Philosophical claims require evidence, even though philosophy isn't an empirical science.
Philosophers need reasons for their claims.
The history of philosophy is a significant source of evidence.
Philosophical thinking has origins worldwide from the beginning of recorded history.
Historical philosophers, sages, natural philosophers, and religious thinkers offer insights and arguments.
Example: The Greeks distinguished between generic terms (cat, tree, house) and specific, individual beings.
Philosophical Question: What's the relationship between general terms and specific things?
Questions of morality and social organization remain relevant over time.
Political leaders often reference historical philosophers (e.g., U.S. Founding Fathers, Confucius in China).
Intuition, in a philosophical sense, traces back to Plato and involves insight into the nature of things.
Rene Descartes' definition: "the conception of a clear and attentive mind, which is so easy and distinct that there can be no room for doubt about what we are understanding."
Intuition means something definite, unlike the common use as a "gut feeling".
Example: 2 + 2 = 4 is intuitively true; denying it would require giving up core beliefs about numbers and equality.
Other examples include "a three-legged stool has three legs" and "the tallest building is taller than any other building."
Some truths rely on definitions, while others rely on mental operations or commonly accepted knowledge.
In morality, the proposition that "it is better to be good than to be bad" seems intuitively true.
Caution is needed when intuitions extend into areas without consensus.
Distinguishing between certain intuitions and mere feelings is crucial.
Common sense refers to a basic set of facts or common knowledge.
Philosophically, it involves specific claims based on direct sense perception.
Philosophers of common sense argue against skepticism of basic sense perception claims.
Example: G.E. Moore's proof of the external world by gesturing to his hand and stating, "Here is one hand."
Knowledge of one's own hands doesn't need further proof.
Common sense can be questioned, but the common-sense philosopher may deem such interrogation unnecessary or excessive.
Experimental philosophy uses empirical methods similar to psychology or cognitive science.
It tests philosophical terms and concepts in a laboratory setting.
Example: Testing whether people believe free will is necessary for moral responsibility by posing scenarios to research subjects.
It aims to confirm that philosophical common sense or intuition aligns with general public opinion.
Studies require replication and should align with psychological or biological theories.
Experimental philosophers behave more like scientists and adhere to rigorous standards.
Philosophical claims should consider findings from scientific disciplines.
Claims about the natural world should align with natural sciences.
Claims about human nature should align with biology and social sciences.
Philosophers should welcome evidence from other disciplines to better understand the whole truth.
History: Insights from past philosophers.
Intuition: Insight into the nature of things.
Common Sense: Claims based on direct sense perception.
Experimental Philosophy: Testing concepts in a lab.
Results from Other Disciplines: Evidence from scientific fields.
Logic is the science of reasoning.
It formalizes the process of providing reasons for claims.
Logic helps assess whether claims are well-founded and consistent.
Claims are the product of arguments.
An argument is a series of sentences where premises provide evidence for a conclusion.
Arguments can be reconstructed to identify premises and conclusions.
Formal techniques evaluate whether claims are well-supported.
Poorly supported claims may be true, but supporting them is irrational.
Arguments can explain phenomena by reasoning backward from observations to evidence.
Logical reconstruction provides rational explanations for observations.
Logic assesses the consistency of a set of claims or beliefs.
Beliefs should be internally consistent.
Coherence: Statements/beliefs can be true simultaneously.
Contradictory statements/beliefs cannot be true simultaneously.
Inconsistent beliefs indicate at least one false claim.
Philosophers must revise beliefs or give up some to maintain consistency.
Logical consistency does not guarantee truth, but inconsistency indicates falsehood.
Conceptual analysis clarifies and understands philosophical statements.
It involves breaking apart complex ideas into simpler ones.
It aims for clearer and more workable definitions of concepts.
Dictionary definitions describe ordinary usage but may not be coherent, accurate, or precise.
Philosophers determine the meaning of terms and whether it fits within a larger understanding of the world.
Sentences in natural language can be translated into a formal, symbolic language.
Sentences can be broken into names/object identifiers and concepts/predicates.
The role of conceptual analysis is to identify the right predicates and clarify the relationship between them.
For any sentence, ask: What is being predicated? How is it being predicated?
Objects can be analyzed using descriptions.
Bertrand Russell identified definite descriptions to analyze proper names or objects.
Subject terms can be substituted with descriptive sentences that uniquely identify them.
Proper names are definite descriptions in disguise.
Definite descriptions clarify what we are talking about without gestures, context, or direct experience.
Understanding definite descriptions and predicates reduces ambiguity and vagueness.
Enumerating component parts helps understand a concept.
Example: A governmental body consists of its legislature, executive, and judicial branches.
Claims about the whole can be analyzed as claims about its parts.
Enumeration can be used to understand abstract concepts.
Example: Aristotle says wisdom is composed of scientific knowledge plus understanding.
Thought experiments are hypothetical scenarios that clarify the relationship between concepts.
They isolate features of a concept and place it in relationship with other concepts.
Philosophers have used them for a long time.
Example: Plato's ideal city in The Republic to identify the source of justice.
Example: Aristotle's claim that nature abhors a vacuum by imagining a void.
Thought experiments test moral theories by applying them to hypothetical cases.
They can support or undermine moral theories.
Predicates: Descriptive terms used to clarify statements.
Descriptions: Definite descriptions analyze names and object terms.
Enumeration: Identifying the component parts of a concept.
Thought Experiments: Hypothetical scenarios that test and compare concepts.
Philosophers aim to understand how things connect broadly.
No single philosophical picture is obviously compelling.
There will be competing pictures, each with strong reasons.
We must evaluate each picture and understand the tradeoffs they impose.
Consider the practical and logical implications of beliefs.
"Biting the bullet" means accepting negative consequences of a view because it is attractive for other reasons.
Example: A philosopher committed to determinism might accept that free will is an illusion.
Example: A philosopher focused on total quantity of effects of an action might accept harming an individual.
Be honest about the logical and moral consequences of views.
Reflective equilibrium assesses the logical and moral consequences of our thinking.
It uses judgments about particular cases to revise principles, rules, or theories about general cases.
Theoretical and practical beliefs must cohere utilizing this method.
It involves revising theoretical stances based on practical judgments.
Reflective equilibrium justifies beliefs by assessing their logical consistency, incorporating practical judgments.
Students should be aware of both theoretical commitments and practical concerns.
https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-2-how-do-philosophers-arrive-at-truth