Reason & experience Flashcards
What is the meaning of ‘substantive knowledge’?
Knowledge about the external world beyond my mind, which tells me about reality. Substantive knowledge is usually known a posteriori according to empiricists. For example I breathe air.
What is the difference between an ‘analytic’ statement and a ‘synthetic’ statement?
What makes it true. An analytic statement is a proposition that is true by definition, and is true by virtue of the meanings of the words in the sentence. The words often imply each other and are true by definition. For example a triangle has three sides (a priori). A synthetic statement is a proposition that is true by virtue of the way that the world is, and is true for as long as it corresponds to physical reality. For example I have brown hair.
What is the difference between ‘a priori’ knowledge and ‘a posteriori’ knowledge?
How is it known? A priori is an adjective meaning before used to describe any statement that can only be known without recourse to experience, I do not need to check or experience it for it to be true. For example a triangle has three sides. A posteriori is an adjective meaning after used to describe any statement that can only be known from experience, not known directly from the definition of the word. It requires experience, and cannot be known from the word alone. For example Geoffrey is six foot tall, neither word implies the other.
What is the difference between ‘contingent’ truths and ‘necessary’ truths?
A contingent truth is a truth that can be denied without leading to a contradiction, it can be imagined to be otherwise. For example the table is green, the green is not necessary for the table, it could just as easily be red or blue. A necessary truth is a truth that cannot be denied without leading to a contradiction, it cannot be imagined otherwise. For example blue is not colourless.
What is the difference between an ‘inductive’ argument and a ‘deductive’ argument?
An inductive argument is a process of reasoning that draws a general conclusion from worldly evidence; it is also proportional to time in terms of strength. For example all the swans I’ve seen are white, therefore all swans are white. If I have only been on earth 3 days and seen 5 swans, this is a poor justification, compared to an elderly man who has seen thousands of swans. A deductive argument is a process of reasoning that draws a necessary conclusion from a given set of premises. For example mothers are female. Kegs students are male. Therefore no kegs students are mothers.
What is the difference between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ claims?
An objective claim is something that is definitely true, regardless of personal perspective. Subjective claim is dependent on personal perspective, for example he is good looking. This opinion will differ from person to person.
Explain what empiricists claim about the origins of our ideas (e.g. Locke’s point with the tabula rasa).
We have no ideas that were not ultimately derived from experience. We have no innate ideas. We were a tabula rasa at birth. Locke claims that there are no innate ideas; our mind is a “tabula rasa” or blank slate. This therefore leads to the conclusion that all ideas are gained through sense experience.
How would an empiricist define innate ideas, and why does this lead them to believe that innate ideas do not exist?
Locke sees an idea as both a proposition and concept, and thus an idea cannot be part of the mind without the mind being conscious of it.
Explain Hume’s ‘copy principle’, and the theory of ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ ideas. Give examples.
Simple ideas are basic ideas that cannot be broken down any further, for example single colours, shapes or smells, these are the base ideas which can create complex ideas. Complex ideas are a compilation of simple ideas that we can create in our minds, for example a car consists of red, cold etc. We can only understand complex ideas once we experience simple ideas. We also cannot create new simple ideas, like a new colour, because our ideas are derived from experience (empiricist view).
Explain Hume’s fork, and how it relates to the justification of knowledge. Give examples.
Hume’s fork is the theory of dividing all propositions, and thus all knowledge, into two kinds: matters of fact and relations of ideas. Substantive knowledge is known through experience, a posterori, and conceptual knowledge is known through the definition of a word, a priori. This makes relations of ideas conceptual and matters of fact substantive. Knowledge can only fall into one category, and propositions that do not fall under either category are not true knowledge, we can only be sure of conceptual truths.
Explain why Hume feels that there is no such thing as substantive knowledge that is necessarily true, and why our knowledge of the existence of all things can only be justified by experience.
?
List and explain as many ‘strengths’ of the empiricist’s position on the origins of our ideas as you can (at LEAST two)
- Babies seem to lack any kind of ideas or knowledge at birth. We seem to be born a tabula rasa who gains all knowledge from simple impressions and sense data.
- All ideas can be broken into and traced back to simple constituent parts, and the mind is incapable of creating new simple ideas that it has not encountered.
- The existence of innate ideas are not necessary for explaining the origins of all ideas.
- How can we have an idea that we are not actively ware of? Surely that is not an idea.
List and explain as many problems as you can with the empiricist’s position on the origins of our ideas (at LEAST two)
- How could a tabula rasa make sense of experience without prior concepts to make sense of it with? This view is overly simplistic, and cannot account for the way those we innately structure and order experience. (conceptual scheme)
- Why do some ideas seem to not be ultimately derived from sense experience, for example maths, justice, god, myself. Indeed, these ideas seem to be applied to world events, not derived from them.
- There are an extraordinary number of common notions amongst humanity, despite a wide breadth of human experience. These ideas are not shared by any non-human animals. This suggests common innate tendencies towards particular ideas in humans.
List and explain as many ‘strengths’ of the empiricist’s position on the justification of our knowledge as you can (at LEAST two)
- Substantive knowledge deals with existence, and the world outside the mind. In order to know the world outside the mind, you need to experience it. Reason can only give me conceptual knowledge, and cannot tell me anything other than trivial and tautological truths.
- When I use reason to work out truths about the world, I do so using past experience, and then need to confirm the truth of my hypothesis with empirical tests.
List and explain as many problems as you can with the empiricist’s position on the justification of our knowledge (at LEAST two)
• We never experience the world outside the mind directly, we only ever experience the way the world seems to us (indirect realism). Does this mean that I can have no substantive knowledge of the real world?
• Since experience is private, it follows that we can never compare or share experiences. Does that mean that we can never share any knowledge?
• There are plenty of things that I never can experience, that I would like to say exist. Eg. My mind, anti matter.
Counter I am not saying they do not exist, but that we cannot know. Also just because something is displeasing it does not make it untrue.
• If substantive knowledge is justified with experience it can only be contingently known, and will be uncertain or even unpredictable. The sense are unreliable.
Explain what rationalists claim about the origins of our ideas (in response to the tabula rasa hypothesis)
Many of our ideas are derived from experience, but not all. We do have some innate ideas, ideas that could not have come about by experience alone. This therefore means that we are not a tabula rasa at birth, we do possess innate ideas.
How would a rationalist define innate ideas, and why does this lead them to believe that innate ideas do exist? Give examples, and an analogy.
Nativism gives a different definition of innate ideas, we do not have the idea/concept at birth, experience must trigger our awareness of the idea, but the idea itself is not derived from experience. Various examples of this are a bird song being triggered; birds sing the complex song of their species after just hearing just a small part of it.
Explain why rationalists feel that some substantive knowledge is necessarily true, and why the existence of some things can be known a priori. Give examples.
- I exist – I cannot experience myself, yet I know I exist.
- God exists – Descartes, the ontological argument is known to him with certainty. God is a supremely perfect being, and if God doesn’t exist, he is not all perfect, as I can imagine a more perfect version.
- Laws of physics allow me to make substantive claims with no experience at all, the use of maths and physics can determine where a cannon ball will land if I know the speed/velocity etc. No experience is needed.
- If substantive knowledge is only justified by experience, it is therefore contingent. I have to constantly have new experience to justify that my past experience of the world has not completely changed, rationalists can see the world according to fixed laws, Laplace’s Demon could calculate the events of the world.
- If you are an indirect realist, we never see and can never experience the external world directly.
- List and explain as many ‘strengths’ of the rationalist’s position on the origins of our ideas as you can (at LEAST two)
- Innate faculties (reason, language acquisition devices etc) seem to determine knowledge later on.
- Maths, justice and God are examples of content not derived from experience.
- Experience is merely the trigger, not the source. If this is the case then why are we any different to animals? They also have experience, but not the innate ideas to understand them.
Explain how Descartes feels he manages to prove some substantive knowledge (e.g. Cogito, Ontological Argument) a priori.
- I exist – I cannot experience myself, yet I know I exist.
- God exists – Descartes, the ontological argument is known to him with certainty. God is a supremely perfect being, and if God doesn’t exist, he is not all perfect, as I can imagine a more perfect version.
- Laws of physics allow me to make substantive claims with no experience at all, the use of maths and physics can determine where a cannon ball will land if I know the speed/velocity etc. No experience is needed.
- If substantive knowledge is only justified by experience, it is therefore contingent. I have to constantly have new experience to justify that my past experience of the world has not completely changed, rationalists can see the world according to fixed laws, Laplace’s Demon could calculate the events of the world.
- If you are an indirect realist, we never see and can never experience the external world directly.
List and explain as many problems as you can with the rationalist’s position on the origins of our ideas (at LEAST two)
• Innate ideas can be explained by the mind’s ability to create new ideas from simple ones, which are thus ultimately derived from experience.
• A tendency or faculty is not the same as an innate idea, an idea is a concept that the mind possesses and is aware of at birth.
• If the ideas are innate, why do different cultures have differences about morality, God etc.
Counter – the opinion is different but the idea is still there.
• Tribes have no concept of math/time.
List and explain as many ‘strengths’ of the rationalist’s position on the justification of our knowledge as you can (at LEAST two)
- The existence of me and God can be deduced a priori by a simple intuition of the mind, cogito et ergo sum / ontological argument.
- Some substantive knowledge can come from prior knowledge, eg where a cannon ball will land, or that a chair will fall if dropped.
- Without reason all knowledge would be chaotic and contingent, like it is to an animal.
List and explain as many problems as you can with the rationalist’s position on the justification of our knowledge (at LEAST two)
- There is nothing that can be known to exist a priori, if the existence of something cannot be confirmed by experience, then to say it exists is meaningless.
- Mathematical proofs from physical laws are based entirely on prior experience, and their predictions can only be correct once proved through further experience.
- A priori reasoning about the world assumes a deterministic universe, for example the cannon ball will land here, and this cannot be completely justified, quantum physics.
- Isn’t reason simply categorising or making sense of experience, it can tell us nothing of the world independently without experience.
Explain what is meant by a ‘conceptual scheme’.
A conceptual scheme is a framework of ideas and notions through which our experiences are interpreted and categorised. Without one our ideas and impressions would be a jumbled confusion of which we could make no sense.
Explain why Kant feels that we must be born with a conceptual scheme of categories (include the term ‘transcendental argument’.
Transcendental – Something is necessary for the possibility of something else.
There are categories of the mind that have to be known prior to experience for experience to be possible.
?
Give examples of these categories.
Quantity: Unity, plurality, totality
Quality: Reality, negation, limitation
Relation: Substance, causality, dependence, community, interaction
Modality: Possibility, impossibility, existence, necessity, contingency.
Explain why these categories would constitute ‘synthetic, a priori knowledge’.
Synthetic statements relate to the nature of the world.
These categories are about the world, but also known without experience through a conceptual scheme.
Why is Kant’s theory called his ‘synthesis’ of empiricism and rationalism?
It is described as a synthesis because it acknowledges both sides in saying that reason and experience are both necessities, and then says that you need both to be able to understand and even gain knowledge, whereas the rationalists and empiricists disagree over which one is the necessity.
Explain the difference between the phenomenal world and the noumenal world.
An indirect view of the world, the noumenal world is the world as itself, and the phenoumenal world is the world as we experience it, after our experiences process through the brain.
Why is it called a ‘Copernican Revolution’ in philosophy?
The idea that we do not derive our concepts from the world, but our concepts shape the world. The basic structure is the same for us all, but the details come from the individuals mind.
Explain the difference between Hume and Kant on the origins of our idea of ‘cause’. Which do you find more plausible and why?
Kant argues that causality is a category of relation and part of the conceptual scheme, which is of course innate. Hume, however, believing the tabula rasa hypothesis, believes that our idea of cause comes from repeat experiences, whereby we gain enough evidence to suggest the existence of causality, by repeatedly watching one action making another happen and by linking those together.
Explain why subsequent philosophers have taken a posteriori conceptual schemes to lead to cultural relativism.
By making conceptual schemes work a posteriori, philosophers tried to find a reason for different cultural concepts. With the belief that our conceptual scheme is no longer innate, but caused by our experiences, philosophers found a reason for cultural relativism, where that is the observation that one culture has concepts of the world which are very different to another culture’s concepts of the world. These a posteriori conceptual schemes explain the variation of conceptual understandings between cultures.
Explain the relationship between conceptual schemes and language, according to Whorf.
With cultural relativism it is evident that concepts of the world can be relative to the culture in which you are brought up. If different cultures create different languages, they would be built from the ground up with concepts expressed which are relative to their culture, eg. one culture may not have words for time whereas another would. Our conceptual schemes, therefore create almost conceptual languages, relative to the culture, expressing their languages on the basis of their concepts, and limiting future expression of concepts not a part of the language, as they are inexpressible through the language. The limitations of language can cause you not understand a whole concept or express a whole view, because the language may not have the words for it.
Whorf argues that the grammatical structure and vocabulary of the language you speak determines how you structure experience. For example the American Hopi Indians have no words for time, past future therefore they must have radically different concepts to English speakers.
Provide at least two strengths of a priori conceptual schemes.
1) Primitive Understanding A conceptual scheme is necessary to understand or make sense of experience. Without a conceptual scheme, everything you experience would mean nothing; there must be a way to understand what is happening. We cannot organise sense data without having a way of doing so and so, there must be something that comes before experience to be able to understand it. The thing that comes before must be a conceptual scheme to organise the thoughts.
2) Similarities An innate conceptual scheme argues that we all have these similar concepts which we all agree on, categorised as above and it argues this from evidence. If the evidence of similar conceptual schemes argues that there is one by showing that all people categorise in the same way, then it seems as though a shared, innate, a priori conceptual scheme must exist.
3) Causality Kant argues that nothing about an object changing implies cause and effect. Without knowing about causality, all it would be to me would be my perceptions changing. I then need causality to be experiencing the object and without it I cannot have intelligible experience. Therefore causality must be an innate concept as I would have needed it prior to experience.
Provide at least two weaknesses of a priori conceptual schemes.
1) Repeat Experiences The concepts described by the conceptual scheme can all be reached through experience. A repeated experience of cause and effect would imply that cause and effect exists, as a complex idea. Through repeat experiences you can reach these abstract concepts. If I see something that looks one way and then I see the same thing again and it looks the same again, and if I do that repeatedly, I will come to the conclusion of it being the same thing, without needing unity as a necessity of the conceptual scheme. These concepts can all be derived through repeat experiences.
2) Dissimilarities Conceptual schemes do vary between cultures, or at least they seem to. Some cultures have been proved to have different concepts of progression to us. One culture could not have the concept of time whereas another does. This variation implies that we do not all have the same conceptual scheme, because some people have a concept that others do not although it should in theory innately come to all. Therefore, conceptual schemes, if they exist, must not be reached a priori but rather a posteriori.
Quantum physics raises questions about the causality of events, and doesn’t conform to the previous theory that particles must occupy space.
The things we experience are entirely subjective and perhaps not representative of the noumenal world
We could be born with innate capacities;the ability to develop conceptual schemes through repetition over time rather than being born with it
