An Epistemology Update

1
An Epistemology Update

• John Rafferty MA MSc PGCE
• Senior Lecturer Social Sciences
• Langside College Glasgow
• JRafferty_at_Langside.ac.uk
• Tel [phone]

2
Section 1

• Philosophical Issues in Epistemology

3
Outcome 1

• Demonstrate an understanding of the philosophical
  issues in the area of epistemology
• The Tripartite Theory of Knowledge
• Philosophical Problems with the Tripartite theory
• Scepticism, Rationalism and Empiricism

4
Question 1

• Why are knowledge claims a problem in philosophy?

5
Appearance and Reality

• Perceptual problems
• Colour blindness hallucinations
• Optical illusions
• The stick in water isnt bent
• Atmospheric effects
• Mirages as they appear Stars dont twinkle
• Time lapse illusions
• Some stars no longer exist
• Radical philosophical doubt
• Descartes Demon Platos Cave The Matrix Brain
  in a Jar

6
Illusions of perspective
7
Light refraction
8
Objects on the horizon
9
Railway tracks
10
Belief, Knowledge Certainty

• Belief
• A proposition that is held to be true but without
  sufficient evidence to convince others
• Knowledge
• A proposition that is believed, is true and can
  be supported by evidence
• Certainty
• A proposition where there is no doubt about its
  truth

11
Question 2

• What is knowledge?

12
Knowing how v knowing that

• A distinction associated with Gilbert Ryle
  (1900-1976)
• Knowing that
• Facts and information propositional knowledge
  I know that Berlin is in Germany
• Knowing how
• An ability or skill a dispositional or
  operational knowledge I know how to bake bread
• Most of epistemology has been concerned with
  knowing that, especially classical debates
• Can all cases of knowing how be reduced to
  collections of knowing that?
• E.g. Knowing how to drive a car
• Is knowing that useless without knowing how?
• Is innatism only tenable as applied to knowing
  how?

13
The Tripartite Theory of knowledge

• A classical definition of knowledge
• An agent (A) can be said to know a proposition
  (P) if
• P is true (the truth condition)
• A believes P (the belief condition)
• A has sufficient evidence for P (the evidence
  condition
• This definition of knowledge is called Justified
  true belief
• Having two of these conditions is not enough to
  count as knowledge.

14
The Hesitant Student

• Teacher Billy, what is 3x7?
• Billy Er(guesses) is it 21?
• In this case p is true (3x7 is 21) and Billy has
  evidence for p (he has been to the classes) but
  he doesnt believe P.
• Is this a case of knowledge?

15
The Lucky Punter

• A gambler finds a four leaf clover so bets on a
  horse that day believing that his horse will win
  now that he has this lucky charm. The horse does
  win.
• In this case p is true (the horse did win) and
  the punter believed p (he sincerely thought the
  horse would win) but his evidence for this belief
  seems inadequate.
• Is this a case of knowledge?

16
Santas Visit

• Many children believe in Santa Claus. They leave
  cookies out for him that are eaten the next
  morning and as promised the presents arrive every
  Christmas day. Parents, shopkeepers and teachers
  all reinforce this belief.
• In this case the children believe P (they think
  Santa is real) and have evidence for believing P
  (teachers and parents confirm it) but P isnt
  true
• Is this knowledge?

17
Problems with the tripartite theory

• The Gettier Problem
• Smith has applied for a job, but has a justified
  belief that "Jones will get the job". He also
  knows that "Jones has 10 coins in his pocket".
  Smith therefore concludes that "the man who will
  get the job has 10 coins in his pocket".
• In fact, Smith gets the job but, as it happens,
  also has 10 coins in his pocket. So his belief
  that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins
  in his pocket" was justified and true but isnt
  knowledge.
• Infinite regress argument
• Every justification in turn requires
  justification and arguably this demand for
  justification is never sated.
• Some justifications are unreliable
• Sense experience is prone to deception
• Innate ideas are controversial
• Analytic truths are trivially true

18
Question 3

• Can knowledge claims be justified?

19
Rationalism and Empiricism

• Rationalism
• Reason is the source of all knowledge
• Mind contains innate ideas
• Maths is a model for knowledge
• Knowledge can be gained a priori
• Knowledge can be certain
• The senses are easily fooled
• Examples Plato, Augustine Descartes Leibniz

• Empiricism
• The senses are the source of all knowledge
• Mind is a tabula rasa
• Biology is a model for knowledge
• Knowledge is only gained a posteriori
• Knowledge can only ever be probable
• Reason only gives us access to uninformative
  tautologies
• Examples Aristotle (?) Locke Berkeley Hume

20
Section 2

• Classic Texts in Epistemology

21
Outcomes 2 3

• Critically analyse a standard philosophical
  position in the area of epistemology
• Describe the epistemology of Descartes or Hume
• Explain the reasoning and assumptions on which
  this account is based
• Cite specific extracts
• Critically evaluate a standard philosophical
  position in the area of epistemology
• Explain the strengths and weaknesses of Descartes
  or Hume
• Present a conclusion on the persuasiveness of
  this account
• Give reasons in support of this conclusion

22
Section 2 Option 1

• René Descartes

23
René Descartes

• Meditations
• on First Philosophy

24
Historical Context

• The Renaissance
• The end of Scholasticism
• Rebirth in knowledge
• Flourishing in the arts
• Architecture
• Painting
• Science

25
Historical Context

• The Reformation
• Split in the church
• Birth of Protestantism
• Catholic dominance ends
• Europe divided
• Martin Luther

26
Historical Context

• Discovery of the New World
• New cultures and peoples
• New world view

27
René Descartes

• Meditation 1
• The Sceptical Method

28
Method

• Assume nothing
• Start afresh
• Re-examine his beliefs
• Focus on foundational beliefs
• Reject obvious falsehoods
• But also reject even slightly doubtful beliefs
• Looking for 1 certainty to base his knowledge on
• Architectural metaphor
• Barrel of apples analogy

29
Attacking Sense Experience

• Objects in the distance
• Small objects
• Other arguments from illusion are possible
• But surely apart from these the senses are
  reliable?

30
Dreaming Argument

• A stronger argument against sense experience
• Any given sense experience can be replicated in
  dreams
• Hence sense experience is unreliable
• In fact, there is never any sure way of
  distinguishing dreams from reality

31
A Priori truths

• Dreams are like paintings
• They must be based on reality
• Or at least the colours and shapes must be real
• Whether awake or asleep a square still has 4
  sides
• Hence maths and geometry escape the dream
  argument and may be reliable

32
Do all dreams contain some knowledge?
33
The Demon Hypothesis

• An argument against a priori knowledge
• The ultimate in scepticism
• A test which any candidate for certainty must
  pass
• Imagine a demon were fooling us in everything we
  see and think
• If this scenario were true, could anything still
  be certain?
• This idea has reappeared in different forms

34
René Descartes

• Meditation 2
• Finding Certainty

35
The Search for Certainty

• Restates his sceptical approach
• Like Archimedes he is looking for 1 fixed point
• Assumes he has no body
• Assumes everything revealed by the senses is a
  lie
• Assumes the Demon fools him at every turn
• Can anything be known if we assume all this?

36
The Cogito

• Cogito ergo sum
• I am, I exist (Meditations)
• I think therefore I am (Discourse)
• Defeats the Dreaming Argument
• you must exist to dream
• Defeats the Demon Hypothesis
• You must exist to be fooled
• A self-authenticating statement
• You affirm its truth each time you think it
• But surely we know external objects better than
  we know the mind?

37
Rationalism and Empiricism

• A major dispute running through the entire
  history of philosophy has to do with the
  source(s) of human knowledge. There are two major
  schools rationalism and empiricism.
• The empiricists hold that knowledge is derived
  from sense perception and experience.
• The rationalists (such as Descartes) hold that
  knowledge is derived from clear logical thinking,
  from the intellect (i.e., from "reason").

38
The Wax Example

• Wax has one set of properties when cold
• But all its properties change when heated
• Yet we still think its the same wax. Why?
• It cant be the senses that tells us this - they
  give conflicting reports
• Cant be imagination either - wax can change more
  ways than we can imagine
• So it must be pure mental scrutiny that reveals
  the true nature of the wax
• Hence Rationalism should be adopted over
  Empiricism

39
Perception

• In fact all perception is really a case of mental
  judgement
• We say we see a man crossing the square
• Yet all we see are a hat and cloak which could
  conceal an automaton
• Our judgements go beyond what we strictly have
  sense experience for

40
René Descartes

• Meditation 3 Rebuilding knowledge

41
Rebuilding Knowledge

• Descartes strategy in rebuilding knowledge rests
  on 2 central claims
• The clear and distinct rule
• The existence of a benevolent God

42
The Clear and Distinct Rule

• What is it that convinces us of the truth of the
  Cogito?
• It is a clear and distinct perception
• A psychological state which gives rise to
  irresistible certainty
• Hence anything else which is clear and distinct
  must also be certain
• This rule can now be used to rebuild knowledge by
  identifying other truths
• Gods existence, for example, can be known
  clearly and distinctly

43
The Trademark Argument

• This argument in Meditation 3 helps support the
  clear and distinct rule
• We have an idea of God in our mind
• This idea must have a cause
• There must be as much reality in the cause as in
  its effect
• The cause of the idea is God
• The idea is like a trademark left in our minds by
  God
• The idea of God includes the notion that he is
  benevolent
• Hence God is no deceiver
• Hence whatever we perceive distinctly must be
  true since a benevolent God wouldnt allow this
  level of deception

44
René Descartes

• Meditation 6
• Resolution of Earlier Doubts

45
Naïve Realism

• The simplistic view that unreflective people have
• External objects present themselves to the senses
  unbidden
• They are more distinct than those presented by
  memory or imagination
• They cant come from within so must come from
  without
• It seems that the sense comes first and the
  intellect later
• So nothing is present to the mind that was not
  first present to the senses

46
Rejection of Naïve Realism

• Descartes refers to arguments from Meditation 1
• Objects at a distance
• Phantom limbs
• Demonstrate the fact that senses dont always
  report the truth
• Dreaming argument
• I dont believe the objects in dreams are located
  outside of me so why make this assumption when
  awake?
• But must we resort to scepticism?

47
Rejection of Scepticism

• Although we shouldnt heedlessly accept sense
  reports, neither should we heedlessly reject them
• We have a passive faculty for receiving ideas of
  objects but there must be an external cause to
  the ideas we receive
• These causes can only be
• External objects
• God
• The demon
• God is not a deceiver so wouldnt allow us to
  think that these ideas were caused by external
  objects when they werent

48
Sense Experience

• There is an outside world
• However it may not exist in the way it is
  presented by my senses
• Everything I am taught by nature contains some
  truth
• God equips us with a number of faculties
• Reason
• The Senses
• Memory
• It is impossible that there could be any falsity
  in my opinions which couldnt be corrected by
  some faculty supplied by God

49
How is Error Possible?

• Some things which my senses appear to be telling
  me are in fact a misjudgement of reason
• Grass is green
• Grass stimulates sensations of green in us
• The tower is small
• The tower simply appears small and my memory and
  other senses can confirm its true size
• My amputated foot causes pain
• Feelings of pain from a distant body part could
  equally be caused by stimulating parts in between
• With the judicial use of clear reasoning we can
  correct the errors of the senses

50
The Dream Argument

• Dreams have no consistency between one dream and
  the next.
• Life picks up from where it left off but dreams
  do not
• The laws of nature are broken in dreams
• People can fly or talk to dead people
• By the application of reason we can distinguish
  the two states when we are awake

51
The Demon Hypothesis

• If there were a demon, a benevolent God would not
  allow him to interfere with our perceptions
• The hypothetical possibility of the demon is
  therefore no longer a threat

52
Section 2 Option 2

• David Hume

53
David Hume

• Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

54
Background

• Empiricist Philosopher and Historian
• A pivotal figure of the Scottish Enlightenment
  along with Adam Smith (1723-1790) and Thomas Reid
  (1710-1796)
• Key Works
• A Treatise of Human Nature (1740)
• An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748)
• Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779)

55
Influences

• Heavily influenced by John Locke (1632-1704), Sir
  Isaac Newton (1642 1727) and Bishop George
  Berkeley (1685-1753).
• Hume gets his notions of Empiricism,
  Representative Realism, and Scientific Method
  from them.

56
Humes Enquiry

• Inspired by the empirical successes of Isaac
  Newton wants to do the same for the human mind.
• He is undertaking a psychological study of man.
• Trying to uncover the fundamental principles of
  human reasoning.
• His method is one of empirical observation.
• Usually this involves introspection on his own
  thoughts and feelings.

57
Impressions and Ideas
Idea of apple
Impression of apple
The Outside World?
58
Supporting Arguments

• It is impossible to have an idea without first
  having had a prior impression
• Hume challenges us to find counter examples
• Even God is just a complex idea
• Blind men cant imagine colours
• Laplanders cant imagine the taste of wine
• Selfish people cant imagine generosity
• Some animals have additional senses hence can
  access additional ideas

59
Simple and Complex Ideas

• Our imagination seems unlimited in its powers
• However all complex ideas must be based on on
  simple ideas we have previously copied from an
  impression
• Golden Mountain
• Virtuous Horse
• God
• We do this by taking simple ideas and
• Augmenting
• Diminishing
• Transposing
• Compounding
• This supports the empiricist doctrine that all
  ideas are ultimately based on sense experience.

60
Critical Comment

• Are all impressions more vivid than their ideas?
• Faint impressions when drunk morning after
  embarrassment
• Are all ideas more faint than their impressions?
• Nightmares or traumatic memories
• Is Humes account of perception too simplistic?
• Cocktail conversations
• Do all ideas have a prior impression?
• Ultraviolet Infrared gravity
• Can you ever conceive of simple ideas on their
  own without thinking of other ideas?
• E.g. Stripes
• Hume provides no grammar to tell us how to link
  these ideas up.
• watch pocket zebra crossing.
• Can we ever compare an impression with an idea in
  practice? (Barrier of Ideas)
• Can we ever compare impressions with the outside
  world? (Barrier of Impressions)

61
The Missing Shade of Blue

• Humes own counter example!
• Imagine You had seen every shade of blue but one
• Then all shades of blue were arranged on a scale
  from darkest to lightest
• Hume asks if we could imagine the missing shade
  without a prior impression
• Hume surprisingly says yes but its so
  singular and obscure an example it should not
  alter our general maxim

62
Comments on the Missing Shade of Blue

• The example is not singular and obscure.
• Missing shade of red missing note on a scale
  missing type of architecture.
• If not based on impressions the idea must be
  innate!
• Threatens to undermine the whole of Empiricism!

• The example is not insuperable.
• Hume could say that the missing shade is a
  complex idea based on simpler ideas.
• But doesnt see the solution because he thinks
  colours must be simple ideas.
• Demonstrates Humes rather cavalier attitude.

63
The Association of Ideas

• Why does the thought of one idea lead on to the
  thought of another?
• Ideas dont come randomly they follow an order or
  pattern and are always related
• There are 3 principles of the association of
  ideas
• Resemblance
• Contiguity (In time or space)
• Cause and Effect
• So every idea is always related to the next for
  one of these three reasons

64
Comments and Criticisms

• What is the difference between contiguity and
  cause and effect in Humes analysis?
• Is there really no such thing as a truly random
  chain of thought?
• What about people with Butterfly Brains?
• What about people with dementia or Tourettes?
• Is the subconscious mind available to us?
• (Freud)
• Seems incapable of proof or disproof.
• Hume says that even if we cant see the
  connection in peoples thought it will be
  apparent to them.
• What if we ourselves are not even aware of the
  connection?

65
Humes Fork
66
Comments on Humes Fork

• Hume confuses An epistemological distinction with
  a semantic distinction
• A Priori ? Analytic
• A Posteriori ? Synthetic
• Kant claimed that there were synthetic a priori
  beliefs which tell us about the world but arent
  derived from experience
• E.g. Every event has a cause.

• Humes fork itself falls foul of the distinction.
  Is it a matter of fact or a relation of ideas?
• Hume cant just say we should disregard all
  exceptions as nonsense.
• If he is right exceptions shouldnt even occur.
  If they occur at all then his distinction is
  nonsense

67
Matters of Fact

• Many knowledge claims concern unobserved matters
  of fact.
• Statements about the future (Physics)
• Statements about the past (History)
• Statements about far away places (Geography)
• Even day to day knowledge claims
• The basis of all our reasoning concerning matters
  of fact is cause and effect
• But where does our idea of cause and effect come
  from?
• An analysis of causes reveal that they have three
  features
• Priority
• Contiguity
• Necessity

68
Causation

• We all have an idea of necessary connection but
  where does this idea come from?
• Is it a matter of fact or is it a relation of
  ideas?
• Is it acquired by experience a posteriori?
• No. We have no impression of the necessity or
  power transferring between causes and their
  effects.
• Is it acquired a priori by reason?
• No. Its not true by definition that apples must
  fall to the ground. Causes dont resemble
  effects so we cant know a priori what the
  effects of any cause will be.

69
The Origin of our Belief in Causation

• Hume provides a psychological justification for
  our belief in necessary connections
• Our belief in causes connection is based on
  custom and habit
• We dont observe necessary connections, we only
  actually observe constant conjunctions.
• But once we see them often enough we develop an
  expectation that the future will resemble the
  past.
• But this belief is actually irrational. Its
  just a fact about human psychology that our
  brains work this way. Its basis is simply
  custom and habit.
• The only reasoning here is the reason of
  animals.

70
(No Transcript)
71
Comments

• Does Humes analysis of causation undermine the
  whole of science?
• Does Humes analysis of causation undermine his
  whole project?
• Is Hume claiming that there is no difference
  between causation and correlation?
• E.g. Tiredness and the 10 OClock News
• Is temporal priority the only way to distinguish
  causes from their effects?
• What about contemporaneous causes?
• Is Humes psychological account a sufficiently
  complex psychology?
• E.g. Compulsive gamblers Alcoholics abusive
  partners?
• Do we need constant conjunction to infer causal
  connections?
• E.g. food poisoning or electrocution
• How significant is contiguity in leading us to
  infer causal connections?

72
Humes Scepticism

• After rigorously applying his fork, Hume admits
  that his position is in many respects a sceptical
  one
• The Outside World
• Impressions come unbidden into the mindwe know
  not from where. There may be no world out
  there.
• God
• Is neither true by definition nor observed.
• The self
• We have no constant impression of a unified self.
  We are just a bundle of impressions.
• Moral Values
• These arent revealed by reason or experience.
  Just a fact of psychology that we approve of some
  acts and disapprove of others.

73
Comments on Humes Scepticism

• A surprising outcome for an empiricist
  philosopher.
• Hume developed empiricism to its logical
  conclusion and more or less destroyed it by doing
  so Richard Osborne
• Leaves us knowing not very much for certain.
• Descends into Solipsism
• Must we accept Representative Realism?
• Must we accept foundationalism?