part two - knowledge

Question 1

Knowledge

Answer 1

JTB, facts, information

examples - paris is in France, gold has the automic number of 79

Question 2

Knowledge Innatism

Answer 2

The view that there’s at least some innate a priori knowledge. Innate knowledge is propositional knowledge that is part of our rational nature.

All innate knowledge is a priori, but not all a priori knowledge is innate (disproving Hume’s fork) at least some synthetic knowledge is a priori

Question 3

Knowledge Empiricism

Answer 3

knowledge is either derived from experience, or is true by definition.

• all synthetic knowledge is a posteriori
• all a priori knowledge is analytic

synthetic knowledge (knowledge about the world) is justified by experience and the only knowledge justified a priori is ‘true by definition’

Question 4

Hume’s Fork

Answer 4

everything we know falls into two categories:

1. It's a relation of ideas:
(known purely by thinking about it) 
- a priori knowledge
- analytic statements
- necessary truths

2. It's a matter of fact:
(known on the basis of experience and the negation which is not self-contradictory)
- a posteriori knowledge
- synthetic statement
- contingent truths

Question 5

Matter of Fact

Hume’s Fork

Answer 5

• a posteriori knowledge
• synthetic statement
• contingent truths

Question 6

Relation of Ideas

Hume’s Fork

Answer 6

• a priori knowledge
• analytic statements
• necessary truths

Question 7

Hume’s Fork - simplified for empiricism

Answer 7

All synthetic statements are a posteriori

all a priori statements are analytic

Question 8

Analytic Statement

Answer 8

relation of ideas - a priori (for empiricism)

when the truth of a statement can be established by analysing it’s meaning

example - all mothers are female

Question 9

Synthetic Statment

Answer 9

matter of fact - a posteriori (for empiricism)

when the truth of a statement can’t be established on the basis of its meaning

example - there are three mice in the room

Question 10

A Priori

Answer 10

if you know a proposition just by thinking about it

I know X a priori if I know X independent of experience

Question 11

A Posteriori

Answer 11

if you know a proposition but not just by thinking about it

I know X a posteriori if I know X on the basis of experience

Question 12

Hume’s Fork

Answer 12

all synthetic knowledge is a posteriori

means that all statements about the world are known on the basis of experience. The only statement known independently of experience are analytic.

Question 13

Necessary Truth

Answer 13

a proposition whose negation is self-contradictory: there are no possible circumstances where the necessary truth could be false.

examples - triangles have three sides

opposed to contingent truths

Question 14

Contingent Truth

Answer 14

when a statement is true but can be imagined in certain circumstances in which it would be false

example - it’s raining today

Question 15

Descartes

Answer 15

cc

Question 16

Synthetic and Analytic Statements

A priori and A posteriori Statements

Answer 16

semantic distinction (about meaning) - analytic and synthetic

epistemic distinction (about experience) - a priori and a posteriori

Question 17

Knowledge Innatists

against knowledge empiricists

Answer 17

claim that there is some synthetic a priori knowledge.

Question 18

Plato’s Meno

for knowledge innatism

Answer 18

Socrates and a slave boy discuss a geometrical problem involving Pythagoras’ Theorem. Through the course of this dialogue, the slave boy solves the problem, despite having no prior knowledge of the theorem. Socrates draws a conclusion from this that:

1. Pythagoras’ Theorem is either taught or innate
2. Slave boy knows Pythagoras’ Theorem
3. Slave boy wasn’t taught the theorem
4. Slave boy has innate knowledge of Pythagoras’ Theorem

Question 19

Plato’s Meno - Criticisms

for knowledge empiricism, responding to knowledge innatism

Answer 19

The way Socrates lead the slave boy through the problem was essentially teaching (he used leading questions and suggestive language)

Pythagoras’ Theorem is an analytic piece of knowledge, so even if it is learned a priori, this doesn’t contradict Hume’s fork, meaning it’s no issue for knowledge empiricists.

Question 20

Leibniz - Necessary Truths

for knowledge innatism

Answer 20

1. We know some necessary truths
2. We either justify this knowledge though experience or innate principles of reason
3. We cannot justify this knowledge through experience because it would only make the necessary truths probable (100 white swans example)
4. We must justify this knowledge through experience or innate principles of reason
5. We possess innate principles of reason

Question 21

Leibniz Necessary Truths - Criticisms

for knowledge empiricism, responding to knowledge innatism

Answer 21

we learn principles of reason through experience (we learn the law of non-contradiction through trying to do opposing things at the same time, like pulling a pushing door)

principles of reason are merely analytic, meaning that even if they’re learned a priori, it isn’t contradictory to Hume’s Fork, and therefore not problematic

Question 22

Leibniz Image of the Mind

innate knowledge

Answer 22

opposite of tabula rasa

imagine a veined block of marble, within in which the for of Hercules is created by the veins. If you were to chip away at the marble Hercules would be revealed. Leibniz argues that innate knowledge to the mind is as Hercules is to the marble. We only become conscious of our innate knowledge when confronted with certain experiences, just as hercules is revealed by tapping away the marble.

Question 23

Locke

argument against knowledge innatism, for knowledge empircism

Answer 23

Locke argues that as no knowledge is universally assented to, no knowledge is innate. This can be expressed formally:

1. If any principle is universally assented to, it is innate
2. No principle is universally assented to
3. Therefore no principle is innate

Question 24

Locke

for knowledge innatism, responding to knowledge empiricism

Answer 24

this inference is invalid; premise one and two don’t entail premise three

something that can be universally assented to without being innate - example - water is wet

there’s nothing that dictates that innate knowledge must be universally assented to; some people may inherit the innate knowledge whereas others may not

Question 25

non-naturalism | for knowledge empiricism, responding to knowledge innatism

Answer 25

as with concept innatism, knowledge innatism is connected in a problematic way with non-naturalism. For example, Socrates claims that the slave boy knew Pythagoras' Theorem 'before he was in human shape' which is known as metempsychosis (non-natural concept) This connection means that knowledge innatism is problematic through its association with non-naturalism

Question 26

Intuition

Answer 26

direct, non-inferential awareness of abstract objects or truths; a clear act of mental vision.

Question 27

Deduction

Answer 27

an argument whose conclusion is logically entailed by its premises; if the premises are true, the conclusion can't be false

Question 28

Intuition and Deduction opposed to knowledge empiricism

Answer 28

suggests that we can gain knowledge through the process of intuition and deduction rather than experience.

Question 29

Intuition - Descartes Knowledge of Existence

Answer 29

the one claim that can resist the demon claim is the cogito 'I think therefore I am' this is known through intuition - pure reflection on it reveals its truth

Question 30

Deduction - Descartes Proof of the Existence of God

Answer 30

1. I have a concept of God (perfect being) 2. This concept must have a cause 3. A cause must contain as much reality as its effect 4. The cause of my concept of God must contain as much reality as my concept of God 5. The cause of my concept of God must be God 6. Therefore God exists

Question 31

Deduction - Descartes Proof of the Existence of God responses (for knowledge empiricism)

Answer 31

This argument is involved in a larger circular argument; Descartes tries to prove clear and distinct perceptions are true on the basis that he clearly and distinctively perceives him. Does every concept have a cause? There are 'virtual particles' which scientists claim don't have a cause; they just pop in and out of existence. If not every concept has a cause there's no reason to believe that the concept of God has a cause.

Question 32

Deduction - Descartes Proof of the External World

Answer 32

1. I have perceptions of physical objects 2. My perceptions of physical objects are involuntary 3. If my perceptions of physical objects are involuntary, then I am not the cause of them 4. The cause of these perceptions is either God or the objects themselves 5. If God is the cause of my perceptions, then God is a deceiver 6. But God isn't a deceiver 7. My perceptions of physical objects are caused by the physical objects themselves 8. Physical objects exist existence of world is a contingent/synthetic truth that it may not exist. however by establishing it does without empirical knowledge he has established it a priori. Therefore you have a priori knowledge of synthetic truth = breaking Hume's fork

Question 33

Deduction - Descartes Proof of the External World responses (for knowledge empiricism)

Answer 33

Hallucinations and dreams contradict premise three, as in those cases I am the cause of my perceptions This argument hinges on the Trademark argument, which is faulty in itself

Question 34

Descartes Sceptical Arguments attacking knowledge empiricism

Answer 34

senses argument dreaming argument demon argument

Question 35

Descartes Sceptical Arguments senses argument

Answer 35

1. Sometimes my senses deceive me 2. I shouldn't trust my senses completely This means that we can't reliably gain knowledge through sense experience

Question 36

Descartes Sceptical Arguments senses argument - response

Answer 36

it's your senses that tell you they're originally deceiving you, so they are in fact relieable

Question 37

Descartes Sceptical Arguments dreaming argument

Answer 37

1. Sometimes dreams are indistinguishable from waking experience 2. If dreams are sometimes indistinguishable from waking experience, then I can't distinguish with certainty between dreams and waking experience 3. If I can't distinguish with certainty between dreams and waking experience even my best perceptions aren't an infallible guide to reality. 4. My best perceptions are not an infallible guide to reality. Essentially, we don't know that we're not dreaming right now, so our experience is not a reliable source of knowledge.

Question 38

Descartes Sceptical Arguments dreaming argument - response

Answer 38

I must be able to distinguish dreams and waking experience to be able to compare them at all

Question 39

Descartes Sceptical Arguments demon argument

Answer 39

1. I can only be certain that I'm perceiving and object if I'm certain that the object caused my perception 2. A malicious demon could be causing my perception of the object 3. I am not certain that I'm perceiving the object Essentially, a demon could be producing experience in me which systematically misrepresents the world. This means my experience is not a reliable source of knowledge.