part two - knowledge Flashcards
Knowledge
JTB, facts, information
examples - paris is in France, gold has the automic number of 79
Knowledge Innatism
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
Knowledge Empiricism
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’
Hume’s Fork
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
Matter of Fact
Hume’s Fork
- a posteriori knowledge
- synthetic statement
- contingent truths
Relation of Ideas
Hume’s Fork
- a priori knowledge
- analytic statements
- necessary truths
Hume’s Fork - simplified for empiricism
All synthetic statements are a posteriori
all a priori statements are analytic
Analytic Statement
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
Synthetic Statment
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
A Priori
if you know a proposition just by thinking about it
I know X a priori if I know X independent of experience
A Posteriori
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
Hume’s Fork
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.
Necessary Truth
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
Contingent Truth
when a statement is true but can be imagined in certain circumstances in which it would be false
example - it’s raining today
Descartes
cc
Synthetic and Analytic Statements
A priori and A posteriori Statements
semantic distinction (about meaning) - analytic and synthetic
epistemic distinction (about experience) - a priori and a posteriori
Knowledge Innatists
against knowledge empiricists
claim that there is some synthetic a priori knowledge.
Plato’s Meno
for knowledge innatism
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:
- Pythagoras’ Theorem is either taught or innate
- Slave boy knows Pythagoras’ Theorem
- Slave boy wasn’t taught the theorem
- Slave boy has innate knowledge of Pythagoras’ Theorem
Plato’s Meno - Criticisms
for knowledge empiricism, responding to knowledge innatism
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.
Leibniz - Necessary Truths
for knowledge innatism
- We know some necessary truths
- We either justify this knowledge though experience or innate principles of reason
- We cannot justify this knowledge through experience because it would only make the necessary truths probable (100 white swans example)
- We must justify this knowledge through experience or innate principles of reason
- We possess innate principles of reason
Leibniz Necessary Truths - Criticisms
for knowledge empiricism, responding to knowledge innatism
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
Leibniz Image of the Mind
innate knowledge
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.
Locke
argument against knowledge innatism, for knowledge empircism
Locke argues that as no knowledge is universally assented to, no knowledge is innate. This can be expressed formally:
- If any principle is universally assented to, it is innate
- No principle is universally assented to
- Therefore no principle is innate
Locke
for knowledge innatism, responding to knowledge empiricism
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
non-naturalism
for knowledge empiricism, responding to knowledge innatism
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
Intuition
direct, non-inferential awareness of abstract objects or truths; a clear act of mental vision.
Deduction
an argument whose conclusion is logically entailed by its premises; if the premises are true, the conclusion can’t be false
Intuition and Deduction
opposed to knowledge empiricism
suggests that we can gain knowledge through the process of intuition and deduction rather than experience.
Intuition - Descartes
Knowledge of Existence
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
Deduction - Descartes
Proof of the Existence of God
- I have a concept of God (perfect being)
- This concept must have a cause
- A cause must contain as much reality as its effect
- The cause of my concept of God must contain as much reality as my concept of God
- The cause of my concept of God must be God
- Therefore God exists
Deduction - Descartes
Proof of the Existence of God
responses (for knowledge empiricism)
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.
Deduction - Descartes
Proof of the External World
- I have perceptions of physical objects
- My perceptions of physical objects are involuntary
- If my perceptions of physical objects are involuntary, then I am not the cause of them
- The cause of these perceptions is either God or the objects themselves
- If God is the cause of my perceptions, then God is a deceiver
- But God isn’t a deceiver
- My perceptions of physical objects are caused by the physical objects themselves
- 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
Deduction - Descartes
Proof of the External World
responses (for knowledge empiricism)
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
Descartes Sceptical Arguments
attacking knowledge empiricism
senses argument
dreaming argument
demon argument
Descartes Sceptical Arguments
senses argument
- Sometimes my senses deceive me
- I shouldn’t trust my senses completely
This means that we can’t reliably gain knowledge through sense experience
Descartes Sceptical Arguments
senses argument - response
it’s your senses that tell you they’re originally deceiving you, so they are in fact relieable
Descartes Sceptical Arguments
dreaming argument
- Sometimes dreams are indistinguishable from waking experience
- If dreams are sometimes indistinguishable from waking experience, then I can’t distinguish with certainty between dreams and waking experience
- If I can’t distinguish with certainty between dreams and waking experience even my best perceptions aren’t an infallible guide to reality.
- 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.
Descartes Sceptical Arguments
dreaming argument - response
I must be able to distinguish dreams and waking experience to be able to compare them at all
Descartes Sceptical Arguments
demon argument
- I can only be certain that I’m perceiving and object if I’m certain that the object caused my perception
- A malicious demon could be causing my perception of the object
- 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.
