(Originally written September 12, 2006 in Book 8)
Geometry is likewise necessarily a priori. If it were empirical, then we would have to draw figures for every proof and make a very unscientific and hazardous speculation that the single figure drawn can represent all the figures.
The "a priori" in logic
"The laws of logic must be known a priori or not at all" (Pojman, 386).
A syllogism is an important form of a priori knowledge. It consists of three propositions: two are premises, one is the conclusion.
Other cases of the "A priori"
A priori knowledge is most prevalent in mathematics and logic, although it is not limited to these fields.
Philosophers have been divided into two major classes (rationalists and empiricists) based on their stressing of a priori knowledge.
The possibilities of metaphysics is based on a priori knowledge.
A priori knowledge comes from self-evident truths and truth derived by inferences from self-evident principles.
The Linguistic theory of the "A priori" and the denial that "a priori" propositions or inferences can give new knowledge
Empiricists are not in the business of explaining away a priori propositions as merely empirical generalizations. They have adopted the view that a priori cannot tell us anything new about the real world.
They have decided that a prior is simply clarifying language.
Empiricists often admit that there are a priori analytic truths, but deny a priori synthetic truths.
The proposition "there are no synthetic a priori propositions" cannot be verified by experience. Thus, to justify it would prove that there are synthetic a priori propositions./
Many people have denied synthetic a priori knowledge due to the reduction of Euclidean geometry's axioms to analytic propositions. While this may show that the axioms are not synthetic a priori, it does not show that the steps taken after the axioms are not synthetic a priori.
Empiricists play with language to deny synthetic a priori propositions.
"An a priori proposition cannot fully be understood without being seen to be true" (Pojman, 390).
The existence of a priori judgments must be taken as an ultimate fact. We cannot explain their existence any more than we can explain the existence of man's ability to make empirical judgments.
"Human beings certainly cannot explain everything, whether there is ultimately an explanation for it or not" (Pojman, 390).
Showing posts with label Ewing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ewing. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
Book notes on Ewing (A)
(Originally written September 11, 2006 in Book 8)
VII. 3 - In Defense of A Priori Knowledge
A. C. Ewing (1899 - 1973)
-Cambridge University
Ewing argues against Ayer and states that the statement 'there is no synthetic a priori knowledge' is itself a synthetic a priori judgment.
Meaning of the Distinction, "A priori" Character of Mathematics
There is a sharp distinction betwixt a priori and empirical judgments
Most of our knowledge is empirical. This comes from two sources:
1) Sense perception
2) Introspection
Knowledge we obtained simply by thinking is a priori.
A priori knowledge is necessary truths and we know why it is true.
Empirical propositions are contingent.
Mathematics must be a priori because otherwise we could not be able to add two numbers together without counting. Since we need not count (an empirical method), knowledge of mathematics is a priori.
VII. 3 - In Defense of A Priori Knowledge
A. C. Ewing (1899 - 1973)
-Cambridge University
Ewing argues against Ayer and states that the statement 'there is no synthetic a priori knowledge' is itself a synthetic a priori judgment.
Meaning of the Distinction, "A priori" Character of Mathematics
There is a sharp distinction betwixt a priori and empirical judgments
Most of our knowledge is empirical. This comes from two sources:
1) Sense perception
2) Introspection
Knowledge we obtained simply by thinking is a priori.
A priori knowledge is necessary truths and we know why it is true.
Empirical propositions are contingent.
Mathematics must be a priori because otherwise we could not be able to add two numbers together without counting. Since we need not count (an empirical method), knowledge of mathematics is a priori.
Friday, September 1, 2006
Introductory Epistemology (A)
(Originally written September 1, 2006 in Book 6)
Well, school is back in session and leisurely philosophical time is beginning to slow down and I have some direction again. This semester I am taking Epistemology, Logic and History I. So I will begin with Epistemology.
Classical and Contemporary Readings: The theory of Knowledge 3rd Edition
Louis P. Polman
Part I - General Introduction: The theory of knowledge
Epistemology - Greek for 'the science of knowing'
Epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowledge and the justification of belief
Many philosophers hold epistemology to be the central area of philosophy (I believe it to be metaphysics)
To know - "to recognize, to identify, to distinguish, to be acquainted with, to apprehend or comprehend as a fact or truth" - Oxford English Dictionary
This definition is too broad for philosophy.
Typical uses of the verb 'to know'
1) I know John
2) I know how to speak English
3) I know that DC is the capital of the U.S.
1) is knowledge by acquaintance. Knowledge by acquaintance provides knowledge of our pains, our beliefs our friends, the town we grew up in, etc.
2) is 'competence knowledge' or 'skill knowledge'. This is knowing how to do 'X'
3) is 'propositional knowledge' or 'descriptive knowledge'. Propositions are true or false. People know propositions. i.e. I know Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492.
Epistemology focuses on propositional knowledge.
Epistemology seeks to illuminate three questions:
1) What is knowledge? What are the essential characteristics of this concept?
2) Can we know anything at all? Or are we doomed to ignorance about the most important subjects in life?
3) How do we obtain knowledge? Through our senses? Through our intellect?
1) What is knowledge?
Propositional knowledge is knowledge of a true proposition.
By claiming to know a proposition one claims that the proposition is in fact true.
"Of course, we may be wrong about our knowledge claims... we often believe falsely that we know" (Polman, 2).
This can happen because;
1) our knowledge is based on inadequate or misleading evidence
2) we remember wrongly
3) we perceive incorrectly
People can disagree, especially on moral, ethical and religious knowledge.
Knowledge involves more than having a true belief.
Knowledge has an adequate justification in addition to a true belief.
What exactly is justification of a belief? Coming later (parts V, VI, VIII, IX, and X)
2) Can we know anything at all?
Skepticism is the theory that we do not have any knowledge. Radical skepticism believes we cannot even be certain of the belief that we cannot be completely certain that any of our beliefs are true. We can't even know that we don't have any knowledge.
3) How do we obtain knowledge?
Rationalism holds that reason alone is sufficient to discover truth.
Empiricism - knowledge originates through sense perception.
Descartes holds that the mind discovers truth apart from experience.
Kant, and A.C. Ewing and Roderick Chisholm argue for the reality of a priori knowledge.
Locke and Berkeley attacked innate ideas and a priori knowledge as empiricists. Locke proposes a representational theory of knowledge that claims that the core of our knowledge is caused by the world, whereas some qualities are the products of the way our perceptual mechanisms are affected by the world.
Primary qualities (motion, size, shape and number) are accurate representatives of the objective features of the world.
Secondary qualities are modes of apprehending the primary qualities (like taste, color, odor and sound).
Primary qualities are objective, and while primary qualities cause secondary qualities, secondary qualities are subjective.
How do we acquire ideas?
Rationalism - some non-analytical propositions are innate or known a priori.
Empiricism - all propositions are acquired from experience. No non-analytical propositions are known a priori.
How is knowledge organized in the mind?
Rationalism - The mind brings to experience principles of order from the mind's own nature.
Empiricism - The mind arranges and stores materials that are given in experience
Skepticism - Can we have any knowledge at all?
Perception - Can we have knowledge of the external world?
Analysis of knowledge - Is knowledge true justified belief?
Theories of justification - Is the structure of justification foundational or coherentist or neither? Is the correct account of justification one of externalism or internals?
A priori knowledge - Is there synthetic a priori truth? Is the analytic-synthetic distinction itself valid?
Induction - which is the correct solution to the problem of inductive knowledge?
Science, justification and the demarcation problem - The scientific method and the demarcation problem
The ethics of belief - are there epistemic obligations? Are there moral obligations to seek the truth or to have the best set of justified beliefs?
Challenges to Contemporary Epistemology -
Is knowledge social or individual? Is the Cartesian paradigm correct? Etc. Etc.
(Originally written September 1, 2006)
What can we know? Appearance and Reality
Bertrand Russell
Russell (1872-1970)
-one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century
-broad philosophical interests
-spoke on his personal beliefs even at personal risk
"Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?" Russell calls this one of the most difficult questions to answer.
Our immediate experience provides us with knowledge that is very likely to be wrong.
Russell exams a table, which appears to be a solid color, but his perception can cause it to seem lighter in some areas. So it is reasonable to doubt that the table is one solid color.
There is a difference between appearances and reality. Appearance is how things seem. Reality is how things really are.
Color, texture and shape are perceived by the senses, but we have been conditioned to change them in our mind's eye to the "real" color, texture or shape.
Touch and sound are the same way.
The real object is not known to us. It is inferred from what experience tells us. This leads to two difficult questions:
1) Is there a real object at all?
2) If so, what sort of object can it be?
Sense-Data - Things that are immediately known in sensation: color, sound, smell, hardness, roughness, etc.
Physical object - the 'real' object
We become aware of sense data, not the physical object. If there is a real object, a problem arises between the relation of sense-data to the physical object.
Matter - the collection of all physical objects.
Considering the relation between sense data and physical objects (and thus matter) raises two question:
1) Is there anything as matter?
2) If so, what is its nature?
Berkeley claims that there is no such thing as matter. Berkeley showed that the existence of matter can be denied without absurdity and that if anything exists independently of us that they cannot be the immediate objects of our sensations. Berkeley held that we perceived the sense-data, and the real object was an idea in the mind of God. Since it is an idea it is not wholly unknowable, like matter would be.
Idealists believe that nothing exists except minds and their ideas. Ideas are whatever a mind can think of. What is inconceivable, cannot exist.
Idealists:
Berkeley - matter is a collection of ideas
Leibniz - matter is actually aggregates of more or less rudimentary minds
Both claim that matter is a mere appearance
The Problem of Criterion
Roderick Chisholm (1916-1999)
-one of the most influential American Epistemologicians
"To know anything...we need a method or criterion, a process that guarantees that what we claim to knows truly knowledge" (Polman, 9).
Before a method or criterion is found to be reliable, particular instances of knowledge must be recognized. Right? Particularists find knowledge instances first, then criterion. Methodists find methods first, then identify knowledge. Chisholm calls the 'problem of the criterion' one of the most important and most difficult problems of philosophy.It is the ancient problem of 'the dialectus', 'the wheel', or 'the vicious cycle'. Montaigne put the problem neatly in his Essays.
There must be a procedure for distinguishing true appearances from false ones.
To know whether a procedure is a good procedure one must know whether it succeeds in distinguishing appearances that are true from ones that are false. But, we can't know if a procedure is successful without having knowledge of true and false appearances. Thus, we have a circle.
Well, school is back in session and leisurely philosophical time is beginning to slow down and I have some direction again. This semester I am taking Epistemology, Logic and History I. So I will begin with Epistemology.
Classical and Contemporary Readings: The theory of Knowledge 3rd Edition
Louis P. Polman
Part I - General Introduction: The theory of knowledge
Epistemology - Greek for 'the science of knowing'
Epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowledge and the justification of belief
Many philosophers hold epistemology to be the central area of philosophy (I believe it to be metaphysics)
To know - "to recognize, to identify, to distinguish, to be acquainted with, to apprehend or comprehend as a fact or truth" - Oxford English Dictionary
This definition is too broad for philosophy.
Typical uses of the verb 'to know'
1) I know John
2) I know how to speak English
3) I know that DC is the capital of the U.S.
1) is knowledge by acquaintance. Knowledge by acquaintance provides knowledge of our pains, our beliefs our friends, the town we grew up in, etc.
2) is 'competence knowledge' or 'skill knowledge'. This is knowing how to do 'X'
3) is 'propositional knowledge' or 'descriptive knowledge'. Propositions are true or false. People know propositions. i.e. I know Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492.
Epistemology focuses on propositional knowledge.
Epistemology seeks to illuminate three questions:
1) What is knowledge? What are the essential characteristics of this concept?
2) Can we know anything at all? Or are we doomed to ignorance about the most important subjects in life?
3) How do we obtain knowledge? Through our senses? Through our intellect?
1) What is knowledge?
Propositional knowledge is knowledge of a true proposition.
By claiming to know a proposition one claims that the proposition is in fact true.
"Of course, we may be wrong about our knowledge claims... we often believe falsely that we know" (Polman, 2).
This can happen because;
1) our knowledge is based on inadequate or misleading evidence
2) we remember wrongly
3) we perceive incorrectly
People can disagree, especially on moral, ethical and religious knowledge.
Knowledge involves more than having a true belief.
Knowledge has an adequate justification in addition to a true belief.
What exactly is justification of a belief? Coming later (parts V, VI, VIII, IX, and X)
2) Can we know anything at all?
Skepticism is the theory that we do not have any knowledge. Radical skepticism believes we cannot even be certain of the belief that we cannot be completely certain that any of our beliefs are true. We can't even know that we don't have any knowledge.
3) How do we obtain knowledge?
Rationalism holds that reason alone is sufficient to discover truth.
Empiricism - knowledge originates through sense perception.
Descartes holds that the mind discovers truth apart from experience.
Kant, and A.C. Ewing and Roderick Chisholm argue for the reality of a priori knowledge.
Locke and Berkeley attacked innate ideas and a priori knowledge as empiricists. Locke proposes a representational theory of knowledge that claims that the core of our knowledge is caused by the world, whereas some qualities are the products of the way our perceptual mechanisms are affected by the world.
Primary qualities (motion, size, shape and number) are accurate representatives of the objective features of the world.
Secondary qualities are modes of apprehending the primary qualities (like taste, color, odor and sound).
Primary qualities are objective, and while primary qualities cause secondary qualities, secondary qualities are subjective.
How do we acquire ideas?
Rationalism - some non-analytical propositions are innate or known a priori.
Empiricism - all propositions are acquired from experience. No non-analytical propositions are known a priori.
How is knowledge organized in the mind?
Rationalism - The mind brings to experience principles of order from the mind's own nature.
Empiricism - The mind arranges and stores materials that are given in experience
Skepticism - Can we have any knowledge at all?
Perception - Can we have knowledge of the external world?
Analysis of knowledge - Is knowledge true justified belief?
Theories of justification - Is the structure of justification foundational or coherentist or neither? Is the correct account of justification one of externalism or internals?
A priori knowledge - Is there synthetic a priori truth? Is the analytic-synthetic distinction itself valid?
Induction - which is the correct solution to the problem of inductive knowledge?
Science, justification and the demarcation problem - The scientific method and the demarcation problem
The ethics of belief - are there epistemic obligations? Are there moral obligations to seek the truth or to have the best set of justified beliefs?
Challenges to Contemporary Epistemology -
Is knowledge social or individual? Is the Cartesian paradigm correct? Etc. Etc.
(Originally written September 1, 2006)
What can we know? Appearance and Reality
Bertrand Russell
Russell (1872-1970)
-one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century
-broad philosophical interests
-spoke on his personal beliefs even at personal risk
"Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?" Russell calls this one of the most difficult questions to answer.
Our immediate experience provides us with knowledge that is very likely to be wrong.
Russell exams a table, which appears to be a solid color, but his perception can cause it to seem lighter in some areas. So it is reasonable to doubt that the table is one solid color.
There is a difference between appearances and reality. Appearance is how things seem. Reality is how things really are.
Color, texture and shape are perceived by the senses, but we have been conditioned to change them in our mind's eye to the "real" color, texture or shape.
Touch and sound are the same way.
The real object is not known to us. It is inferred from what experience tells us. This leads to two difficult questions:
1) Is there a real object at all?
2) If so, what sort of object can it be?
Sense-Data - Things that are immediately known in sensation: color, sound, smell, hardness, roughness, etc.
Physical object - the 'real' object
We become aware of sense data, not the physical object. If there is a real object, a problem arises between the relation of sense-data to the physical object.
Matter - the collection of all physical objects.
Considering the relation between sense data and physical objects (and thus matter) raises two question:
1) Is there anything as matter?
2) If so, what is its nature?
Berkeley claims that there is no such thing as matter. Berkeley showed that the existence of matter can be denied without absurdity and that if anything exists independently of us that they cannot be the immediate objects of our sensations. Berkeley held that we perceived the sense-data, and the real object was an idea in the mind of God. Since it is an idea it is not wholly unknowable, like matter would be.
Idealists believe that nothing exists except minds and their ideas. Ideas are whatever a mind can think of. What is inconceivable, cannot exist.
Idealists:
Berkeley - matter is a collection of ideas
Leibniz - matter is actually aggregates of more or less rudimentary minds
Both claim that matter is a mere appearance
The Problem of Criterion
Roderick Chisholm (1916-1999)
-one of the most influential American Epistemologicians
"To know anything...we need a method or criterion, a process that guarantees that what we claim to knows truly knowledge" (Polman, 9).
Before a method or criterion is found to be reliable, particular instances of knowledge must be recognized. Right? Particularists find knowledge instances first, then criterion. Methodists find methods first, then identify knowledge. Chisholm calls the 'problem of the criterion' one of the most important and most difficult problems of philosophy.It is the ancient problem of 'the dialectus', 'the wheel', or 'the vicious cycle'. Montaigne put the problem neatly in his Essays.
There must be a procedure for distinguishing true appearances from false ones.
To know whether a procedure is a good procedure one must know whether it succeeds in distinguishing appearances that are true from ones that are false. But, we can't know if a procedure is successful without having knowledge of true and false appearances. Thus, we have a circle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)