Origins of Knowledge (Friday 27th March)

Alright, big update. I slogged hard to make this happen =P

On Friday, we had the various presentations on the origins of knowledge, the three main ones being Rationalism, Empiricism and Scepticism.

The first dealt with empiricism, which is centered on the concept that the origin of knowledge is sense experience. According to Roger Bacon, this sense experience is obtained through observation and experiments. Locke further adds, in order to discredit rationalism, that we believe certain principles to be innate simply because we cannot remember when we learnt them.

Thus, empiricism also contains the concept that the brain initially is a ‘tabula rasa’, or blank slate. Other concepts within empiricism are logical positivism, in which knowledge is gained through observational evidence, mathematical induction and linguistics as well as phenomalism, which is an extreme form of empiricism stating that knowledge cannot be gained directly through physical senses but through mental objects.

The second presentation dealt with rationalism. Rationalism involves adopting either the:
-Intuition/Deduction thesis
-Innate Knowledge thesis
-Innate Concept thesis

The Intuition/Deduction thesis states that some propositions in a particular area are knowable to us by Intuition alone while other propositions are obtained by deducing them from intuited propositions. Intuition in this case means rational insight while deduction means deriving conclusions from intuited premises through valid arguments.

The Innate Knowledge thesis states that we have some knowledge of truths in a particular subject area as part of our rational nature It emphasizes the existence of a priori knowledge, stating that our innate knowledge is not learned through senses or intuition/deduction, but is just part of our nature. Experiences trigger awareness of this knowledge.

The Innate Concept thesis states that we have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area as part of our rational nature. It is debatable whether it also belongs to the innate knowledge thesis, and this has been argued by many philosophers such as Locke and Carruthers.

Two more theses generally adopted by rationalists are the Indispensability of Reason thesis and the Superiority of Reason thesis. The Indispensability of Reason thesis states that the knowledge we gain in a particular subject area by intuition/deduction cannot be gained by sense experience while the Superiority of Reason thesis states that the knowledge we gain in a particular subject area is superior to any knowledge gained by sense experience. The second thesis needs explanation, however.

There are three main forms of rationalism; Classical Greek Rationalism, Renaissance Rationalism and Moderate Rationalism. Under Classical Greek Rationalism, we have:

Platonic Rationalism

-In Platonic rationalism, like other forms of rationalism, Justification is by reason rather than by the senses.

-We need to turn away from the world of the cave(sensory experience), and turn towards the world outside the cave, the world of Forms, (through reason)

-The objects of knowledge, namely the Forms, are eternal, necessary, and unchanging

-The flux/change is only due to our perception.

-The main forms(eg. Physical laws) are unchanging and can only be attained by reason, not perception(we see the phenomenon but only through reason can we understand the laws.

Under Renaissance Rationalism, we have:

-René Descartes (Philosopher)

-Believes only deductive statements/conclusions can be considered as knowledge

-Anything that is not deductive must be doubted

-Extreme rationalist

-Gottfried Libniz (Philosopher)

-“an inborn light within us”

-“All green things are green”-rule of non-contradiction (necessary condition of truth)

-No true contradictions in statements or this will result in the begging of the question

-Sensory is essential, it’s like raw materials, but reasoning in us ‘process’ it into knowledge

Under Moderate Rationalism, we have:

Immanuel Kant (philosopher)

-Recognises that there are flaws to both rationalism and empiricism and hence introduces

-idealism, a fusion of both theories

-The guy who categorised truth as ‘synthetic’ and ‘analytic’
-Proves synthetic ‘a priori’ exists

-The reason synthetic a priori judgments are possible in geometry, Kant argues, is that space is an a priori form of sensibility.

-That is, we can know the claims of geometry with a priori certainty (which we do) only if experiencing objects in space is the necessary mode of our experience.

-Kant also argues that we cannot experience objects without being able to represent them spatially. It is impossible to grasp an object as an object unless we delineate the region of space it occupies

Finally, we did scepticism:

Scepticism.

Method: If there is reasonable doubt about a claim, doubt it.
Assumption about people: people do not have the ability to obtain knowledge.
Implications for inquiry/learning: healthy skepticism can lead to active inquiry.
Limitations to skepticism: extreme skepticism can lead to paralysis and the inability to construct knowledge.

While knowledge is inexhaustible, human knowledge is fallible. E.g. Meno’s paradox.
Scepticism has historically helped in science.

Analogy of an apple:
When you bite an apple, you generalize what it will taste like because you have experience and it looks like an apple. It’s not necessary true that all things that look like apples and feel like apples will taste like apples.

3 important criteria for knowledge:

1) Truth
2) Belief
3) Justification

Most important for skeptics: Justification.
As long as we cannot justify definitely for sure, we cannot construct knowledge.

1) Agrippa’s 3/2 dilemma:

To say anything is true, you have to give reason. How’d you know that the reason is true? Give reasons for the reasons until justification is reached.
Opt 1: Give something new to say
Opt 2: Repeat what you said
Opt 3: Don’t answer
Opt 4: Identify foundational beliefs
Opt 5: Identify beliefs that are not foundational but inter-connected to give an ultimate justification.

We’re only interested in 4 and 5.

2) Cartesian skepticism

Descartes:
We take for granted that we learn things from perception/senses. Cartesian skepticism questions how we know that the external world exists. It is quite extreme and experiences no relation to reality. It states that there is no guarantee that anything might be right because justification is necessary for knowledge, but justification does not guarantee certainty, therefore we do not have knowledge.

Assumptions when constructing knowledge:
1) To have knowledge, one must have certainty. (very very very sure.)
2) Justification is really very necessary for knowledge.
Certainty:
-Your evidence must be maximally good to know P.
- Until no one can give a counter argument against it.

Fallibilism:
Meno’s paradox:
-to know P your evidence must be very good.
-P has to be true.

However, evidence does not always mean P is true. There is the assumption that certainty is the only way to go. Hence, there is always a search for certainty in knowledge.

A second assumption if that justification is necessary for knowledge. Is it really necessary for knowledge, however? Do we place too much emphasis on justification? It may cause paralysis in extreme cases because it’s too difficult to be certain about everything.