Epistemology arguments Flashcards
What is locke’s argument against innate knowledge ?
To be innate, a concept must be present in the mind at birth
The idea of God is not present in the minds of young children
Therefore there are no innate ideas. These ideas showing up only demonstrate that our minds have the capacity to form these from experience we have
If there were innate ideas, they would be universally agreed upon
God is not universally agreed upon
There are whole societies who do not have such ideas and principles. The existence of different religions around the world show the contradiction of the idea of God
Therefore no innate ideas
What is Hume’s copy principle ?
Our mind takes in sense impressions and reflects on these to create ideas
Eg.. If we take in the sense impressions of round, red, juicy and soft, through reflection, we get the idea of a tomato
This is a copy of sense impressions in our minds
Hume argues all ideas derive from these sources as if you lack the relevant sense, you cannot form ideas associated with it
I.e. A blind person cannot form the idea of red
He would say we came to acquire the concept of God by piercing together attributes to form the idea of God.
I.e.
Loving is extended to all loving
What is Hume’s own criticism of his copy principle ?
He says if you are given a spectrum of the colour blue, you could think of a colour in the middle of two colours in the spectrum
I.e. One shade lighter and one shade darker…
This would not require sense experience to create this colour
Therefore not everything comes from sense experience
how would empiricists know something without having a direct sense impression of it?
What’s plato’s argument for rationalism? (Forms)
Empiricists believe all ideas are copies of sense impressions
Some ideas are not such as the idea of ‘beauty’
Which applies to many different sense expressions like music and landscape. Abstract and universal ideas like beauty cannot be tied back to one particular sense impression
Therefore they come from a perfect and innate ideal FORM of beauty
What are Plato’s forms (4)
Ideal perfect versions of something
Eternal and unchanging concepts
Grasped through reason and not the senses
Metaphysical (outside material world)
-platonic world
What is Hume’s criticism of Plato’s idea of forms ?
Beauty is a projection of our inner sentiments onto objects.
We gain certain feelings from objects because of the mind’s productive faculty and we give it a label.
So, when I call a sunset beautiful, this is not the real quality of the sunset but my feeling of pleasure from looking at it treated as if it were a quality of the object itself.
This is why people have different ideas of beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder.
This removes the need for an innate form supporting empirical claims.
What are Kant’s conceptual schemes? How do they support rationalism?
Hume argues that we are born with blank slates.
Kant argues that experience would be meaningless without some pre existing ideas ideas build into our minds to start with
If we were blank slates we would just end up with a bunch of colours, sounds and smells with no order in our minds.
He argues we have an innate conceptual scheme that interprets information so we can make sense of it.
An example of this is causation.
We can only understand that the world operates according to rules like “every effect has a cause” if I am born with this principle as it is not something we can have a direct sense impression of.
Kant says we have a conceptual scheme in place to help us understand how one thing will affect something else. I.e throwing a ball on the ground and it bounces.
He argues that innate ideas must exist as with the categories from conceptual schemes- like time, space, self and causation, experience would be meaningless jumbo
What is The purpose of Hume’s fork?
To set out limits to our knowledge
To distinguish truth and nonsense
It helps us not accept anything without good reason
To show that synthetic a priori knowledge does not exist
What is Hume’s fork?
It distinguishes between what Hume thinks are the two types of knowledge
-relations of ideas
Thinking without justified through experience … Maths
-matters of fact
Entirely know through experience
Relations of ideas are presented through
Intuition
-when we can intellectually grasp the concept of something that couldn’t be otherwise
Deduction
-logically demonstrating something without reference to sense experience
Relations of ideas are certain as the truth of proposition is necessary
I.e. A triangle has 3 sides
These are analytic truths
Matters of fact are presented through Inward sentiment - emotions we have that we discover by looking inwards like sympathy Outward sense -sense impressions like colours
Matters of fact are not certain The proposition is not necessarily true I.e. I will pass the exam These are synthetic truths "The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible"
What are the three options you can come out with when you put a truth to the test with Hume’s fork
Synthetic truths - a posteriori
Analytic truths - a priori
Or nonsense !
What is the implications for science in regard to Hume’s fork?
Science is based on experience and as a matter of fact
This means it is not necessarily true.
It’s validity come from assumption which is based on experience
Just because the sun has come out every day, doesn’t mean it will come out tomorrow
How does Hume’s fork support empiricism.
Shows synthetic a priori knowledge is not valid
Like God
What are Descartes’ three sceptical arguments?
List the three
Argument from illusion
Argument from dreaming
The ‘Brian in vats’ argument
What is Descartes’ three waves of doubt explained with the conclusion?
Descartes presents three sceptical waves of doubt which he later disregards and builds on the foundations of what we can actually know
Descartes first argument is the argument from illusion. We can experience illusions that are indistinguishable from true experience.
Descartes then deduced that we cannot fully trust our perceptions and know that this isn’t an illusion now.
His second wave of doubt is his argument from dreaming where he says we have dreams indistinguishable from true experience. Therefore we cannot be fully certain that we are not dreaming now.
His third wave of doubt is his argument of an ‘evil demon’ or ‘brains in vats’. He says we cannot know for certain that an evil demon is not controlling our perceptions as we would not know it if he was as our only way of knowing it would be through the perceptions which he would be controlling. Phantom limbs present us with the idea that sensations are in our minds. Descartes takes this further by suggesting that everything could be in our minds and we are “brains in vats”
Descartes refutes this.
We have the ability to think and question where we are so we must exist. (I think therefore I am). He also deduced that because we have the idea of God as a perfect being, he must exist to put the idea of himself in us (Descartes trademark argument). We can also know the external world exists as we have an idea of it. We know our own minds would not deceive us and an omnibenevolent God would not deceive us so it must exist.
What three things according to Descartes can we know?
We exist (I think therefore I am) God exists The external world exists