Knowledge Empiricism Flashcards
(41 cards)
1
Q
Define knowledge empiricism
A
The belief that all synthetic knowledge is a posteriori and all a priori knowledge is analytic
2
Q
Difference between analytic and synthetic truths
A
- This is a semantic or linguistic distinction
- Which packs out how sentences are meaningful
- Analytic truths refer to the way sentences merely unpack the meaning contained in the definition of the terms
- E.g “a bachelor is an unmarried man” merely unpacks what it is to be a bachelor
- No new information is provided
- However it cannot be denied without contradiction
- You cannot imagine an unmarried bachelor
- Synthetic truths are statements that go beyond the definition of a term to give information about the world
- For instance “some bachelors have wild parties” presents new information that is not contained in the word “bachelor”
- It informs us of something about the world which could be verified by experience
- For empiricists such as Hume: all a priori knowledge consists merely of analytic truths and synthetic truths
- The only things we can know about the world must be justified by experience
- For rationalists like Descartes there can be synthetic a priori knowledge
- For example we can have knowledge of what exists in the world without experience to justify it
- E.g the statement “God exists” is a synthetic truth that goes beyond the definition of the word “God” through a priori reasoning in his trademark argument
3
Q
Necessary truths
A
- A necessary truth is a metaphysical distinction which refers to what exists and how the world is
- A necessary truth is one which could be n other way
- Necessary truths are true in all possible worlds
- To imagine them otherwise would produce a logical contradiction
- The statement “a square has 4 sides” is necessary
- To imagine a square with 3 sides is contradictory as we would not be imagining a square
4
Q
Contingent truths
A
•A contingent truth is also a metaphysical distinction which refers to what exists and how the world is
•Truths about the world which could be imagined
otherwise without contradiction
•They are dependent on how the world happens to be
•For example I study philosophy but could have studied further maths
•The world just happens to have turned out this way
•Therefore there is nothing necessary about these truths
5
Q
Deductive arguments
A
•This refers to a type of argument where the conclusion must necessarily true if the premises are true
•The premises supply strong evidence for the conclusion
•The conclusion must follow the premises
•The conclusion can only contain information stated in the premises
•For example:
1.All men are mortal
2.Socrates is a man
3.Therefore Socrates is mortal
•If we accept the premises we are forced to accept the conclusion
•They give us certain conclusions but do not take us beyond the information contained within the premises
6
Q
Inductive arguments
A
•A type of argument where the premises could be true yet the conclusion may still be false
•The premises offer weaker support for the conclusion in comparison to the deductive argument
•They tend to be based on probability
•For example:
1.It has rained every February as far as I can remember
2.Therefore it will rain this February
•This could turn out to be false as there are a number of factors involved
•These arguments are open to the problem of induction
•This means they do not give us certain knowledge but only point to probable conclusions by generalizing from their premises
•For example Hume stated:
•We have seen the sun rise every morning so far
•However we cannot know for sure that it will do tommorow
7
Q
A Priori knowledge vs a posteriori knowledge
A
- The difference in the first instant is a difference in the type of knowledge
- This concerns how we know whether a proposition is true
8
Q
A priori knowledge
A
- You have a priori knowledge of a proposition if you don’t require sense experience to know it to be true
- For example ‘bachelors are unmarried’
- If you understand the statement you don’t need to verify it via experience to establish it’s truth
- You can arrive at the truth through reason and looking at the meanings of the terms involved
- A priori concept is one that cannot be derived from experience
9
Q
A posteriori knowledge
A
- This can only be established through sense experience
- For example ‘there are more than 6 billion people on earth’
- When applied to propositions, the distinction is about how to establish knowledge, not how to understand it
- We may need sensory experience in the form of words and ideas to understand it
- But this is very different to how we check if its true once its understood
- An a posteriori concept is one derived from experience
10
Q
Empiricism
A
- Empiricists claim that all knowledge of synthetic propositions is a posteriori while all a priori knowledge is of analytic propositions
- Anything we know that is not true by definition or logic alone must be learnt or tested through our senses
- Therefore, empiricists believe that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses
11
Q
Rationalists
A
- Rationalists however claim that there is some a priori knowledge of synthetic propositions
- This is either due to innate knowledge which is knowledge we are born with
- Or because we can gain knowledge using reason rather than sensory experience
12
Q
Hume’s Fork-Relations of Ideas
A
- Hume’s Fork is divided into two forms of knowledge:
- Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact
- Relations of ideas cover mathematics, geometry and logic
- For example the statement “2+2=4”
- We can know relations of ideas by thinking alone or by using a priori deductive knowledge
- Relations of ideas are not reliant on how the world is or on the existence of objects
- Relations of ideas would be true in all possible worlds, making them necessary truths
- It is true by definition, making them to be an analytic truth
- This means that the opposite is inconceivable
- To Hume, reason can help you deduce some further elements and truth
- However reason cannot itself tell us about the world
13
Q
Hume’s Fork-Matters of Fact
A
- Matters of Fact are synthetic truths as they tell us about how the world is
- For example “the table in the kitchen is round”
- The discoveries of science are based on observation and experiment
- We can know matters of fact by discovering aspects of how the world is or by using a posteriori inductive logic
- They are reliant on how the world is and are reliant on the existence of objects
- They would not be true in all possible worlds, making them contingent truths
- Therefore the opposite is conceivable
14
Q
Hume’s Fork-meaningless knowledge
A
- Propositions that don’t contain any of these two forms of knowledge are “sophistry and illusion”
- These propositions should be “cast into flames”
- In other words Hume believes that propositions that do not categorise within his fork are meaningless
- Therefore only Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact have meaning in terms of knowledge
15
Q
Explain knowledge innatism(rationalism)
A
- The ultimate source of knowledge is reason
- Mathematical knowledge can be gained with reason alone and without the direct use of the senses
- If I am detached from all sensory experience, I am able to work out substantial truths by thinking hard
- For example working out truths about geometric shapes
- This knowledge appears to be eternal and unchanging
- Even if the physical world comes in and out of existence, 2+2 will always = 4 with absolute certainty
- Therefore this knowledge is necessarily true
- To imagine such a truth otherwise would be contradictory
- For example “a triangle has 4 sides” is contradictory
16
Q
There is at least some innate a priori knowledge
A
- Rationalists claim we can have a priori knowledge of the world
- In other words, knowledge is gained by reason
- Knowledge is not gained via the senses, which is substantial and not just true by definition
- They claim that synthetic a priori truths are possible
- For example the statement ‘every event has a cause’ can be considered to be a priori synthetic
- They claim this is not true by definition but can be known through reason without experience
- Descartes’ statement ‘cogito ergo sum’ seems to establish a priori synthetic truth
- Which is ‘I exist’
- He also hoped that by doubting everything and using reason alone, he could establish many more truths
17
Q
Moore on innate a priori knowledge
A
- Other innate a priori knowledge included morality
- Moore stated that ‘good’ is indefinable
- This means that it cannot be reduced to elements that we can observe in the world
- If we try to say ‘yellow means light travelling at a particular frequency’ then we are wrong
- Yellow refers to what we see when we see yellow objects, not to ‘light vibrations’
- Therefore the concept of yellow is clearly understandable to us yet we cannot explain it
- The same can be said about good
18
Q
Moore on moral judgements
A
- Moral judgements are evaluative rather than factual
- Therefore they cannot be justified by purely empirical observation
- They are self-evident and can only be known by intuition
19
Q
Hume on moral judgements
A
- Hume stated that morals are down to inner impressions rather than intuition
- However inner impressions are a posteriori
- Therefore morality cannot be an analytical truth
20
Q
Plato on innate knowledge
A
- Plato argues that our concept of numbers are innate
- We can encounter different concepts of the number ‘2’ such as pairs and couples
- However we can never encounter the number ‘2’ itself
- If the number ‘2’ is not something derived from experience, then it must be something we encounter in another realm
- This realm is Plato’s world of forms
- These forms are implanted in our immortal souls before birth which shows that these forms are innate
- For example, knowledge of mathematical truths were implanted as forms onto our souls
- Plato argues that concepts such as ‘beauty’ and ‘justice’ are universal
- We experience acts of beauty and justice however we do not encounter the actual form ‘beauty’ and ‘justice’ itself
- If we were not born with innate understanding of these concepts, we could not recognise beauty or justice when first experienced
- Therefore there must be some innate a priori knowledge
- Plato also used an example of how innate ideas can be realised through reason in his dialogue, the Meno
- In the dialogue, Socrates engages a slave boy in discussion
- Through several questions, Socrates draws out of him a proof about squares
- This suggests that the boy innately has the knowledge which allowed him to draw it out
21
Q
Empiricist response to Plato on innate knowledge
A
•Empiricists argue that we collate the concept of numbers from creating generalizations
22
Q
Descartes defense of forms
A
- Descartes claims we understand the concept of a figure with a thousand sides
- However we have not yet experienced such a figure
- Therefore geometric shapes aren’t conceived of generalisations of sensations but rather intellect
23
Q
Criticism of Plato’s forms
A
- We know that the world of forms are understood by reason
- We also know that the world of objects are understood by senses
- Therefore the world of forms and the world of objects are very different
- The forms exist metaphysically-beyond the physical world
- However we exist within the physical world
- It seems that these two worlds are too distinct and separate to interact with each other due to huge fundamental differences
- There does not seem to be much point in talking of a realm of eternal and perfect metaphysical forms
- This is because they are disconnected from the changing and imperfect world we reside in
- Plato relies on a supernatural reason to explain our knowledge
- Empiricists can argue that this cannot be experienced or properly justified
- Hume also stated that the concepts of beauty and justice could be down to inner impressions
24
Q
Kant’s conceptual schemes
A
- A conceptual scheme is a set of concepts used to organise our experience of the world
- Kant claimed that conceptual schemes such as causation, space and time exist as structures
- Kant also believed that our minds played an active role in categorising these concepts in an orderly manner
- These structures allow us to experience the world without confusion yet we don’t attain them from sensory experience
- Therefore the mind is born with concepts of space,time and causation
- These concepts are not derived from sense experience, so they must be innate
- However the ‘Sapir-Whorf’ argument shows that there is not just one set of categories that humanity has used throughout history and across all countries
- Different periods and cultures have their own distinct categories
- For example, American Hopi Indians did not have anything comparible to our concepts of time which is an essential notion for Kant
25
Alternative explanations against knowledge innatism
* Strict empiricists such as Mill claim that we obtain all our knowledge including mathematical knowledge through experience
* Therefore there is no a priori knowledge at all
* For example, we can observe that two apples and three apples makes 5 apples
* These observations allow us to make inductive generalisations that 2+3=5
* We can observe how objects behave when they are grouped together
* Therefore we can make empirical generalisations like we do for other laws
* For example- 'the sun will rise in the morning'
* The difference between mathematical truths and other truths is simply how the evidence is more consistent
26
Criticism of alternative explanations
* However this claim is counter intuitive
* It is possible to conceive of the idea of the sun not rising but I cannot imagine finding that 2+3=6
* This is because this idea would make no sense
* Empiricists claim that this is because mathematical truths are not empirical generalisations
* They are not induction based on the senses but rather deductions based on logical reasoning
* They are deductions that can be demonstrated to be true, making them certain and beyond doubt
27
Empiricist views on a priori knowledge
* Empiricists also argue that all a priori truths are analytic so they only tell us the meaning of symbols
* They do not tell us anything new about the world and so are empty of empirical content
* Therefore they are useless as a basis of knowledge about the physical universe
* For example if I knew Shakespeare wrote Hamlet and I later found out that Hamlet was a tragedy:
* I would be able to deduce by reason alone that Shakespeare wrote at least one tragedy
* However in doing so, I would not gain any new knowledge
28
Locke's arguments against innatism(occam's razor)
•'Occam's razor' is the idea that we should always go for the simplest explanation
•Locke uses Occam's razor to critic innatism
•He uses the example of colour which can be applied to any innate idea:
1.It could be the case that we are born with an innate idea of each colour
2.But it is certainly the case that we see colours with our eyes
3.The question Locke asks is, why would God or nature bother allowing us to have an innate idea of each colour
4.When we can already see colours with our eyes
5.Seeing colours with our eyes seems to be the simplest explanation rather than being with innate knowledge of colours
29
Locke's 1st arguments against innatism(No ideas are universally held)
* Locke states that no ideas are universally held, so none is innate
* For an idea to be innate, it must be present in the mind at birth
* Rationalists propose ideas of the laws of identity and the laws of contradiction
* In other words, they propose principles such as 'whatever is, is' or 'it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be'
* He states that children or 'idiots' (people who are mentally underdeveloped) would not be able to understand these ideas
* This is because these ideas have not been taught to them yet or they have difficulty in understanding these principles
* Therefore these principles are not present in the minds of young children and 'idiots'
* Certain ideas and principles that show up only demonstrate our capacity to form these ideas from experiences we have
* Therefore there are no innate ideas or principles
30
Locke's 2nd arguments against innatism(No ideas are universally held)
* If there were to be innate ideas or principles:
* They would be universally agreed by all people
* This is because these ideas would be part of human nature
* Rationalists propose ideas such as 'God' or principles such as 'whatever is, is'
* However there are whole societies that do not have such principles
* Therefore there are no innate ideas
31
Leibniz criticism of Locke's argument
* Leibniz argues that universality is not a sufficient condition of innatism
* If everyone in the world started smoking, it would not make smoking an innate idea
* Rationalists state that everyone has innate ideas, yet we are not always aware of it
32
Locke's reply to Leibniz
* Locke claims that the possibility of possessing an innate idea but not being aware of it is incoherent
* Locke also states that the mind is transparent
* Therefore we should be able to be aware of all ideas at once
* Also, even if innate ideas only come into our minds later in life:
* We would have no ability to distinguish innate ideas from other ideas derived from experience
33
Leibniz reply
* However Leibniz states that we are able to collect ideas subconsciously
* When collecting these ideas, we are not aware of them until we see them again
* This suggests that we can be unaware of such ideas
* Leibniz also states that we can distinguish innate ideas from non-innate ones in the sense that:
* Even if they emerge later in life they are true in a different way
* Therefore these innate ideas are necessarily true
34
Innate ideas reliance on the non-natural
* Many versions of innatism hold the belief that all humans possess certain ideas about God, maths, morality and so on
* These ideas are universally held because they have been placed in our minds by God
* Locke argued through Occam's razor that all our ideas can be explained naturally
* Therefore we have no need to rely on any supernatural being (God) to explain our ideas
* However, Chomsky's introduces an example of nativism
* This is a form of innatism that does not rely on God
* For example, he has the innate idea of deep universal grammar
* He states that universal grammar are 'hard wired' into our brains
* Therefore in this sense universal grammar is innate
* However it does not rely on the non-supernatural
* Therefore we can have innate ideas which do not rely on the non-natural
35
Define inductive reasoning
* This involves looking at how the world works and generalising from this
* Induction reasoning is associated with science and empiricism
36
Define deductive reasoning
* This involves using self-evident or innate ideas to deduce what must be the case about the world
* This does not require observation or experience
* This reasoning is used in mathematics and logic and is associated with rationalism
37
Descartes' trademark argument
•Descartes' states that he cannot doubt his own existence, as he must exist in order to doubt
•'I cannot doubt my existence: I think, therefore I am'
•Descartes claims that this works because it is clear and distinct
•He continues to prove the existence of God as a clear distinct idea caused by God
•This is known as the trademark argument
1.I have a clear and distinct idea of a necessary perfect being
2.This being is God
3.This idea must arise either from myself of from things around me
4.This idea could not have been caused by ourselves
5.This is because we as human beings are limited and imperfect
6.This is also because no effect is greater than its cause
7.Therefore the idea must have been caused by something outside of us
8.This cause must contain nothing less than the qualities contained within the idea of God
9. Only God can have these properties
10.Therefore God must be the cause of the idea I have of him
11.Therefore God exists
38
Criticism of Descartes' trademark argument
* Hume could suggest that the idea of God could be arrived at from oneself and magnifying them
* For example, we have qualities of wisdom, strength and goodness
* If we magnify them we are presented with supreme-goodness, infinite strength, infinite wisdom
* We could again use Locke's criticism on innatism
* Descartes states that we are born with an innate idea of God
* However, children and 'idiots' do not have such ideas of God
* Therefore the idea of God cannot be innate
39
Leibniz Marble Analogy
* In reply to Locke, Leibniz argues he is attacking a straw man
* No rationalist believes that we are able to express ideas about God, logic or causation at birth
* However, we are more similar to blocks of marble with an in-built structure
* The polishing and sculpting of marble reveals the structure of veins that were already there, hidden beneath the surface
* In the same way, 'innate knowledge' is drawn out of us by experience of the world
* This includes the law of non contradiction where something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time
* This also includes the principle of sufficient reason where every event must have a cause
* In order to learn that anything is true, you must already know that it cannot be false
* Leibniz also points out that you can have knowledge that you are not conscious of
* This is because most young children wouldn't be able to explain the principle of non-contradiction
* Yet they would not try to both open and close a door simultaneously
* This suggests they know this principle implicitly
* Finally, Leibniz claims that innate truths can be linked to necessary truths
* Necessary truths must be true in all possible worlds
* Yet you cannot establish this by experience-you must have an innate grasp of these truths
40
What is Chomsky's argument for universal grammar ?
* Children often do not have explicit language teaching •By the age of four, they can speak their native language to a remarkably high level
* They have a poverty of stimulus:
* they don't have enough input or stimulus of language teaching to justify the level of language abilities they have by the age of 4.
* Chomsky proposes that they must have some built in knowledge of language structures to facilitate language acquisition
* He believes innate knowledge of certain principles guides them in developing grammar
* All the languages in the world share a set of syntactic rules and principles
* This "universal grammar is innate"
41
Locke's objections to Chomsky and Leibniz analogy
* Locke considered the idea that we could know certain principles innately yet not be conscious of them
* Here we may say that young children know how to construct certain sentences and not make mistakes
* Yet they would not be able to tell you what these rules are
* Locke believes that this does not count as knowledge
* This is because it makes no sense to state that you know a truth without being aware of it
* If this is not a consciously understood principle, we cans say that it is more of an ability to do certain things
* Therefore this would not be propositional knowledge that tells us anything significant about the world
