Studied by 4 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
"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)
Heraclites
nothing is everything becomes
explain socrates' essence
Aristotle (6 points)
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
rejection of authority
observation over possible faulty reasoning
application of induction
use of experiments
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
Idols of tribe
false idea as a result of being human (conformation bias e.g.)
Idols of the cave/den
thinking influenced by education and upbringing
Idols of marketplace
influence of language
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)
idea of perception
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
impings (empfindungen/sensations)
appearances → power of imagination
experiences
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
Theological stage → people explain world through belief & religion (natural disaster = god)
Metaphysical stage → transition to abstract & philosophical reasoning (Descartes)
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
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!
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)
