(Originally written October 30, 2006 in Book 8)
What is this thing called science? Ch. 4
A. Chalmers
To avoid the problem of induction one can weaken the demand that scientific knowledge be proven true. Instead, scientific knowledge would be probably true.
Thus, under this assumption the principle of induction would be as follows: "if a large number of A's have been observed under a wide variety of conditions, and if all these observed A's have the property B, then all A's probably have the property B" (Chalmers, 51-52).
Unfortunately, this reformulation does not solve the problem of induction, It is still a universal statement; it still relies on a number of particulars producing a universal.
Another major problem faced by the inductivist is that how probable is probably true?
"We are bound to run into trouble if we seek rational justifications of every principle we use, for we cannot provide a rational argument for rational argument itself without assuming what we are arguing for" (Chalmers, 53).
Logic cannot even be argued for in a way that doesn't beg the question a little bit.
The appeal of inductivism
Facts acquired through observation --> Induction --> Laws and theories --> Deduction --> Predictions and explanations
Inductivism does not search for truth of premises in a deductive argument in logic. The source of the premises' truth is in experience.
The general form of all scientific explanation and predictions can be summarized this way:
1. Laws and theories
2. Initial conditions
3. Predictions and explanations
The attraction of inductivism lies in the fact that it seems to capture some of the commonly held intuitions about the special characteristics of scientific knowledge, including:
1. Objectivity
2. Reliability
3. Usefulness
The objectivity of science from the inductivist point of view is derived from the objectivity of observation, induction, and deduction process.
Observation is objective if and only if they are established by an unprejudiced use of the sense in such a way that leaves no room for intrusion by subjective opinion.
Induction and deduction are objective so long as they conform to a publicly formulated set of criterion. If this is done then subjective opinion is again left out of the equation.
"Inferences either conform to the objective standards or they don't" (Chalmers, 57).
The reliability of science in the inductivist point of view comes from inductivism's claims about observation, induction and deduction.
The careful use of the senses can lead to a secure factual basis for science according to the inductivist.
By presuming the principle of induction to be the basis of science, the laws and theories derived inductively from the factual basis of science, the laws and theories derived inductively from the factual basis of science can be held as reliable. (This is the circular problem of inductivism).
Chalmers: At best, inductivism is in dire need of sever qualification. At worst, inductivism is wholly inadequate.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Notes on Isabel Allende
(Originally Written October 30, 2006 in World Lit)
Latin American Stories
Isabel Allende (1942- )
-Born in Lima, Peru
-Lived in Bolivia, Europe & Middle East
-Father was a diplomant
-Niece of assassinated Chilean president Salvador Allende
-After death of her uncle, her family moved in exile to Caracas, Venezuela
-Worked as a journalist, dramatist and columnist in Venezuela
Clarisa
-An un-venerated saint post-death
-helps with hangovers, problems with the draft and sieges of loneliness
-performs humble miracles, but necessary ones
-had the hands of a healer
"Overcoming the many obstacles that lay in our way, including death, which has put a slight crimp in the ease of our communications"
-Clarisa helped every one, even those who didn't want it.
"Charity had become a two-way street, and you could seldom tell who was giving and who receiving".
-Clarisa married a judge who became a strange hermit because of his disillusionment.
-Clarisa loved music
-She gave birth to an albino retarded girl
-She gave birth to a boy who was also strange
-She was unalterably an optimist
-She was an affectionate mother
-The retarded children caused the judge to become a hermit.
-She was robbed at knifepoint, but gave the robber money and tea. The would-be robber sent her gifts at Christmas until she died.
-She bridged unbridgeable chasms with her determination to help the needy.
-She became pregnant again and gave birth to two healthy boys
-She held that God creates order, "somethings twisted... other things straight; for every virtue there is a sin... every joy an affliction; every evil, a good."
-The two retarded children accidentally killed themselves with gas ("a leaking gas pipe transported them to a better world")
-Her two healthy boys were good humored and had the nature of Clarisa
-She distrusted TV
-She went to see the pope in person because she saw homosexual men dressed as nuns on TV. She confronted the pope about this issue and left.
-She told her husband that she was going to die. He said, 'very well'
-She asked for a priest and confessed to the narrator that she had committed a terrible sin - not fulfilling her conjugal duties.
-Many came to visit her when she was dying, including her would-be robber.
-Her two strong sons were the sons of Don Diego Cienfuesos, a national hero by the time of Clarisa's death.
Latin American Stories
Isabel Allende (1942- )
-Born in Lima, Peru
-Lived in Bolivia, Europe & Middle East
-Father was a diplomant
-Niece of assassinated Chilean president Salvador Allende
-After death of her uncle, her family moved in exile to Caracas, Venezuela
-Worked as a journalist, dramatist and columnist in Venezuela
Clarisa
-An un-venerated saint post-death
-helps with hangovers, problems with the draft and sieges of loneliness
-performs humble miracles, but necessary ones
-had the hands of a healer
"Overcoming the many obstacles that lay in our way, including death, which has put a slight crimp in the ease of our communications"
-Clarisa helped every one, even those who didn't want it.
"Charity had become a two-way street, and you could seldom tell who was giving and who receiving".
-Clarisa married a judge who became a strange hermit because of his disillusionment.
-Clarisa loved music
-She gave birth to an albino retarded girl
-She gave birth to a boy who was also strange
-She was unalterably an optimist
-She was an affectionate mother
-The retarded children caused the judge to become a hermit.
-She was robbed at knifepoint, but gave the robber money and tea. The would-be robber sent her gifts at Christmas until she died.
-She bridged unbridgeable chasms with her determination to help the needy.
-She became pregnant again and gave birth to two healthy boys
-She held that God creates order, "somethings twisted... other things straight; for every virtue there is a sin... every joy an affliction; every evil, a good."
-The two retarded children accidentally killed themselves with gas ("a leaking gas pipe transported them to a better world")
-Her two healthy boys were good humored and had the nature of Clarisa
-She distrusted TV
-She went to see the pope in person because she saw homosexual men dressed as nuns on TV. She confronted the pope about this issue and left.
-She told her husband that she was going to die. He said, 'very well'
-She asked for a priest and confessed to the narrator that she had committed a terrible sin - not fulfilling her conjugal duties.
-Many came to visit her when she was dying, including her would-be robber.
-Her two strong sons were the sons of Don Diego Cienfuesos, a national hero by the time of Clarisa's death.
Notes on Yuko Tsushima
(Originally Written October 30, 2006 in World Lit)
Yuko Tsushima (1947 - )
-Born in Tokyo
-Daughter of a famous literary father, Osamu Dazai
-Yuko was one when Osamu committed suicide
-Does not consider herself part of the feminist movement, but she holds some feminist values and portraits them in her works
-Writes very contemporary stories that mirror ancient folklore
-Won many prizes: Tamura Toshiko prize ('76), Izumi Kyoka prize ('77), Women's Literature Prize ('78), Noma Prize for new writers ('79), Yasunori Kgwabata prize ('83), Yominri Literature prize ('86)
The Silent Traders
Yuko Tsushima
The silent trade was a way the nomadic mountain men would trade with the villagers. The silent trade was known as dumb barter or depot trade. It was a way of trading between people without a common language.
One group would leave a pile of goods by something they would want. Then would signal for group "b" to come and see. Group "b" would take the goods offered if the deal was acceptable, but would walk away if it was not.
Yuko Tsushima (1947 - )
-Born in Tokyo
-Daughter of a famous literary father, Osamu Dazai
-Yuko was one when Osamu committed suicide
-Does not consider herself part of the feminist movement, but she holds some feminist values and portraits them in her works
-Writes very contemporary stories that mirror ancient folklore
-Won many prizes: Tamura Toshiko prize ('76), Izumi Kyoka prize ('77), Women's Literature Prize ('78), Noma Prize for new writers ('79), Yasunori Kgwabata prize ('83), Yominri Literature prize ('86)
The Silent Traders
Yuko Tsushima
The silent trade was a way the nomadic mountain men would trade with the villagers. The silent trade was known as dumb barter or depot trade. It was a way of trading between people without a common language.
One group would leave a pile of goods by something they would want. Then would signal for group "b" to come and see. Group "b" would take the goods offered if the deal was acceptable, but would walk away if it was not.
Ben Stein's voice got inside my head in Logic Class
(Originally written October 30, 2006 in Book 9)
Class Notes
[A logical proof consisting of letters, symbols, numbers, and starred lines]
Oh my goodness! I'm actually excited to be here sitting in Logic class because I actually understand it! Woo Hoo (Ben Stein's voice)!
[A three page Multiple Assumption Propositional Proof that I have no intention of ever rewriting]
Class Notes
[A logical proof consisting of letters, symbols, numbers, and starred lines]
Oh my goodness! I'm actually excited to be here sitting in Logic class because I actually understand it! Woo Hoo (Ben Stein's voice)!
[A three page Multiple Assumption Propositional Proof that I have no intention of ever rewriting]
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Chalmers, end of Ch. 2 & Ch. 3
(Originally written October 29, 2006 in Book 8)
What is this thing called science?
Alan Chalmers
Observable facts, objective but fallible
Observable facts are 'to some degree' fallible. All observable facts are open to revisions.
The basis for scientific knowledge is thus fallible and objective.
"They are objective in so far as they can be publicly tested by straight forward procedures, and they are fallible in so far as they may be undermined by new kinds of tests made possible by advances in science and technology"
Chapter Three - Experiment
Not just feels but relevant facts
Assumption - secure facts can be established by careful use of the senses
Science needs relevant facts, not simply facts
"Which facts are relevant and which are not relevant to a science will be relative to the correct state of development of that science" (Chalmers, 27)
Science asks the question, observation provides the answer.
Experimentation is necessary for scientific observation.
Experimentation is necessary for scientific observation.
Experimentation, not mere observation constitutes the basis for science.
The production and updating of experimental results
Experimental results are not straightforwardly given via the senses. They are recorded through complex processes.
Judgments about the data yielded through experimentation are not straightforward. Experiments are interpreted, thus subject to human elements.
Experimental facts and theory are interrelated and inextricable in many cases.
Experimental results are fallible.
Transforming the experimental base of science: historical examples
Theoretical and technological advances can lead to the debunking of formerly held scientific facts.
Experimental results are always subject to revision and improvement.
Experimental results are required to be:
1) adequate - accurate recordings of what happened
2) appropriate or significant
The acceptability of experimental results is theory-dependent.
Judgments about experimentation are subject to change as scientific understanding increases or develops.
Problems in experimentation are not always due to the human perception element of the process. The entire process of any experiment may be proven to be irrelevant by the development of a technology or theory.
The notion that science rests upon secure foundations is proved to be an absolute falsehood by the fact that experimentation is problematic. The real terrifying part of this is that it does not have anything to do with a faulty interpretation of human perception.
Experiment as an adequate basis for science
Experimental results are not straightforwardly given and are not absolute or completely secure.
Experiment are theory-dependent and subject to revision.
Knowledge based on experiment is thus proportionally fallible and revisable to its experimental basis.
Since theory is borne of experiment and experiment borne of theory, the circularity of science creates even more problems in its claim to a special status with the realm of knowledge.
Chalmers says that we must not criticize science so much to remove its special status. Linehan says that we ought to kick science in its nuts so as to remind it that it is merely one of many avenues to knowledge and not an exalted path either.
What is this thing called science?
Alan Chalmers
Observable facts, objective but fallible
Observable facts are 'to some degree' fallible. All observable facts are open to revisions.
The basis for scientific knowledge is thus fallible and objective.
"They are objective in so far as they can be publicly tested by straight forward procedures, and they are fallible in so far as they may be undermined by new kinds of tests made possible by advances in science and technology"
Chapter Three - Experiment
Not just feels but relevant facts
Assumption - secure facts can be established by careful use of the senses
Science needs relevant facts, not simply facts
"Which facts are relevant and which are not relevant to a science will be relative to the correct state of development of that science" (Chalmers, 27)
Science asks the question, observation provides the answer.
Experimentation is necessary for scientific observation.
Experimentation is necessary for scientific observation.
Experimentation, not mere observation constitutes the basis for science.
The production and updating of experimental results
Experimental results are not straightforwardly given via the senses. They are recorded through complex processes.
Judgments about the data yielded through experimentation are not straightforward. Experiments are interpreted, thus subject to human elements.
Experimental facts and theory are interrelated and inextricable in many cases.
Experimental results are fallible.
Transforming the experimental base of science: historical examples
Theoretical and technological advances can lead to the debunking of formerly held scientific facts.
Experimental results are always subject to revision and improvement.
Experimental results are required to be:
1) adequate - accurate recordings of what happened
2) appropriate or significant
The acceptability of experimental results is theory-dependent.
Judgments about experimentation are subject to change as scientific understanding increases or develops.
Problems in experimentation are not always due to the human perception element of the process. The entire process of any experiment may be proven to be irrelevant by the development of a technology or theory.
The notion that science rests upon secure foundations is proved to be an absolute falsehood by the fact that experimentation is problematic. The real terrifying part of this is that it does not have anything to do with a faulty interpretation of human perception.
Experiment as an adequate basis for science
Experimental results are not straightforwardly given and are not absolute or completely secure.
Experiment are theory-dependent and subject to revision.
Knowledge based on experiment is thus proportionally fallible and revisable to its experimental basis.
Since theory is borne of experiment and experiment borne of theory, the circularity of science creates even more problems in its claim to a special status with the realm of knowledge.
Chalmers says that we must not criticize science so much to remove its special status. Linehan says that we ought to kick science in its nuts so as to remind it that it is merely one of many avenues to knowledge and not an exalted path either.
Objectivity goals
(Originally Written October 29, 2006 in Epistemology)
Objectivity is one of the goals I wish to achieve in my philosophical inquiries. With sociological, psychological, religious and various other factors constantly seeping into my work this proves to be a daunting goal to achieve. Admittedly so, I have certain presuppositions and biases which are so interwoven into the very essence of my being a pure objectivity is almost unachievable. If you scoff at this admission and claim to be better than I and free of this difficulty you are intellectually dishonest. You're lying to yourself and in all honestly, you may only be fooling yourself, not the world.
There is no pure objectivity when human beings are involved. So how can I go about being objective. I follow no paradigm. There are no set rules for me to follow in any given investigation. I have likes and dislikes, but I refuse to become stagnant through sticking to any conventional methodology. I will not be pinned down by a scientific method or a single rational thought experiment. By approaching various investigations with numerous techniques I hope to achieve as much objectivity as is humanly possible.
Objectivity is one of the goals I wish to achieve in my philosophical inquiries. With sociological, psychological, religious and various other factors constantly seeping into my work this proves to be a daunting goal to achieve. Admittedly so, I have certain presuppositions and biases which are so interwoven into the very essence of my being a pure objectivity is almost unachievable. If you scoff at this admission and claim to be better than I and free of this difficulty you are intellectually dishonest. You're lying to yourself and in all honestly, you may only be fooling yourself, not the world.
There is no pure objectivity when human beings are involved. So how can I go about being objective. I follow no paradigm. There are no set rules for me to follow in any given investigation. I have likes and dislikes, but I refuse to become stagnant through sticking to any conventional methodology. I will not be pinned down by a scientific method or a single rational thought experiment. By approaching various investigations with numerous techniques I hope to achieve as much objectivity as is humanly possible.
Introduction to Logic - Ch. 4
(Originally written October 29, 2006 in Book 9)
Introduction to Logic
Harry J. Gensler
Chapter 4: Propositional Proofs
The way to start a proof is to assume the opposite of the conclusion. Then you must attempt to prove a contradiction in the assumption. If a contradiction is found then the argument is valid. If no contradiction is found then the argument is invalid.
More S-Rules and I-Rules...
Introduction to Logic
Harry J. Gensler
Chapter 4: Propositional Proofs
The way to start a proof is to assume the opposite of the conclusion. Then you must attempt to prove a contradiction in the assumption. If a contradiction is found then the argument is valid. If no contradiction is found then the argument is invalid.
More S-Rules and I-Rules...
- A premise is a line consisting of a well formed formula by itself
- An assomption is a line with "asm" in front of it
- A derived step is a line with the "therefore symbol" in front of it
- A formal proof is a vertical sequence of zero or more premises followed by one or more assumptions or derived steps, where each derive step follows from previously unblocked lines by RAA or one of the inference rules, and each assumption is blocked off using RAA
- Two well formed formulas are contradictory if they are exactly alike except that one is negated
- A simple well formed formula is a letter or its negation. All others are complex well formed formulas
[About three pages of logic problems/proofs]
S-Rules, I-Rules and some extended inferences
(Originally written October 29, 2006 in Book 9)
[5 logic problems and answers that may or may not be right]
S-Rules (simplifying)
P·Q --> P, Q
~(P∨Q) --> ~P, ~Q
~(P⊃Q) --> P, ~Q
I-Rules (inferring)
~(P·Q), P --> ~Q
~(P·Q), Q --> ~P
(P∨Q), ~P --> Q
(P∨Q), ~Q --> P
(P⊃Q), P --> Q
(P⊃Q), ~Q --> ~P
[5 more logic problems. Same caveat as above]
Extended inferences
~((C·D)⊃(E⊃F)) --> (C·D), ~(E⊃F)
((X⊃Y)·(F≡R)) --> (X⊃Y), (F≡R)
[5 more logical problems]
[5 logic problems and answers that may or may not be right]
S-Rules (simplifying)
P·Q --> P, Q
~(P∨Q) --> ~P, ~Q
~(P⊃Q) --> P, ~Q
I-Rules (inferring)
~(P·Q), P --> ~Q
~(P·Q), Q --> ~P
(P∨Q), ~P --> Q
(P∨Q), ~Q --> P
(P⊃Q), P --> Q
(P⊃Q), ~Q --> ~P
[5 more logic problems. Same caveat as above]
Extended inferences
~((C·D)⊃(E⊃F)) --> (C·D), ~(E⊃F)
((X⊃Y)·(F≡R)) --> (X⊃Y), (F≡R)
[5 more logical problems]
Saturday, October 28, 2006
What is this thing called science? Ch. 4 (A)
(Originally written October 28, 2006 in Book 8)
What is this thing called Science?
Alan Chalmers
Ch. 4 - Deriving theories from the facts: induction
Introduction
How can scientific knowledge be derived from the facts established (if they can be established by science) by science?
If we take "science is derived from the facts" in a logical and not a temporal sense we can call science: theories derived logically from the facts. (But this strong claim cannot be substantiated.
Baby Logic
Logic is basically concerned with deriving a conclusion from premises.
Valid logical argument:
All A is B
t is A
Therefore, t is B.
Logical validity means that a conclusion is derived from the premises.
Logical deduction does not establish any bit of truth or falsity, even if the argument is valid.
Valid does not equal truth. Invalid does not equal false.
Logic alone is not the source of new truths.
Can Scientific laws be derived from the facts?
Scientific knowledge cannot be derived from the facts if derivation is taken as logical deduction.
Deductive arguments cannot establish scientific laws.
Any number of observed facts cannot create a universal fact through deduction.
Inductive arguments, as opposed to deductive arguments however, can produce scientific laws.
What constitutes a good inductive argument?
Derivation in the statement "science is derived from the facts" must be understood in an inductive sense.
Not all generalization from observable facts warrant an inductive qualification.
If an inductive inference from observable facts to laws is to be justified then some conditions must be satisfied:
1. The number of observations forming any generalization must be large
2. The observations must be repeated under a wide variety of conditions.
3. No accepted observation should conflict with the derived law.
A good inductive argument does not jump to conclusions.
The principle of induction:
"If a large number of A's have been observed under a wide variety of conditions, and if all those A's without exception posses the property B, then all A's have the property B" (Chalmers, 47).
The vagueness of the word "large" is problematic for induction.
What is a variety of conditions? The ambiguity of the second condition of a good inductive argument is problematic.
Inductive arguments also pose an infinite regress problem. If knowledge is based on inductive arguments then those inductive arguments are based on other inductive arguments, etc., etc., etc.
No exceptions (condition 3) is also problematic because there is rarely ever a complete lack of anomalies.
Further problems with inductivism
Inductivism is the school of thought that holds scientific knowledge is derived from observable facts through some form of inductive derivation.
It is not clear what exactly induction entails because of the ambiguity of its criteria.
Science refers to many things that are unobservable (i.e. DNA, electrons, protons, etc.)
If induction is deriving something from observable facts, how can inductivism say anything about unobservable things?
True inductivists would have to reject much of contemporary science if they strictly adhered to the inductivist handbook.
Inductivism faces the problem of induction. How is the principle of induction itself to be justified?
1. Logic?
2. Experience?
Logic is wholly inadequate for inductivism. Inductive inferences are not (by design) subject to deductive logical rules. Hence, inductivism cannot be justified by logic.
If inductivism is to be justified by experience the argument would be as follows:
1. Induction worked in case "X"
2. Induction worked in case "Y"
3. Induction worked in case "Z"
4,5,6...
Therefore, Induction always works.
This is also unacceptable. Inductivism cannot find its justification in logic or experience.
The attempt to justify induction via experience involves assuming what one is trying to prove.
What is this thing called Science?
Alan Chalmers
Ch. 4 - Deriving theories from the facts: induction
Introduction
How can scientific knowledge be derived from the facts established (if they can be established by science) by science?
If we take "science is derived from the facts" in a logical and not a temporal sense we can call science: theories derived logically from the facts. (But this strong claim cannot be substantiated.
Baby Logic
Logic is basically concerned with deriving a conclusion from premises.
Valid logical argument:
All A is B
t is A
Therefore, t is B.
Logical validity means that a conclusion is derived from the premises.
Logical deduction does not establish any bit of truth or falsity, even if the argument is valid.
Valid does not equal truth. Invalid does not equal false.
Logic alone is not the source of new truths.
Can Scientific laws be derived from the facts?
Scientific knowledge cannot be derived from the facts if derivation is taken as logical deduction.
Deductive arguments cannot establish scientific laws.
Any number of observed facts cannot create a universal fact through deduction.
Inductive arguments, as opposed to deductive arguments however, can produce scientific laws.
What constitutes a good inductive argument?
Derivation in the statement "science is derived from the facts" must be understood in an inductive sense.
Not all generalization from observable facts warrant an inductive qualification.
If an inductive inference from observable facts to laws is to be justified then some conditions must be satisfied:
1. The number of observations forming any generalization must be large
2. The observations must be repeated under a wide variety of conditions.
3. No accepted observation should conflict with the derived law.
A good inductive argument does not jump to conclusions.
The principle of induction:
"If a large number of A's have been observed under a wide variety of conditions, and if all those A's without exception posses the property B, then all A's have the property B" (Chalmers, 47).
The vagueness of the word "large" is problematic for induction.
What is a variety of conditions? The ambiguity of the second condition of a good inductive argument is problematic.
Inductive arguments also pose an infinite regress problem. If knowledge is based on inductive arguments then those inductive arguments are based on other inductive arguments, etc., etc., etc.
No exceptions (condition 3) is also problematic because there is rarely ever a complete lack of anomalies.
Further problems with inductivism
Inductivism is the school of thought that holds scientific knowledge is derived from observable facts through some form of inductive derivation.
It is not clear what exactly induction entails because of the ambiguity of its criteria.
Science refers to many things that are unobservable (i.e. DNA, electrons, protons, etc.)
If induction is deriving something from observable facts, how can inductivism say anything about unobservable things?
True inductivists would have to reject much of contemporary science if they strictly adhered to the inductivist handbook.
Inductivism faces the problem of induction. How is the principle of induction itself to be justified?
1. Logic?
2. Experience?
Logic is wholly inadequate for inductivism. Inductive inferences are not (by design) subject to deductive logical rules. Hence, inductivism cannot be justified by logic.
If inductivism is to be justified by experience the argument would be as follows:
1. Induction worked in case "X"
2. Induction worked in case "Y"
3. Induction worked in case "Z"
4,5,6...
Therefore, Induction always works.
This is also unacceptable. Inductivism cannot find its justification in logic or experience.
The attempt to justify induction via experience involves assuming what one is trying to prove.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Thomas Kuhn
(Originally Written October 27, 2006 in Epistemology)
Thomas Kuhn
Paradigm:
1. Pre-science
2. Normal Science
3. Anomaly
4. Crisis
5. Revolution
Paradigm incommensurability theory
Science proceeds by paradigm shifts, not simple accumulation of data
Paradigm - the theoretical assumptions, laws, techniques, principles, etc, which are assumed by a given community
Paradigms are understood in two senses:
1. Disciplinary matrix - general sense of the term
2. Exemplars - problem solving techniques
Pre-science - inquiry without a guiding paradigm
Normal science - experimentation and theorizing done in service of a paradigm
Anomaly - Theoretical puzzle or unanswered question
Crisis - various anomalies causing unrest in a given paradigm
Revolution - a sudden, human driven paradigm shift
Paradigm incommensurability - paradigms cannot be evaluated by a single standard
Thomas Kuhn
Paradigm:
1. Pre-science
2. Normal Science
3. Anomaly
4. Crisis
5. Revolution
Paradigm incommensurability theory
Science proceeds by paradigm shifts, not simple accumulation of data
Paradigm - the theoretical assumptions, laws, techniques, principles, etc, which are assumed by a given community
Paradigms are understood in two senses:
1. Disciplinary matrix - general sense of the term
2. Exemplars - problem solving techniques
Pre-science - inquiry without a guiding paradigm
Normal science - experimentation and theorizing done in service of a paradigm
Anomaly - Theoretical puzzle or unanswered question
Crisis - various anomalies causing unrest in a given paradigm
Revolution - a sudden, human driven paradigm shift
Paradigm incommensurability - paradigms cannot be evaluated by a single standard
Elephant Tyranny
(Originally written October 27, 2006 in Book 9)
Introduction to Logic
Harry J. Gensler
S-Rules pg. 61
~(I∨~V) = ~I, V
(~O∨~X) = No Conclusion
(F⊃~G) = No Conclusion
~(F⊃M) = F, ~M
(~D·~Z) = ~D, ~Z
(~K∨B) = No Conclusion
I-Rules
~(P·Q)
P
Therefore, ~Q
~(P·Q)
Q
Therefore, ~P
(P∨Q)
~Q
Therefore, Q
(P∨Q)
~Q
Therefore, P
(P⊃Q)
P
Therefore, Q
(P⊃Q)
~Q
Therefore, ~P
Class Notes (RAA Proofs)
[Editor's note: There are a whole lot of letters and symbols that I simply don't feel like typing. They made little sense to me in 2006 and even less in 2017. The gibberish goes on for two and a half pages until the heading "Trees Method". Under this heading I wrote (A⊃B), (B⊃C), ~(A⊃C) and drew a picture. Here is that picture and hence, the title of this particular post.]
Introduction to Logic
Harry J. Gensler
S-Rules pg. 61
~(I∨~V) = ~I, V
(~O∨~X) = No Conclusion
(F⊃~G) = No Conclusion
~(F⊃M) = F, ~M
(~D·~Z) = ~D, ~Z
(~K∨B) = No Conclusion
I-Rules
~(P·Q)
P
Therefore, ~Q
~(P·Q)
Q
Therefore, ~P
(P∨Q)
~Q
Therefore, Q
(P∨Q)
~Q
Therefore, P
(P⊃Q)
P
Therefore, Q
(P⊃Q)
~Q
Therefore, ~P
Class Notes (RAA Proofs)
[Editor's note: There are a whole lot of letters and symbols that I simply don't feel like typing. They made little sense to me in 2006 and even less in 2017. The gibberish goes on for two and a half pages until the heading "Trees Method". Under this heading I wrote (A⊃B), (B⊃C), ~(A⊃C) and drew a picture. Here is that picture and hence, the title of this particular post.]
Thursday, October 26, 2006
What is this thing called science? Ch. 2
(Originally Written October 26, 2006 in Book 8)
[Observations passive and private or active and public]
Many philosophers view observation as passive and private. It is passive because we open our eyes and direct them to a certain spot and simply let the info flow in. If perceptions were truly like this, then it is overtly private.
The view of perception/observation as private and passive is totally inadequate. Perception is both consciously and subconsciously an active affair.
Perceptions are also public because they are shared by statements and then checked by other people.
[Galileo and the moons of Jupiter]
Galileo discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter. Opponents of heliocentricism argued that if the earth rotated around the sun then the moon would be left behind. But, if Jupiter, (which obviously revolved around something, earth or the sun or anything else) and had moons this would cause heliocentric objections on the account of the moon to collapse. In order to prove that these moons really did revolve around Jupiter, Galileo made observational procedures for Copernicus advocates to follow. They all followed and a majority of advocates and opponents validated Galileo's findings. This observational procedure was obviously public and active, rather than passive and private.
[Observable facts objective, but fallible]
[Observations passive and private or active and public]
Many philosophers view observation as passive and private. It is passive because we open our eyes and direct them to a certain spot and simply let the info flow in. If perceptions were truly like this, then it is overtly private.
The view of perception/observation as private and passive is totally inadequate. Perception is both consciously and subconsciously an active affair.
Perceptions are also public because they are shared by statements and then checked by other people.
[Galileo and the moons of Jupiter]
Galileo discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter. Opponents of heliocentricism argued that if the earth rotated around the sun then the moon would be left behind. But, if Jupiter, (which obviously revolved around something, earth or the sun or anything else) and had moons this would cause heliocentric objections on the account of the moon to collapse. In order to prove that these moons really did revolve around Jupiter, Galileo made observational procedures for Copernicus advocates to follow. They all followed and a majority of advocates and opponents validated Galileo's findings. This observational procedure was obviously public and active, rather than passive and private.
[Observable facts objective, but fallible]
Simple Truth Tables and some Harder Translations
(Originally written October 26, 2006 in Book 9)
Introduction to Logic
Harry J. Gensler
Simple Truth Tables (pg. 38)
Married in nine days! Stress, excitement, exhaustion. My studies have been suffering immensely; I hope to catch up a bit today though.
There are two possible truth values:
True
False
True is represented by '1'.
False is represented by '0'.
A truth table is a logical diagram for a Well-Formed Formula (WFF).
I went to Paris and Quebec = (P · Q)
P Q = (P · Q)
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 0 0
1 1 1
(P · Q) can only be true when both 'P' and 'Q' are true, as represented by the '1'.
A conjunction ("·") claims that both are true.
A disjunction claims that at least one is true. ("∨")
An inclusive disjunction = (P∨Q), meaning that at least one is true; but, both can be true.
An exclusive disjunction = (P∨Q)·~(P·Q), meaning that P or Q is true, but not both P and Q are true.
Inclusive Disjunction Truth Table
P Q = (P∨Q)
0 0 0
0 1 1
1 0 1
1 1 1
Exclusive Disjunction
P Q (P∨Q) = (P∨Q)·~(P·Q)
0 0 0 0
0 1 1 1
1 0 1 1
1 1 1 0
[There are many more truth tables confirming various propositional logic well formed formulas. I'll simply type the type of propositional well-formed formula and omit the truth table from here on out]
If-then statements are called a conditional.
If P then Q
P- the antecedent
Q- the consequent
The antecedent does not need to be true for the consequent to be true.
≡ is a biconditional.
[5 pages of truth values and truth tables omitted]
Contingent statements are true in some cases and false in others.
A tautology is true in all cases.
A self-contradiction ( P and not-P) is never true.
[1.5 pages of truth tables omitted]
The Truth Table Test (pg. 46)
The truth table test tests the validity of an argument. The argument is valid if and only if no line has all true premises and a false conclusion.
The Truth Assignment Test
PAY ATTENTION! This is why I failed the Logic Test!
"Take a propositional argument. Set each premise to 1 and the conclusion to 0. The argument is Valid if and only if no consistent way of assigning 1 and 0 to the letters will make this work - so we can't make the premises all true and conclusion false" (Gensler, 50).
[...more truth tests]
So the premises are true and the conclusion is false; thus, the argument is invalid.
[...even more truth tests]
The argument is invalid because of a true premise and a false conclusion.
Linehan - I think I get it! :)
[... yet more truth tests, 11.5 pages]
Harder Translations:
Introduction to Logic
Harry J. Gensler
Simple Truth Tables (pg. 38)
Married in nine days! Stress, excitement, exhaustion. My studies have been suffering immensely; I hope to catch up a bit today though.
There are two possible truth values:
True
False
True is represented by '1'.
False is represented by '0'.
A truth table is a logical diagram for a Well-Formed Formula (WFF).
I went to Paris and Quebec = (P · Q)
P Q = (P · Q)
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 0 0
1 1 1
(P · Q) can only be true when both 'P' and 'Q' are true, as represented by the '1'.
A conjunction ("·") claims that both are true.
A disjunction claims that at least one is true. ("∨")
An inclusive disjunction = (P∨Q), meaning that at least one is true; but, both can be true.
An exclusive disjunction = (P∨Q)·~(P·Q), meaning that P or Q is true, but not both P and Q are true.
Inclusive Disjunction Truth Table
P Q = (P∨Q)
0 0 0
0 1 1
1 0 1
1 1 1
Exclusive Disjunction
P Q (P∨Q) = (P∨Q)·~(P·Q)
0 0 0 0
0 1 1 1
1 0 1 1
1 1 1 0
[There are many more truth tables confirming various propositional logic well formed formulas. I'll simply type the type of propositional well-formed formula and omit the truth table from here on out]
If-then statements are called a conditional.
If P then Q
P- the antecedent
Q- the consequent
The antecedent does not need to be true for the consequent to be true.
≡ is a biconditional.
[5 pages of truth values and truth tables omitted]
Contingent statements are true in some cases and false in others.
A tautology is true in all cases.
A self-contradiction ( P and not-P) is never true.
[1.5 pages of truth tables omitted]
The Truth Table Test (pg. 46)
The truth table test tests the validity of an argument. The argument is valid if and only if no line has all true premises and a false conclusion.
The Truth Assignment Test
PAY ATTENTION! This is why I failed the Logic Test!
"Take a propositional argument. Set each premise to 1 and the conclusion to 0. The argument is Valid if and only if no consistent way of assigning 1 and 0 to the letters will make this work - so we can't make the premises all true and conclusion false" (Gensler, 50).
[...more truth tests]
So the premises are true and the conclusion is false; thus, the argument is invalid.
[...even more truth tests]
The argument is invalid because of a true premise and a false conclusion.
Linehan - I think I get it! :)
[... yet more truth tests, 11.5 pages]
Harder Translations:
- Translate "yet", "however", "although" into "and" (·)
- Translate "unless" into "or" (∨)
- Translate "just if" into "iff" (if and only if) (≡)
- Translate "only if" into "if...then" (⊃)
- A is sufficient for B = If A then B
- A is necessary for B = If not-A then not-B
- A is necessary and sufficient for B = A if and only if B
[half a page of symbols and letters representing some answers to some questions from somewhere]
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Introduction to Logic - Ch. 3
(Originally written October 24, 2006 in Book 9)
Well. I did very poorly on my first logic test and I am flunking this class right now. I need to hit this harder and get it. Let's go. Ok, the biggest problem was the Truth-assignment test of basic propositional logic so I'm going to start just prior to that. Let's go back to the beginning of Chapter 3.
Introduction to Logic
Harry J. Gensler
Propositional logic is composed of arguments whose validity is based on 'if-then', 'and', 'or' and 'not' notions.
[The rest of this entry is my notes on how to write in propositional logic language. It's rather dry stuff and I didn't include any pithy anecdotes or self-criticizism]
Well. I did very poorly on my first logic test and I am flunking this class right now. I need to hit this harder and get it. Let's go. Ok, the biggest problem was the Truth-assignment test of basic propositional logic so I'm going to start just prior to that. Let's go back to the beginning of Chapter 3.
Introduction to Logic
Harry J. Gensler
Propositional logic is composed of arguments whose validity is based on 'if-then', 'and', 'or' and 'not' notions.
[The rest of this entry is my notes on how to write in propositional logic language. It's rather dry stuff and I didn't include any pithy anecdotes or self-criticizism]
Aristotle, Epicurus & The Stoics
(Originally Written October 24, 2006 in History I)
Aristotle's Politics
Classifications of Government:
1. Kingship/Monarchy (right form) v. Tyranny (deviant form)
2. Aristocracy (right form) v. Oligarchy (deviant form)
3. Polity (right form) v. Mob rule (deviant form)
Criticism of monarchy
- Individuals are more corruptible than groups
- Problems of succession
The polity is the best form of government because:
- It is most just
- Its deviant form is the least worst of the three
Epicurus
341-270 BC
-Born in Samos
-Founded a school in Athens (The Epicureans)
Physics: Atomism (Atoms & The Void)
Added the concept of swerve to account for freedom
Freedom of the Will:
1. Hard determinism - universal causation and no freedom
2. Libertarianism/Indeterminism - Denies universal causation and affirms freedom
3. Compatibilism/Soft Determinism - combines universal causation & freedom
Metaphysics
1. Materialism
2. The 'gods'
3. No belief in afterlife
- But death is not to be feared because:
A) death brings end to pain
B) death is never experienced
Ethics: Hedonism
Two kinds of hedonism:
1. Psychological hedonism - all people in fact seek pleasure
2. Ethical hedonism - all people should always seek pleasure
Distinction between desires
-Should we satisfy every desire?
1. Natural desires
- merely natural (sex, good reputations, etc.)
- Necessary natural must be satisfied for life itself and for the blessed life
2. Groundless desires
-exotic foods, flashy clothes, vain and idle luxuries
3. Profligacy
-Epicurus condemns over-indulgence
4. Virtue
-Necessary for the blessed life
-prudence is the greatest virtue
Stoicism
Founded by Zeno (346-264 BC)
Famous Stoics include Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius.
Stoic Epistemology:
1. Empiricism - all knowledge via sense perception
2. Nominalism - all knowledge is particular, there is no universal
Stoic Physics & Metaphysics
1. Monism
2. Mutation (flux)
3. Deterministic
Aristotle's Politics
Classifications of Government:
1. Kingship/Monarchy (right form) v. Tyranny (deviant form)
2. Aristocracy (right form) v. Oligarchy (deviant form)
3. Polity (right form) v. Mob rule (deviant form)
Criticism of monarchy
- Individuals are more corruptible than groups
- Problems of succession
The polity is the best form of government because:
- It is most just
- Its deviant form is the least worst of the three
Epicurus
341-270 BC
-Born in Samos
-Founded a school in Athens (The Epicureans)
Physics: Atomism (Atoms & The Void)
Added the concept of swerve to account for freedom
Freedom of the Will:
1. Hard determinism - universal causation and no freedom
2. Libertarianism/Indeterminism - Denies universal causation and affirms freedom
3. Compatibilism/Soft Determinism - combines universal causation & freedom
Metaphysics
1. Materialism
2. The 'gods'
3. No belief in afterlife
- But death is not to be feared because:
A) death brings end to pain
B) death is never experienced
Ethics: Hedonism
Two kinds of hedonism:
1. Psychological hedonism - all people in fact seek pleasure
2. Ethical hedonism - all people should always seek pleasure
Distinction between desires
-Should we satisfy every desire?
1. Natural desires
- merely natural (sex, good reputations, etc.)
- Necessary natural must be satisfied for life itself and for the blessed life
2. Groundless desires
-exotic foods, flashy clothes, vain and idle luxuries
3. Profligacy
-Epicurus condemns over-indulgence
4. Virtue
-Necessary for the blessed life
-prudence is the greatest virtue
Stoicism
Founded by Zeno (346-264 BC)
Famous Stoics include Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius.
Stoic Epistemology:
1. Empiricism - all knowledge via sense perception
2. Nominalism - all knowledge is particular, there is no universal
Stoic Physics & Metaphysics
1. Monism
2. Mutation (flux)
3. Deterministic
Monday, October 23, 2006
Class Notes on Popper
(Originally written October 23, 2006 in Book 8)
Wow, nothing got done on the Bachelor Party day. It was a good day with a horrifying ending, but then my knightess in shining armor saved me and sang me to sleep.
Class Notes
Falsificationism (Popper)
Sophisticated Falsificationism
There is a bit of relativity in this, not found in naive forms of falsificationism.
1. Relativity of falsifiability
2. Ad Hoc Modifications - a modification of a theory which has no testable consequences that aren't also consequences of the unmodified theory
3. Verification in the falsificationist model
-Un-falsified bold conjectures/novel predictions
-falsification of cautious conjectures
Examples of Ad Hoc Modifications
1. Sphericity of the moon - Aristotelians vs. Copernicans (Aristotelians held that the craters on the moon were filled with clear jelly)
2. Phlogiston
3. Punctuated Equilibrium (Darwinism)
Limits of falsificationism
1. Theory dependence of observation - no absolute objectivity in science
2. Falsifications are fallible
3. Falsificationism is not recommended by the history of Science
Wow, nothing got done on the Bachelor Party day. It was a good day with a horrifying ending, but then my knightess in shining armor saved me and sang me to sleep.
Class Notes
Falsificationism (Popper)
Sophisticated Falsificationism
There is a bit of relativity in this, not found in naive forms of falsificationism.
1. Relativity of falsifiability
2. Ad Hoc Modifications - a modification of a theory which has no testable consequences that aren't also consequences of the unmodified theory
3. Verification in the falsificationist model
-Un-falsified bold conjectures/novel predictions
-falsification of cautious conjectures
Examples of Ad Hoc Modifications
1. Sphericity of the moon - Aristotelians vs. Copernicans (Aristotelians held that the craters on the moon were filled with clear jelly)
2. Phlogiston
3. Punctuated Equilibrium (Darwinism)
Limits of falsificationism
1. Theory dependence of observation - no absolute objectivity in science
2. Falsifications are fallible
3. Falsificationism is not recommended by the history of Science
Saturday, October 21, 2006
More notes on Chalmers, Ch. 2
(Originally written October 21, 2006 in Book 8)
The Bachelor Party Day
Chalmers - What is this thing called science?
[Observable facts, objective but fallible]
When observable facts are established through fallible sense (i.e. sight) we must admit that objective facts have a degree of incertitude and can be open to revision/correction.
The Bachelor Party Day
Chalmers - What is this thing called science?
[Observable facts, objective but fallible]
When observable facts are established through fallible sense (i.e. sight) we must admit that objective facts have a degree of incertitude and can be open to revision/correction.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Aristotle & Akrasia
(Originally Written October 17, 2006 in History I)
Book VII - Moral Weakness
Akrasia - "incontinence", moral weakness
When a person does what s/he believes is wrong.
How is this possible?
Socrates: To know the good is to do it.
Aristotle disagrees.
Aristotle: The morally weak person is temporarily ignorant - the appetite overcomes one's rational faculties.
Moral weakness is not self-indulgence. There is no remorse in self-indulgence.
Is man, from an Aristotelian view innately morally strong, morally weak or self-indulgent?
What about from a Christian view?
Book VIII - Friendships
Three kinds of friendships:
1) Utility - each likes the other for some benefit supplied
2) Pleasure - each likes the other for some amusement, pleasure or activity
3) virtue - "perfect friendship" based on the bond of goodness
Virtue: What is it?
Book X - Happiness
Eudamonia - well being
-Not mere amusement
-The contemplative life
The Divine Life Consists of:
-Not activity to achieve ends
-Contemplation (But what object?)
-Nothing? No, that would be idle
-Other things? No, that would be unworthy?
-Himself? Yes, God is a thinking of thinking
Aristotle's argument for the existence of God from motion:
There is motion
What causes motion?
Infinite regress of causes/movers (no, that is impossible)
Therefore, the unmoved mover must cause motion.
The unmoved mover is Theos/God, a pure actuality
Book VII - Moral Weakness
Akrasia - "incontinence", moral weakness
When a person does what s/he believes is wrong.
How is this possible?
Socrates: To know the good is to do it.
Aristotle disagrees.
Aristotle: The morally weak person is temporarily ignorant - the appetite overcomes one's rational faculties.
Moral weakness is not self-indulgence. There is no remorse in self-indulgence.
Is man, from an Aristotelian view innately morally strong, morally weak or self-indulgent?
What about from a Christian view?
Book VIII - Friendships
Three kinds of friendships:
1) Utility - each likes the other for some benefit supplied
2) Pleasure - each likes the other for some amusement, pleasure or activity
3) virtue - "perfect friendship" based on the bond of goodness
Virtue: What is it?
Book X - Happiness
Eudamonia - well being
-Not mere amusement
-The contemplative life
The Divine Life Consists of:
-Not activity to achieve ends
-Contemplation (But what object?)
-Nothing? No, that would be idle
-Other things? No, that would be unworthy?
-Himself? Yes, God is a thinking of thinking
Aristotle's argument for the existence of God from motion:
There is motion
What causes motion?
Infinite regress of causes/movers (no, that is impossible)
Therefore, the unmoved mover must cause motion.
The unmoved mover is Theos/God, a pure actuality
Monday, October 16, 2006
Things I need to write on
(Originally written October 16, 2006 in Book 8)
Class Notes: 10/16/06
Hume's Critique of Induction:
Two kinds of knowledge:
1. Relations of ideas
2. Matters of fact
Where does the concept of uniformity of nature lie? Where do the laws of nature fall: matter of fact or relations of ideas?
The uniformity of nature is that the future will resemble the past. Hume calls it a psychological habit.
Attempted Solutions to Hume's problems of induction:
1. Kantian approach - inductive inferences are grounded in a priori concepts.
2. Will's approach
Past futures resemble past pasts.
Therefore, Future futures will resemble past futures and past pasts.
3. Reichenbach's Pragmatic Solution
(if anything works, induction will)
example - Crystal Gazing
Things we cannot conclusively argue for:
-Causality
-General Reliability of sensory perception
-Uniformity of nature
-Laws of logic
-Other minds
-Thoughts reflect reality
-The existence of God
- Spiegel
Things we cannot conclusively argue for:
-General reliability of sensory reception
-Laws of logic except for the identity Law
-Linehan
"Things I need to Write On"
1. Causality exists in its own right. First Cause is God.
2. If First Cause is God, God Exists
3. Uniformity of nature: IF God exists and sustaining nature in uniform in that it is conforming to the will of God.
4. If God is, He is, thus, the Law of Identity is proved.
5. Other minds (same argument as point 3
6. Existence of God, slow development of the existence of god to God
Class Notes: 10/16/06
Hume's Critique of Induction:
Two kinds of knowledge:
1. Relations of ideas
2. Matters of fact
Where does the concept of uniformity of nature lie? Where do the laws of nature fall: matter of fact or relations of ideas?
The uniformity of nature is that the future will resemble the past. Hume calls it a psychological habit.
Attempted Solutions to Hume's problems of induction:
1. Kantian approach - inductive inferences are grounded in a priori concepts.
2. Will's approach
Past futures resemble past pasts.
Therefore, Future futures will resemble past futures and past pasts.
3. Reichenbach's Pragmatic Solution
(if anything works, induction will)
example - Crystal Gazing
Things we cannot conclusively argue for:
-Causality
-General Reliability of sensory perception
-Uniformity of nature
-Laws of logic
-Other minds
-Thoughts reflect reality
-The existence of God
- Spiegel
Things we cannot conclusively argue for:
-General reliability of sensory reception
-Laws of logic except for the identity Law
-Linehan
"Things I need to Write On"
1. Causality exists in its own right. First Cause is God.
2. If First Cause is God, God Exists
3. Uniformity of nature: IF God exists and sustaining nature in uniform in that it is conforming to the will of God.
4. If God is, He is, thus, the Law of Identity is proved.
5. Other minds (same argument as point 3
6. Existence of God, slow development of the existence of god to God
Sunday, October 15, 2006
What is this thing called science? Ch. 1
(Originally written October 15, 2006 in Book 8)
A.F. Chalmers
What is this thing called Science?
3rd Edition
"Like all young men I set out to be a genius, but mercifully laughter intervened."
-Clea Lawerence Durrell
Chapter 1 - Science as Knowledge derived from the facts of experience
(A widely held common sense view of science)
-Science is derived from the facts
-Science is special because it is based on facts
-It is unprejudiced sensory data
-Based on empirical data, not personal opinions
-Science is secure
-Science is objective
-J.J. Davies - "science is a structure built upon facts" (Chalmers, 1)
-H.D. Anthony claims it was as much Galileo's attitude as his experiments that uprooted tradition
-We must accept the facts first, then form theories of everything
-Modern scientists claim the birth of science as knowledge occurred in the 17th century. Prior to this everything was seen through Biblical and/or Aristotelian eyes
-Two groups have attempted to formalize the common view of science:
1. The Empiricists
2. The positivists
Empiricists (17th & 18th Century) Locke, Berkeley, Hume
Logical Positivists (Early 20th century) Followers of Auguste Comte
Both Empiricists and Logical positivists share the belief that scientific knowledge ought to be derived from observational facts.
Two distinct issues in the claim that science is derived from the facts:
1. The nature of the facts and how scientists are meant to have access to them
2. The laws and theories that constitute our knowledge and how they are derived for the obtained facts.
There are three components of the facts assumed to be the basis of common view of science:
"1. Facts are directly given to careful, unprejudiced observers via the senses.
2. Facts are prior and independent of theory.
3. Facts constitute a firm and reliable foundation for scientific knowledge" (Chalmers, 4).
At this point I must admit a prejudice against science. I do not feel swayed by its authority and am consciously or subconsciously looking for ammo to slay the dragon of science.
[Seeing is believing]
-Humans see with their eyes
-The lens and retina are the most important components of the eye
-The eye functions like a camera
-Optic nerves then carry the image to the cerebral cortex
-The brain's recording of data is what produces the culmination of sight
Empiricists use this account of sight in their scientific basis for two reasons:
1. A human observer has more or less direct access to facts
2. Two normal observers will see the same thing when observing the same object
[Visual experiences not determined solely by the object viewed]
Empiricists and common sense scientists hold that all we must do is observe the world and we thus obtain unprejudiced facts.
If this were true than visual experiences would be the basis for facts, but here is strong evidence that simply seeing an object is not the only factor in forming a mental picture and thus obtaining factual datum.
"Two normal observers viewing the same object from the same place under the same physical circumstances do not necessarily have identical visual experiences, even though the images on their respective retinas may be virtually identical" (Chalmers, 5).
The perceptual experiences of the past affect a person's current perceptual experience. Memory shapes vision.
If a face is hidden in a drawing of a tree the observer will see the tree and then upon further inspection will see the face. But, once the face has been seen the tree branches and leaves conform in our mind to the face. The visual data received by our eyeballs do not change, only our conception of the image. The raw data received by our observation cannot be the only basis for observation. Other factors play a part in our seeing the face versus seeing the tree.
Experienced observers of particular objects will see different things than novice observers when looking at the same object.
The common argument against this is that the people see the same thing, but interpret it differently.
But if they argue this than they are self-defeating. They claim that the physical act of sight is all that is needed for fact, but if interpretation is involved in the perception process than the physical act of seeing is not all that composes sight.
Chalmers claims that he is not:
1. Claiming physical images have nothing to do with sight.
2. People are incapable of seeing basically the same thing.
[Observable facts expressed as statements]
Linguistically, the word "fact" is very, very ambiguous.
I hate ambiguity!!! AAH!
Fact can refer to either a statement about "X" or it can refer to the actual state of affairs involving "X"
Scientific knowledge is supposedly based on the circumstances and not the statements.
"For those who wish to claim that knowledge is derived from the facts, they must have statements in mind, and neither perceptions nor objects like mountains and craters" (Chalmers, 10).
Factual statements, if they are based on factual observations as science claims, it still stands that the factual statements made are not derived through a direct experience with the sensory data. Therefore, to claim that science is special because it comes directly from observation is absurd.
Knowledge in a conceptual sense is required prior to making strong observational (factual) statements about observational experiences. Thus the notion that observation precedes knowledge is mistaken. At the very least a concept must be understood prior to knowledgable statements being uttered about a specific observation.
"The recording of observable facts requires more than the reception of the stimuli in the form of light rays that impinge on the eye. It requires the knowledge of the appropriate conceptual scheme and how to apply it. Statements of fact are not determined in a straightforward way by sensual stimuli and observations statements presuppose knowledge, so it cannot be the case that we first establish the facts and then derive our knowledge from them" (Chalmers, 12)
[Why should facts precede theory?]
It would be ridiculous to attempt to go and search for facts without first forming a theory and techniques. If we did this we would not have the slightest of clues where to even begin observation. Thus, theory must precede facts.
The truth or falsity of observational statements can be judged via observation and tested by theory and thus serve as scientific knowledge.
[The fallibility of observational statements]
Observational statements, even if they are factual, must be allowed to be fallible because observation is not always 100% reliable.
Observational facts and thus the scientific knowledge derived from them must be admitted to be fallible and subject to correction via improved scientific theories, methods or "facts".
"Science is derived from the facts" is the slogan that exalts science. Bust as we have seen, there are problems with derivation and the facts themselves.
Perceptions are always exposed to the background and expectations of the perceiver. This can destroy any notion of non-prejudicial observation.
A.F. Chalmers
What is this thing called Science?
3rd Edition
"Like all young men I set out to be a genius, but mercifully laughter intervened."
-Clea Lawerence Durrell
Chapter 1 - Science as Knowledge derived from the facts of experience
(A widely held common sense view of science)
-Science is derived from the facts
-Science is special because it is based on facts
-It is unprejudiced sensory data
-Based on empirical data, not personal opinions
-Science is secure
-Science is objective
-J.J. Davies - "science is a structure built upon facts" (Chalmers, 1)
-H.D. Anthony claims it was as much Galileo's attitude as his experiments that uprooted tradition
-We must accept the facts first, then form theories of everything
-Modern scientists claim the birth of science as knowledge occurred in the 17th century. Prior to this everything was seen through Biblical and/or Aristotelian eyes
-Two groups have attempted to formalize the common view of science:
1. The Empiricists
2. The positivists
Empiricists (17th & 18th Century) Locke, Berkeley, Hume
Logical Positivists (Early 20th century) Followers of Auguste Comte
Both Empiricists and Logical positivists share the belief that scientific knowledge ought to be derived from observational facts.
Two distinct issues in the claim that science is derived from the facts:
1. The nature of the facts and how scientists are meant to have access to them
2. The laws and theories that constitute our knowledge and how they are derived for the obtained facts.
There are three components of the facts assumed to be the basis of common view of science:
"1. Facts are directly given to careful, unprejudiced observers via the senses.
2. Facts are prior and independent of theory.
3. Facts constitute a firm and reliable foundation for scientific knowledge" (Chalmers, 4).
At this point I must admit a prejudice against science. I do not feel swayed by its authority and am consciously or subconsciously looking for ammo to slay the dragon of science.
[Seeing is believing]
-Humans see with their eyes
-The lens and retina are the most important components of the eye
-The eye functions like a camera
-Optic nerves then carry the image to the cerebral cortex
-The brain's recording of data is what produces the culmination of sight
Empiricists use this account of sight in their scientific basis for two reasons:
1. A human observer has more or less direct access to facts
2. Two normal observers will see the same thing when observing the same object
[Visual experiences not determined solely by the object viewed]
Empiricists and common sense scientists hold that all we must do is observe the world and we thus obtain unprejudiced facts.
If this were true than visual experiences would be the basis for facts, but here is strong evidence that simply seeing an object is not the only factor in forming a mental picture and thus obtaining factual datum.
"Two normal observers viewing the same object from the same place under the same physical circumstances do not necessarily have identical visual experiences, even though the images on their respective retinas may be virtually identical" (Chalmers, 5).
The perceptual experiences of the past affect a person's current perceptual experience. Memory shapes vision.
If a face is hidden in a drawing of a tree the observer will see the tree and then upon further inspection will see the face. But, once the face has been seen the tree branches and leaves conform in our mind to the face. The visual data received by our eyeballs do not change, only our conception of the image. The raw data received by our observation cannot be the only basis for observation. Other factors play a part in our seeing the face versus seeing the tree.
Experienced observers of particular objects will see different things than novice observers when looking at the same object.
The common argument against this is that the people see the same thing, but interpret it differently.
But if they argue this than they are self-defeating. They claim that the physical act of sight is all that is needed for fact, but if interpretation is involved in the perception process than the physical act of seeing is not all that composes sight.
Chalmers claims that he is not:
1. Claiming physical images have nothing to do with sight.
2. People are incapable of seeing basically the same thing.
[Observable facts expressed as statements]
Linguistically, the word "fact" is very, very ambiguous.
I hate ambiguity!!! AAH!
Fact can refer to either a statement about "X" or it can refer to the actual state of affairs involving "X"
Scientific knowledge is supposedly based on the circumstances and not the statements.
"For those who wish to claim that knowledge is derived from the facts, they must have statements in mind, and neither perceptions nor objects like mountains and craters" (Chalmers, 10).
Factual statements, if they are based on factual observations as science claims, it still stands that the factual statements made are not derived through a direct experience with the sensory data. Therefore, to claim that science is special because it comes directly from observation is absurd.
Knowledge in a conceptual sense is required prior to making strong observational (factual) statements about observational experiences. Thus the notion that observation precedes knowledge is mistaken. At the very least a concept must be understood prior to knowledgable statements being uttered about a specific observation.
"The recording of observable facts requires more than the reception of the stimuli in the form of light rays that impinge on the eye. It requires the knowledge of the appropriate conceptual scheme and how to apply it. Statements of fact are not determined in a straightforward way by sensual stimuli and observations statements presuppose knowledge, so it cannot be the case that we first establish the facts and then derive our knowledge from them" (Chalmers, 12)
[Why should facts precede theory?]
It would be ridiculous to attempt to go and search for facts without first forming a theory and techniques. If we did this we would not have the slightest of clues where to even begin observation. Thus, theory must precede facts.
The truth or falsity of observational statements can be judged via observation and tested by theory and thus serve as scientific knowledge.
[The fallibility of observational statements]
Observational statements, even if they are factual, must be allowed to be fallible because observation is not always 100% reliable.
Observational facts and thus the scientific knowledge derived from them must be admitted to be fallible and subject to correction via improved scientific theories, methods or "facts".
"Science is derived from the facts" is the slogan that exalts science. Bust as we have seen, there are problems with derivation and the facts themselves.
Perceptions are always exposed to the background and expectations of the perceiver. This can destroy any notion of non-prejudicial observation.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Class notes on Hempel & some shade on science
(Originally written October 13, 2006 in Book 8)
Class Notes
1. The Earth orbits the sun
2. Humans evolved from Apes
3. Vitamin C boosts mamalian immune systems
4. All objects are attracted to other objects proportional to their size and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them
Two main points of philosophy of science:
-The nature of scientific inference
-What is the scientific theory
Hempel (a fantastic logical positivist)
Hypothesis Testing
1. If H, then I(1), I(2), I(3), ... I(N)
2. I(1), I(2), I(3)
3. Therefore, H
This is invalid: fallacy of affirming the consequent
1. If H, then I1), I(2), I(3), ... I(N)
2. I(1), I(2), I(3)
3. Therefore, H is confirmed
Valid
1. If H, then I1), I(2), I(3), ... I(N)
2. Not I(1), Not I(2), Not I(3)
3. Therefore, H is falsified.
Hempel: through science we can falsify propositions/theories with confidence, but we cannot confidently prove any theory.
-Deductive nomological model of scientific explanation ("covering law" approach)
Expandum- that which is to be explained
Explanans- that which explains
The logical symmetry between scientific explanation and prediction
Linehan - I feel the major flaws of science lie here:
1) The belief that science is factual and ultimate. It is really theoretical and based on probability.
2) The belief that science creates knowledge. Science is merely an observational tool. Any knowledge supplied by science is from discover, not from creation. And since, science is discovery at any point another piece of the puzzle can be discovered and destroy all the "big picture" ideas that science holds dear and near to its closed-minded heart.
Hempel - hypotheses/theories are creatively devised.
Class Notes
1. The Earth orbits the sun
2. Humans evolved from Apes
3. Vitamin C boosts mamalian immune systems
4. All objects are attracted to other objects proportional to their size and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them
Two main points of philosophy of science:
-The nature of scientific inference
-What is the scientific theory
Hempel (a fantastic logical positivist)
Hypothesis Testing
1. If H, then I(1), I(2), I(3), ... I(N)
2. I(1), I(2), I(3)
3. Therefore, H
This is invalid: fallacy of affirming the consequent
1. If H, then I1), I(2), I(3), ... I(N)
2. I(1), I(2), I(3)
3. Therefore, H is confirmed
Valid
1. If H, then I1), I(2), I(3), ... I(N)
2. Not I(1), Not I(2), Not I(3)
3. Therefore, H is falsified.
Hempel: through science we can falsify propositions/theories with confidence, but we cannot confidently prove any theory.
-Deductive nomological model of scientific explanation ("covering law" approach)
Expandum- that which is to be explained
Explanans- that which explains
The logical symmetry between scientific explanation and prediction
Linehan - I feel the major flaws of science lie here:
1) The belief that science is factual and ultimate. It is really theoretical and based on probability.
2) The belief that science creates knowledge. Science is merely an observational tool. Any knowledge supplied by science is from discover, not from creation. And since, science is discovery at any point another piece of the puzzle can be discovered and destroy all the "big picture" ideas that science holds dear and near to its closed-minded heart.
Hempel - hypotheses/theories are creatively devised.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Philosophy of Science
(Originally Written October 11, 2006 in Epistemology)
Philosophy of Science
The naïve view of science - science is derived from the facts
Naïve Inductivism:
-experimentation & observation precede theory
-objective observation and data gathering are possible
-scientific theories are strictly built upon experimental data
-science as a discipline grows through the simple accumulation of data
-science is a thoroughly rational enterprise
[The 2006 me scrawled "This is absolute bullshit" in the margins]
Philosophy of Science
The naïve view of science - science is derived from the facts
Naïve Inductivism:
-experimentation & observation precede theory
-objective observation and data gathering are possible
-scientific theories are strictly built upon experimental data
-science as a discipline grows through the simple accumulation of data
-science is a thoroughly rational enterprise
[The 2006 me scrawled "This is absolute bullshit" in the margins]
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Class notes on Aristotle
(Originally Written October 10, 2006 in History I)
Aristotle's psychology:
Mark of the animate: possession of soul (psyche)
Soul - the principle of life
Nature of the soul:
-Soul is unity, but has diverse aspects
-irrational soul and rational soul
Irrational soul:
Nutritive psyche- causes nutritive growth of the body, guides qualitative changes
Sensitive psyche - enables sense organs to facilitate perception, source of consciousness
Sensus communis:
1. The source of intersensory discrimination
2. The seat of common sensibles
Appetitive psyche - that which wills and desires, the cause of movement in any animal
Movement and imagination involves a rational aspect of the soul
Rational soul - both passive and active aspects
Passive intellect:
-Sensitivity to reason
-potentiality for intelligible forms
-potentiality for logical understanding
-may give true opinion
-It's like wax, it can take on impressions
Active intellect:
-actually possesses knowledge
-uses logical inferences
-is productive
Relation of the soul to the body
-The soul is the form of the body
-The soul is the body's essence
-Body and soul are inseparable
Nichomachean Ethics:
The End
A->B->C->D
There must be some intrinsic good, there must be some end of end. Whatever that instrinsic good is is the end of man
Three types of life:
1) Life of enjoyment, End = pleasure/money
2) Life of Statesmen, End = glory/honor
3) Contemplative life, End = knowledge/wisdom
The problem with the life of enjoyment is that it is merely a means and not an end. The problem with the life of a statesmen is that it is too superficial.
Human Function (Telos): To fully exercise our vital faculties in accordance with reason.
Aristotle's psychology:
Mark of the animate: possession of soul (psyche)
Soul - the principle of life
Nature of the soul:
-Soul is unity, but has diverse aspects
-irrational soul and rational soul
Irrational soul:
Nutritive psyche- causes nutritive growth of the body, guides qualitative changes
Sensitive psyche - enables sense organs to facilitate perception, source of consciousness
Sensus communis:
1. The source of intersensory discrimination
2. The seat of common sensibles
Appetitive psyche - that which wills and desires, the cause of movement in any animal
Movement and imagination involves a rational aspect of the soul
Rational soul - both passive and active aspects
Passive intellect:
-Sensitivity to reason
-potentiality for intelligible forms
-potentiality for logical understanding
-may give true opinion
-It's like wax, it can take on impressions
Active intellect:
-actually possesses knowledge
-uses logical inferences
-is productive
Relation of the soul to the body
-The soul is the form of the body
-The soul is the body's essence
-Body and soul are inseparable
Nichomachean Ethics:
The End
A->B->C->D
There must be some intrinsic good, there must be some end of end. Whatever that instrinsic good is is the end of man
Three types of life:
1) Life of enjoyment, End = pleasure/money
2) Life of Statesmen, End = glory/honor
3) Contemplative life, End = knowledge/wisdom
The problem with the life of enjoyment is that it is merely a means and not an end. The problem with the life of a statesmen is that it is too superficial.
Human Function (Telos): To fully exercise our vital faculties in accordance with reason.
Sunday, October 8, 2006
LogiCola Exercises and my thoughts on them
(Originally written October 8, 2006 in Book 9)
LogiCola Exercises
1. u is t
t is E
no E is P
Therefore, u is not P.
valid
Got it right
2. all C is T
no C is V
therefore, no T is V
invalid
Got it wrong
3. all D is T
therefore all T is D
invalid
Got it right
4. all B is F
some S is not F
therefore, some S is not B
valid
Got it right
5. Some F is C
some C is R
therefore, some F is R
invalid
Got it right
6. all C is M
no M is D
some D is N
therefore, some N is not C
valid
Got it right
7. all D is F
some R is not F
Therefore, some D is not R
valid
Got it wrong
8. some C is not B
therefore some B is not C
valid
Got it wrong
(Editor's note from February 5, 2017. This exercise goes on for another thirteen and a half pages in my composition book and really isn't anything more than just logical exercises, the majority of which I apparently marked myself wrong on. Aside from the logical problems there are two little sentences that I wrote regarding my feelings at the time. They occur on pages 13 (backside) and 23 (backside), respectively in my notebook number 9. These feelings are the only thing worth recording here, but you are more than welcome to go back and see the problems written out if you wish).
"This makes absolutely no sense!" - pg. 13b
"This is absolutely fucking pointless. Logic is the worst class ever." - pg. 23b
LogiCola Exercises
1. u is t
t is E
no E is P
Therefore, u is not P.
valid
Got it right
2. all C is T
no C is V
therefore, no T is V
invalid
Got it wrong
3. all D is T
therefore all T is D
invalid
Got it right
4. all B is F
some S is not F
therefore, some S is not B
valid
Got it right
5. Some F is C
some C is R
therefore, some F is R
invalid
Got it right
6. all C is M
no M is D
some D is N
therefore, some N is not C
valid
Got it right
7. all D is F
some R is not F
Therefore, some D is not R
valid
Got it wrong
8. some C is not B
therefore some B is not C
valid
Got it wrong
(Editor's note from February 5, 2017. This exercise goes on for another thirteen and a half pages in my composition book and really isn't anything more than just logical exercises, the majority of which I apparently marked myself wrong on. Aside from the logical problems there are two little sentences that I wrote regarding my feelings at the time. They occur on pages 13 (backside) and 23 (backside), respectively in my notebook number 9. These feelings are the only thing worth recording here, but you are more than welcome to go back and see the problems written out if you wish).
"This makes absolutely no sense!" - pg. 13b
"This is absolutely fucking pointless. Logic is the worst class ever." - pg. 23b
Friday, October 6, 2006
Steup and his internalism
(Originally written October 06, 2006 in Book 8)
Class Notes
Step
-Defends internalism
-Justification is introspective and a priori
-"J-Factors" refers to those things that justify beliefs
-Internalism is about justification, not knowledge
Knowledge involves four aspects:
1) Belief
2) Truth
3) Justification
4) Degettierization
Truth and Degettierization are external. Belief and justification are internal.
The concept of justification is deontological (a matter of duty, obligation, etc.)
A person is epistemically justified if and only if she fluffs her epistemic duties.
Prove that you believe that I am not holding chalk at this moment and I will give you $100.
Alston's objection - Our beliefs are non-voluntary
Steup's replies:
1) Our beliefs are indirectly under our control
2) beliefs are no different than actions in this regard.
Class Notes
Step
-Defends internalism
-Justification is introspective and a priori
-"J-Factors" refers to those things that justify beliefs
-Internalism is about justification, not knowledge
Knowledge involves four aspects:
1) Belief
2) Truth
3) Justification
4) Degettierization
Truth and Degettierization are external. Belief and justification are internal.
The concept of justification is deontological (a matter of duty, obligation, etc.)
A person is epistemically justified if and only if she fluffs her epistemic duties.
Prove that you believe that I am not holding chalk at this moment and I will give you $100.
Alston's objection - Our beliefs are non-voluntary
Steup's replies:
1) Our beliefs are indirectly under our control
2) beliefs are no different than actions in this regard.
Thursday, October 5, 2006
A brief description of my personal philosophical development circa 10/5/06
(Originally written October 5, 2006 in Book 8)
Boy have I been lazy!
We're now on externalism vs. internals in Epistemology and we've moved from Plato to Aristotle in History. Logic is miserable. Dr. Corduan is great, but breaking things down into symbol is truly obnoxious. I can see the point, though it is monotonous and purely memorization. It's rather dull and boring.
VI. 5 A defense of internals
Matthias Steup
Steup is a professor at St. Cloud State University
Boy have I been lazy!
We're now on externalism vs. internals in Epistemology and we've moved from Plato to Aristotle in History. Logic is miserable. Dr. Corduan is great, but breaking things down into symbol is truly obnoxious. I can see the point, though it is monotonous and purely memorization. It's rather dull and boring.
VI. 5 A defense of internals
Matthias Steup
Steup is a professor at St. Cloud State University
Aristotle - Causes, Metaphysics and Logic
(Originally Written October 5, 2006 in History I)
Aristotle's Physics:
Doctrine of change:
-What is change? A movement from a starting point to a goal (Telos).
-There is no pure change.
-Movement from potentiality to actuality.
The Four Causes of Change:
1. Material cause - the stuff of which the thing is composed of
2. Formal cause - the form, pattern or meaning of the thing
3. The efficient cause - that which brings about the change
4. Telic (Final) cause - the purpose/end for which the change occurred
Efficient causation is backward looking. Telic causation is forward looking.
Luck/Chance:
Lucky events are irregular occurrences and incidental occurrences.
Chance is broader. It is not confined to rational agents and is also found in natural objects. AN event that has a cause but not for the sake of relational causes. Chance is pointless.
Metaphysics:
-That which transcends the physical world.
-A second order discipline
First Principles:
-logical principles:
1. Law of non-contradiction: it is not possible that both "A" and "not-A" can be at the same time
2. Law of the excluded middle: "A" or "not-A"
3. Law of identity: If A is the case, the A is the case
Law of identity + Law of Excluded Middle, therefore Law of non-contradiction
Characteristics of the Laws of thought:
1. Most true
2. foundational
3. self-justifying (impossibility of the contrary)
Why some people challenge the laws of logic:
1. Observations are misconstrued
2. Relativity of sense perception
Aristotle's Physics:
Doctrine of change:
-What is change? A movement from a starting point to a goal (Telos).
-There is no pure change.
-Movement from potentiality to actuality.
The Four Causes of Change:
1. Material cause - the stuff of which the thing is composed of
2. Formal cause - the form, pattern or meaning of the thing
3. The efficient cause - that which brings about the change
4. Telic (Final) cause - the purpose/end for which the change occurred
Efficient causation is backward looking. Telic causation is forward looking.
Luck/Chance:
Lucky events are irregular occurrences and incidental occurrences.
Chance is broader. It is not confined to rational agents and is also found in natural objects. AN event that has a cause but not for the sake of relational causes. Chance is pointless.
Metaphysics:
-That which transcends the physical world.
-A second order discipline
First Principles:
-logical principles:
1. Law of non-contradiction: it is not possible that both "A" and "not-A" can be at the same time
2. Law of the excluded middle: "A" or "not-A"
3. Law of identity: If A is the case, the A is the case
Law of identity + Law of Excluded Middle, therefore Law of non-contradiction
Characteristics of the Laws of thought:
1. Most true
2. foundational
3. self-justifying (impossibility of the contrary)
Why some people challenge the laws of logic:
1. Observations are misconstrued
2. Relativity of sense perception
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Internalism vs. Externalism
(Originally Written October 4, 2006 in Epistemology)
Internalism: one can only have knowledge if and only if one has solid evidence (justification). This is known as 'time slice' or synchronic
Externalism: the view that one has knowledge if one's beliefs are the result of a reliable process (reliabilism). This is known as 'genetic' or dischronic
Problems with the externalism approach arise from trying to give "reliable processes" and that it disregards all justification. It could lead to epistemological relativism. But, externalism escape the Gettier Problems altogether, which drive internalists to madness.
Goldman:
Belief forming process (functional operation)
-Reasoning
-Memory process
-perceptual processes
Qualifications:
1. Content neutrality
2. Conditional reliability
Objections:
1. Intuitions and phenomenal beliefs (response: there is a causal history, albeit brief)
2. Benevolent Demon and wishful thinking (responses: wishful thinking may not be true in this world, but it is in the made-up world)
Internalism: one can only have knowledge if and only if one has solid evidence (justification). This is known as 'time slice' or synchronic
Externalism: the view that one has knowledge if one's beliefs are the result of a reliable process (reliabilism). This is known as 'genetic' or dischronic
Problems with the externalism approach arise from trying to give "reliable processes" and that it disregards all justification. It could lead to epistemological relativism. But, externalism escape the Gettier Problems altogether, which drive internalists to madness.
Goldman:
Belief forming process (functional operation)
-Reasoning
-Memory process
-perceptual processes
Qualifications:
1. Content neutrality
2. Conditional reliability
Objections:
1. Intuitions and phenomenal beliefs (response: there is a causal history, albeit brief)
2. Benevolent Demon and wishful thinking (responses: wishful thinking may not be true in this world, but it is in the made-up world)
Monday, October 2, 2006
Aristotle v. Plato
(Originally written October 2, 2006 in History I)
Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)
-educated at Plato's Academy
-Founded a rival school: The Lyceum
The Corpus: Explanation of the textual problems
1. The Corpus is not his writings, but actually his students' notes on his teaching
2. The Corpus is actually Aristotle's lecture notes
3. The originals were lost, recovered and poorly pieced back together
Aristotle's relation to his predecessors:
Biggest influences:
1. Heraclitus' doctrine of flux
2. Plato's theory of forms
Conception of the sciences:
1. Contemplative science (Theoretikos: what cannot be otherwise than it is)
-Math
-Metaphysics
-Nature
2. Practical science (Praktikos: what is subject to human deliberation)
-Politics
-Ethics
3. Productive science (Poietikos)
-involves productive use of reason
-the arts
-rhetoric
Criticism of Plato's Doctrine of Forms:
Plato: Eternal Forms + Matter
Aristotle:
Two senses of substance
1. Primary substance (ousia) - a particular (This is the most real for Aristotle)
2. Secondary substance - an essence of a thing (universal) (This is the most real for Plato)
Aristotle's distinction:
Matter - material stuff that things are made of
Form - overall shape, essence or patterns
The Categories:
1. Substance: what kind of a thing is it?
2. Quantity
3. Quality
4. Relatedness
5. Place
6. Time
7. Position/Posture
8. What it possesses
9. In what way is it active?
10. In what way is it passive?
Criticizes Plato's Doctrine of Forms: in order to know that two things are similar we would need to know a third thing to make the comparison
"Evil has no form, it is merely the absence of goodness or perfection in forms relating to morality". Ha! Yes!
Forms:
1. Otherworldly (Plato)/ Belong to this world (Aristotle)
2. Exist as universals (Plato)/Embedded in particulars (Aristotle)
3. Ontologically distinct (Plato)/Conceptually distinct (Aristotle)
4. Abstract (Plato)/Concrete (Aristotle)
5. Sensed particulars provide no knowledge (Plato)/Sensed particulars are a source of knowledge (Aristotle)
6. Matter changes, forms are permanent (Plato)/Matter is enduring, forms change (Aristotle)
7. Knowledge via reason (Plato)/Knowledge via senses (Aristotle)
Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)
-educated at Plato's Academy
-Founded a rival school: The Lyceum
The Corpus: Explanation of the textual problems
1. The Corpus is not his writings, but actually his students' notes on his teaching
2. The Corpus is actually Aristotle's lecture notes
3. The originals were lost, recovered and poorly pieced back together
Aristotle's relation to his predecessors:
Biggest influences:
1. Heraclitus' doctrine of flux
2. Plato's theory of forms
Conception of the sciences:
1. Contemplative science (Theoretikos: what cannot be otherwise than it is)
-Math
-Metaphysics
-Nature
2. Practical science (Praktikos: what is subject to human deliberation)
-Politics
-Ethics
3. Productive science (Poietikos)
-involves productive use of reason
-the arts
-rhetoric
Criticism of Plato's Doctrine of Forms:
Plato: Eternal Forms + Matter
Aristotle:
Two senses of substance
1. Primary substance (ousia) - a particular (This is the most real for Aristotle)
2. Secondary substance - an essence of a thing (universal) (This is the most real for Plato)
Aristotle's distinction:
Matter - material stuff that things are made of
Form - overall shape, essence or patterns
The Categories:
1. Substance: what kind of a thing is it?
2. Quantity
3. Quality
4. Relatedness
5. Place
6. Time
7. Position/Posture
8. What it possesses
9. In what way is it active?
10. In what way is it passive?
Criticizes Plato's Doctrine of Forms: in order to know that two things are similar we would need to know a third thing to make the comparison
"Evil has no form, it is merely the absence of goodness or perfection in forms relating to morality". Ha! Yes!
Forms:
1. Otherworldly (Plato)/ Belong to this world (Aristotle)
2. Exist as universals (Plato)/Embedded in particulars (Aristotle)
3. Ontologically distinct (Plato)/Conceptually distinct (Aristotle)
4. Abstract (Plato)/Concrete (Aristotle)
5. Sensed particulars provide no knowledge (Plato)/Sensed particulars are a source of knowledge (Aristotle)
6. Matter changes, forms are permanent (Plato)/Matter is enduring, forms change (Aristotle)
7. Knowledge via reason (Plato)/Knowledge via senses (Aristotle)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)