualities

• simple and complex ideas

Who & What: passive & active aspect of mind

• John Locke

• seeing depth in an image = passive

• colours as a result of light = active

Who & What: builds on Peripatetic Axiom and with what?

• John Lock build on Aristotles Peripatetic Axiom

• Primary and Secondary Qualities

Who & What: Primary and Secondary Qualities

• John Locke

• primary belong to the object themselves (how the world id)

• secondary is how we perceive objects. e.g. hot water. (how we perceive the world)

Who & What: simple ideas (explanations + sorts)

• John Locke

• = exist of one thing. e.g. hot

• four sorts of simple ideas:

  • only one sense. (e.g. yellow)

  • idea of movement (we see things move but also hear it move)

  • reflection (subjective way of observing)

    1. idea of perception

    2. Idea of wiling

       = (you can sense that you think & that you want something

  • idea of sensation and reflection (e.g. pain)

Who & What: complex ideas

• John Locke

• consists of multiple simple ideas and is relative

• 3 complex ideas

  • ideas of mode

    e.g. beauty (form & colour)

  • ideas of relation

    fire and heat

  • ideas of substance

  • things thought to exists independently

problem with Locke’s ideas of substance

you cannot experience substance.

George Berkely (6)

• empiricist

• no primary qualities (also dependant on perception like secondary)

• “everything that exists, exists in the virtue of being perceived”

• Esse est principi → to be is to be perceived

• how to guarantee constanct perception? → divine mind = God

• immaterialism

Who & What: immaterialism

• George Berkeley

• physical objects are not independent substances but only exist in the minds of the perceivers.

David Hume (4)

• Radical empiricist (scepticism)

• Copy principle

• cause and effect

  • operation of the mind

• science is a guess

Who & What: Copy principle (5)

• david hume

• content of the mind are perceptions

  • impressions= direct date from experience (seeing something red)

  • ideas = e.g. the idea of colour red in our minds

• copy principle = all our ideas are nothing but copies of our impressions.

• concept of substance is useless → not derived from impressions

• complex ideas should come from simple ideas that should come from simple impressions

Who & What: cause and effect

• david hume

• we shouldnt conclude from past experiences eventhough it is a habit of ours (= operation of the mind)

• 3 steps

  • contiguity → two balls touched

  • priority → motion of cause was prior to motion of effect

  • constant conjunction → experiment on other balls to see if there is a conjunction

Who & What: science is a guess

• david hume

• we conclude everything from causality thats human nature.

• e.g. the sun rises everyday so it will rise tomorrow. we have no logical evidence. (= problem with inductive reasoning)

• thus science can never be more than a guess

Immanuel Kant (6)

• transcendental idealist

• how to explain universal knowledge

• transcendental question

• synthetic priori

• noumenal & phenomenal world

• logical stages of knowledge

agreements and differences Hume and Kant

• agreements:
  observations are not enough for casual laws of nature

• differences
  Kant argues that there IS universal knowledge (e.g. all wax candles melt when heated) and we must explore how that is possible.
  Hume talks about if such knowledge IS possible and Kant talks about HOW the knowledge is possible and does this through the structures and conditions of the human mind

Who & What: transcendental question

“under what conditions can rational beings attain universal knowledge?”

Who & What: logical analysis of human knowledge

• Kant

• Hume accepted mathematics which is a synthetic a priori. he should have come to the conclusion that universal knowledge exists

Who & What: noumenal and phenomenal world + the copernicus influence to this philosopher

• kant

• noumenal= how things are themselves

• phenomenal = how the world appears to use.

• we know nothing of the noumenal world

• copernicun turn: we create the laws and apply them to the world, not the other way around (liket he heliocentric founding)

Who & What: logical stages of knowledge

• kant

  1. impings (empfindungen/sensations)

  2. appearances → power of imagination

  3. experiences

  4. systematic knowledge

Positivism

• social sciences must imitate natural sciences

• reject everything that cannot be verified

• two ‘stromingen’ neopositivism/ logical positivism vs hermeneutics

August Comte (2)

• positivist

• Law of three stages

Who & What: Law of three stages

• Auguste Comte

• = explanation how the human thought and society can change over time

  1. Theological stage → people explain world through belief & religion (natural disaster = god)

  2. Metaphysical stage → transition to abstract & philosophical reasoning (Descartes)

  3. Positive stage → knowledge based on scientific evidence and empirical observations

Wilhelm Dilthey (5)

• hermeneuticist

• nomothetic and idiographic

• verstehen

• erklären

• nacherleben

• hermeneutic circle

Who & What: nomothetic and idiographic

• dilthey

• natural sciences = nothetic (general & universal knowledge)

• social sciences = idiographic (seek to describe historical events).

• “nature we explain, physics we understand.”

Who & What: verstehen, erklären & nachlerleben

• Dilthey

• to understand human world we must not step out but be part of it.

• everything has a reason, we must understand that reason

• verstehen → try and imagine what the person experienced (or erlebt)

• natural sciences use ‘erklären’ but humans have no general laws

• so we cannot erleb the persons actions themselves, but we must nacherleben

two critiques verstehen method

1. how is verstehen done? how can we understand someones context? the hermeneutic circle (so we make theories based on experience which is based on theories)

   • dilthey was aware of this problem → you must break open that circle!

2. Threat of Relativism
   try and imagine someone and actually adopting their pov are two different things.

   • can verstehen be done objectively? Eschers critque: how can you truely understand a different person with different cultures etc.

   • Does the objectivity of verstehen depend on the researchers ability to do so?

Logical positivism (7)

• perhaps all being human is similar enough to explain the things we do. that means that objective science is indeed possible! (what the hermeneutics and verstehen couldnt guarantee)

• science does not refer to physical causes

• empiricists were right (observation) but that is only what you start with.

  • afterwards hypothesis → experiment → conclusion = scientific method.

• Gadamer: understanding is not only a method but a feature of ‘dasein’ in the world

• schlick is founder of LP (manifesto written by the vienna circle)

• only thing for humans is observation = scientific foundation = empirical observations

• verification and confirmability

how to know what is science and what is not according to Logical positivists?

science have cognition impact & non-science does not. (e.g. art has impact on emotion not cognition thus non science)

LP’s deductivr nomological explanation

L (laws)
C (initial conditons set in place)
—— (deduction)
E (=explanandum (what you try to explain whether that be natural laws or human behaviour)

however this does not really feel like an explanation right? plus what are the conditions? do they become too specific?

what is science?

special set of beliefs. → can we get to the truth of beliefs?

→ corresponding between a statement & state of affairs in the world

what is knowledge?

justified true belief

what is justification?

having good reasons for holding a believe

what is truth?

when a statement corresponds with an immediate case

Who & What: statement verification

• Logical positivists

• eventhough you cannot right now verify it, as long as you know which steps lead to verification it is scientific.

• it is impossible to verify a universal claim (e.g. all ravens are black)

• so verification excludes all sciences?!

• we need different criteria: confirmability

Who & What: statement confirmability

• sampling of confirmability

• “everytime I see something that confirms my thesis, my probability increases” HOW? → Bayes theorem

• to what extend do we think the hypothesis is right, given the evidence.

Who & What: prior, posterium and subjective probability

• Bayes

• prior probability= the probability that the hypothesis is right

• posterium probability= the probability we give to our hypothesis given our newest evidence

• subjective probability = how probable do I think the hypothesis is?

Who & What: Bayes theorum

• surprise! its Bayes

• idea behind the theorem

  • you assign a subjective probability

  • if the hypothesis is confirmed Bayes theorem shows how the probability goes up.

• however it shows we are not dealing with objective probability since you start by subjective probability.

• so when does theorem of Bayes work?

  • when you have a limited set of things you need to verify (example bag of beans)