Induction And Deduction Thesis Flashcards
What is synthetic ?
Denial doesn’t entail a contradiction - adds something new to the concepts/subject.
What is a priori?
Gained without the use of experience + justified without the use of experience.
Why is analytic a posteriori not possible?
Analytic claims cannot be justified with experience.
What is an intuition?
Direct and non-inferential grasping of abstract truths.
What is an a priori/rational intuition?
Capacity to grasp intuitions through the use of reasoning alone.
What is deduction?
Reasoning (inference) in which the premises are intended to entail the conclusion. (If premise is true, conc must be true)
What is a priori deduction?
Use of deduction where the premises of the arguments used do not require experience.
What does Descartes say about the intuition and deduction thesis?
At least SOME synthetic a priori knowledge is possible through the use of a priori intuition and a priori deduction.
We can use truth that doesn’t require experience to using reasoning that doesn’t depend on experience to discover new truths which are certain.
What does Descartes say about A PRIORI and NON-INFERENTIAL?
A priori - no further empirical evidence needed.
Non-inferential - they are grasped immediately e.g logic, maths etc.
NOT PRONE TO PHILOSOPHICAL DOUT.
What is an a priori foundation?
A priori intuitions and distinct ideas can be deductible through reason to create further knowledge ( SYNTHETIC A PRIORI KNOWLEDGE )
What do empiricists say about synthetic a priori knowledge?
They say there are no a priori synthetic propositions about the world external to our minds.
What does Hume’s fork establish?
Objects of knowledge;
1) relation of ideas
2) matters of fact
What are ROI?
- Justified a priori
- True due to meaning of ideas/concepts
- Denial does entail contradiction
- Inconceivable to be false
- Necessary truths
- Cannot be substantial truths about the world.
What are MOF?
- Justified a posteriori
- True because of how the world is
- Contingent truths
- Can be substantial truths about the world
- Can be false
- Denial doesn’t entail contradiction
What is Descartes’ theory of clear and distinct ideas?
An account of rational intuition
- Clear idea; present and accessible to an attentive mind
- Distinct idea; sharply separated from all other ideas so that every part is clear.
What is the trademark argument?
Descartes identifies 3 sources of ideas;
- outside the mind
- invented
- innate
What is the causal adequacy principle? (TRADEMARK)
Descartes argues that all causes must have at least as much reality as their effects.
Apply the causal adequacy principle to the TRADEMARK argument.
Descartes argues that only God has as much reality as what the concept of God represents ( something infinitive and perfect - SPB ).
The concept cannot be invented by the self ( ME ) and isn’t derived a posteriori - therefore, it must be innate.
How do empiricists object to the TRADEMARK?
Empiricists object to Descartes that we invented the idea of God by negating ideas of imperfection and being finite.
They also object to the causal adequacy principle; Descartes assumption that ALL ideas have a cause.
Descartes argument for physical objects/external world
Descartes argues that our concept of a physical object ( WAX EXAMPLE ) cannot be derived from its sensory properties due to them being able to change.
He argues our concept of a physical object is of something extended and changeable - this is clear and distinct, thus physical objects are possible.
E.g, wax undergoes far more changes than i can imagine so it ca’t be caused by my imagining ion.
THEREFORE< my knowledge of the concept of physical substance is a priori - Descartes’ applies this to the external world.
Argument for the existence of physical objects.
1) Because sensory experiences are involuntary, we can know that we don’t cause them (through the mind).
2) God is NOT a deceiver, therefore the perceptions aren’t caused by God
3) Therefore, the physical objects must exist in the external world.
What alternative do empiricists offer to intuition and deduction?
Knowledge of analytic/necessary truths is a part of conceptual knowledge not a priori/rational intuition.
To know an analytic truth you have to know the concepts involved
Because the concepts come for our experience all of our knowledge including analytical is derived from sense experience.
Why does Descartes’ only accept beliefs that are clearly and distinctly true?
Attempts to prove that we can have a priori synthetic knowledge and uncover substantial truths simply by rational intuition and deduction.
Explain the cogito
Descartes’ claims that the cogito is a clear and distinct idea and he further claims that whatever he perceives clearly and distinctly is true.
Something that ‘doubts’ is something that thinks THEREFORE it must be the case that I exist as something that thinks THEREFORE- I being the mind or the ‘thinking thing’.
Issue with the cogito - existence of the body
I in the cogito refers to the mind, thus not reinforcing the existence of the body -the demon could be deceiving us about the existence of our bodies; brain in a vat.
Issue with the cogito - succession of thoughts, similarity vs. Identity
Could be a succession of thoughts and not the same thing/substance that persists from one thought to another - the idea of a ‘thinking thing’ confuses similarity (our exp of the similarity of our thoughts from one moment to the next) for identity (identical thinking persisting through thoughts and to which they belong).
Thoughts must logically require a thinker as they are passive and must be thought about by something.
Issue with the cogito refers- is the cogito from rational intuition?
Descartes’ - yes because it is clear and distinct
Empiricists say no;
1) we can question whether it’s a clear and distinct idea that i am a mental substance.
2) Berkeley - i know that i exist because i experience myself and my thoughts not because of clear and distinct ideas being certain and true
Hume - impressions provide us with a priori knowledge and intuitive certainty.
Why does Descartes’ introduce God?
God wouldn’t deceive us - this makes us secure in our knowledge of clear and distinct ideas because a non-deceiver would give us the ability to correct our false beliefs)
Ontological argument
God is innate concept that we discover within our minds - idea of God is utterly inseparable from existence.
Empiricists resp to ontological HUME
Knowledge can only be known through ROI or MOF.
‘God exists’ is a relation of ideas (true a priori and by virtue of the meaning of God) but questions of existence are MOF and synthetic propositions - nothing can necessarily exist we can’t have a priori synthetic knowledge of God.
Cosmological argument - what causes his existence?
1) I CANT BE THE CAUSE OF MY OWN EXISTENCE
- if i caused my own existence then i would give myself all perfections but i don’t have all perfection
2) CONTINUED EXISTENCE
-some cause is needed to keep me in existence
3) CAUSAL ADEQUACY PRINCIPLE
-whatever caused me must be a thinking thing other than myself - whatever caused me must either be the cause of its own existence or caused by something else.
4) INFINITE REGRESS
- there can’t be n infinite regress of causes THEREFORE there must be a cause that is the case of its own existence WHICH MUST BE God.
Empiricists resp to cosmological argument
Infinite regress can’t be proved true or false as its not synthetic or analytic - Descartes’ claims to have a clear and distinct idea of God but as a finite mind he cannot grasp this thought, just understands it, thus it isn’t persuasive
HUME - claims of existence can’t be proved true through intuition and deduction; our exp tells us that there must be an original cause ‘something can’t come from nothing) ( it’s a posteriori + contingent ) thus, it could be false, so not proof.
