Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. - PowerPoint Presentation

355 views
Uploaded On 2018-11-07

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. - PPT Presentation

David Hume British Empiricism a belief system that all knowledge is based on ideas developed from sense data or sensory experience David Hume17111776 Treatise on Human Understanding 1739 ID: 719237

2011 experience education pearson experience 2011 pearson education rights reserved copyright knowledge true ideas priori world hume synthetic idea

Link:

Copy

Embed:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.docslides.com/embed/719237" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

Presentation Transcript

Slide1

David Hume

British Empiricism – a belief system that all knowledge is based on ideas developed from sense data or sensory experience

David Hume(1711-1776) (

Treatise on Human Understanding, 1739)

3 Minute Philosophy: David HumeSlide3

Empiricist Epistemology

Epistemology

The study of knowledge (how and what we can know)

Knowledge = true beliefs, thoughts, propositionsTruth = a belief or proposition is said to be true if it corresponds to reality

Ex: The proposition “this sentence has 5 words” is true if it actually has 5 words.Empiricist epistemology:

knowledge consists of ideas that are true (correspond to reality)Ideas are objects of cognitionAll ideas/objects of cognition are derived from either

sensation

reflection

In order for an idea to be true, it must ultimately have as its source sensory experience with sense date and it must be verified/checked by experience

All knowledge begins with experience and is limited to experienceSlide4

Positivism

Also known as logical positivism and/or scientific positivism

Positivism

: a radical 20th century empiricist position that maintains that propositions are

meaningful if and only if they are:Analytically true, i.e., logically true, true by definition

A triangle is a three sided object with internal angles that add up to 180 degreesSynthetically true, i.e., true empirically, factually verifiableThis sentence has 5 words. The chalk is white

Any claims that are not true analytically or factually are

meaningless

Hume’s Fork: propositions are true if they are about

Relations of ideas: “analytic

a priori”

claims

Matters of fact: “synthetic

a posteriori”

claimsSlide5

Representational Realism

Epistemological position that all knowledge is based on ideas developed from sense data from sensory experience of the world

st 2nd

3rd 4th The world Body Mind Knowledge

Presents itself Sensation Cognition

Expression Impression Idea True claim/belief

Objective TRUTH = Accurate representation of objects in realitySlide6

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY QUALITIES

Primary qualities “resemble” (or “reside in”) an object even when we are not perceiving the object

Solidity

Extension

Figure (shape)

Motion or rest

Number

Objective knowledge

Secondary qualities do not “resemble” (or “reside in”) an object, but are “powers” of objects to produce sensations in our minds

Colors

Sounds

Tastes

Odors

Subjective knowledge

Slide7

The Fate of Empiricism

With the success of Newtonian physics and Locke’s account of an empiricist metaphysics and epistemology

Empiricism seemed to clearly have the upper hand against rationalism

Hume comes along and shows that there is something deeply troubling about empiricism

It leads to a radical kind of skepticismSlide8

“HUME’S FORK”: RELATIONS OF IDEAS AND MATTERS OF FACT

Relations of Ideas

Mathematical statements, such as those found in geometry, algebra, and arithmetic

Tautologies, or logical truths, such as “A dog is a dog”

Known by reason

To deny them is to contradict oneself; therefore, they give us absolute certainty

But they have no empirical content

Matters of Fact

Involve sense experience

It is possible to logically contradict a matter of fact

Hume believes that if a claim of empirical knowledge cannot be reduced to a relation of ideas or a matter of fact, it should be discarded as knowledge. He challenges:

Any necessary connection between cause and effect

The notion of material substance

The notion of mental substance (“soul”)

Inductive reasoning

Slide9

Relations of Ideas

Matters of Fact

Human knowledge falls into two kinds for Hume

Relations of Ideas– all a priori knowledge

Matters of Fact– all empirical knowledge

To decide which is which you apply the following rule

If the negation of the proposition in question is a contradiction then it is a Relation of Ideas

If not, a Matter of FactSlide10

RoI & MoF

elations

f I

deas

All bachelors are unmarried

All dogs have doggie anatomies and physiologies

All apples have colored skin with flesh surrounding a core of seeds

All triangles have three sides

=C2

For any sentence S, either S is true or S is falseS can’t be true and also not true at the same time

atters

of Fact

78% of bachelors are messy

Whether a dog has short legs and a big bark

Whether an apple is red or greenWhether a triangle is 3x3x3 or 4x4x4Subway fare is $2.00The truth or falsity of S is dependent upon the circumstancesSlide11

RoI

Relations of ideas consists of two parts

Ideas

And the relations between them

E.g. my ideas BACHELOR and UNMARRIED MALE are related in such a way as to make it impossible for there to be a married bachelor

This is true for all relations of ideas

Their truth is independent of experience in the sense that one does not need to go and check to see if they are true

Mathematics and logic are purely formal systems of inter-related definitions

Numbers do not need to exist to make it true that 2+2-4Slide12

MoF

Matters of Fact on the other hand have their truth determined by the way that the world happens to be

Hume argues that the idea of cause and effect is a MoF because it fails to meet the two criteria of something that is a priori

To deny it is not a contradiction

We cannot, without experience, predict what the effect of any given cause will beSlide13

Analytic

apriori

vs. Synthetic aposteriori

Analytic

apriori

Relations of Ideas

Analytic

apriori

Deduction

True by definition (universally and necessarily)

Absolutely certain

Snythetic

aposteriori

Matters of Fact

Synthetic

aposteriori

Induction

Truth is contingent

ProbabilitySlide14

Summary of

the

Argument so Far

All human knowledge is either learned from experience (matters of fact) or from reason (relation of ideas)

MoF

are composed of ideas copied from impressions and are true or false depending on the kind of experience we have

‘dogs can fly’ vs. ‘dogs don’t like cats’

RoI

are true or false depending on the relations that hold between the ideas

‘triangles are four-sided objects’ vs. ‘triangles have three sides’

We can tell the difference between these by seeing what happens when we negate the sentence in question

If it is a contradiction it is a

RoI

, if not a

MoFSlide15

The Argument III

All of our ideas must come from one of these two sources

One of the most important ideas we have is the idea of causation

The idea of a necessary connection between events

Same cause=same effect EVERY TIME

All of science is based on this ideaAll of our common sense knowledge about the world based on this ideaSlide16

The Problem of Causality

So, where does the concept of causality come from?

Is it an innate idea? No

Is it an idea that is necessitated by and/or related to other ideas? That is, is it derived from some other idea, such as thing, self, substance, God, etc.? No

Is it an idea that can be traced back to an experience of a primary quality in the world? NOSlide17

Causality ≠ a relation of ideas

Causality is not an

RoI

To deny any causal relation is not a contradiction

It is always possible to imagine something else happening

But we can’t imagine a square circleWe have to go and check

We can’t tell what causes what without experienceSlide18

Causality ≠

MoF

So, it must be a MoF

That means that the idea of necessary connection must be traceable back to an impression

Otherwise it is a meaningless idea But when we look at any example of A causing B all we see are separate events

We see A happen (the pool stick hits the ball) Then we see B happen (the second ball moves)Slide19

Causality ≠

MoF

(#2)

We do not see anything that connects the two events

There is nothing that we can point to and say that it is the thing that makes the second event the necessary consequence of the first eventSo, Hume concludes, we have no rational reason (i.e. based on our experience or reason) to believe that the laws of physics are necessary and universalSlide20

Causal claims are inductively fallacious

All inductive knowledge is based on the fallacy of assuming that the future will resemble the past

But just because something has happened for a long time is no guarantee that it will always happen

So, the sun may have risen everyday so far, but who can say with certainty that it will rise tomorrow?

Just like problem of black swansSlide21

Solution: Causality is the product of habit

So where does the idea come from?

It comes from ‘a habit of expectation’

We see A happen

We see B happen right after

We see A happenWe see B happen right afterThis is repeated

Soon when we see A happen we come to expect that B will happen right afterSlide22

Causality = a projection of the Mind

It is the subjective feeling of expectation that we mistakenly ‘project’ out onto the events that we observe

We cannot know if there is anything more to the word than this

This is an epistemological claim: we can’t know if there is a necessary connection between events

NOT a metaphysical claim: There is no necessary connection between eventsSlide23

Pavlov & Classical Conditioning

We have been trained by nature to expect certain events upon seeing certain other events

Just like Pavlov’s dog

You ring the bell and bring some food

The dog salivates

Repeat

Soon the dog salivates when hearing the bell whether or not food comes

The dog has come to expect ‘bell then food’Slide24

Classical Conditioning II

Now if the dog were to reason to itself as follows,

Every time the bell has rang food has appeared

This has happened everyday of my existence, every since I was a puppy

I can infer from this that the next time the bell rings, food will appearWe could easily see that the dog has made a mistakeSlide25

Classical Conditioning III

There is no necessary connection between bell ringing and food appearing in nature

How can we tell that this is not the way nature is in reality?

Nature is regular (so was the bell ringing/food bringing relationship)

Things so far have happened regularly and predictably But we have no reason to believe that it must continue Slide26

READING CRITICALLY: ANALYZING HUME’S CASE FOR SKEPTICISM

Is Hume correct to call the appeal to God’s existence to support the existence of an external world “philosophical hypocrisy”? Why or why not?

Summarize Hume’s arguments against certain knowledge of the principle of cause and effect. Do you agree with his reasoning? Why or why not? Construct an alternative argument to convince Hume that the principle of cause and effect is valid and give examples.

Would your agreeing with Hume’s critique of knowledge claims about cause and effect and induction change the way you live your life? Why or why not?

Hume splits his practical life from his theoretical philosophical commitments. Do you agree that such a split is possible? Should our choices in life reflect our epistemological convictions? Describe an example to support your point of view.

Hume believes that all metaphysical beliefs (that is, any belief not based on direct sense experience) should be “committed to the flames” because they cannot be empirically justified. This would include all beliefs regarding God, human freedom, universal moral laws, and so on. Do you agree with Hume? If not, how would you rebut his arguments?

Slide27

KANT’S “COPERNICAN REVOLUTION”

“Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects. But all attempts to extend our knowledge of objects by establishing something in regard to them by means of concepts have, on this assumption, ended in failure. We must, therefore, make trial whether we may have more success if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge.” –

Critique of Pure Reason

Slide28

Kant’s Dogmatic Slumber

Kant is disturbed from thinking that everything in science is fine by Hume’s argument

Empiricism cannot deliver necessary truths

‘experience can teach us that something is the case but it cannot teach us that it must be the case’

Yet science claims to discover necessary truths about nature

Even worse, Hume claimed to have shown that Human Beings are essentially irrationalSlide29

Transcendental Idealism

Kant agrees with Hume that we cannot learn that the causal relation is necessary and universal from experience

But Hume has not shown that we can’t have a priori knowledge

For Hume something was a priori if we could not deny it without contradiction

For Kant something is a priori if is knowable completely independently of experienceSlide30

An Analogy

Suppose that I told you that there were 25 people in a room on the second floor of some building

What could you know about that room?

Quite a bit actually

Its size, what it was made out of, etc.Kant’s strategy is similar

He wants to know what we can know given that our experience is the way that it isSlide31

The Structure of Experience

How could our experience be the way that it is?

How is it?

Objects are located in space and timeCan you imagine an object which was not at any place?

NoThis is something that we can know a prioriIt is not dependent on experienceSlide32

Conditions of all Possible Experience

It is the pre-condition for any experience at all

Just like space in the room is a precondition of having objects in the room

So too space is a necessary condition of any possible experience

Thus we can know with absolute certainty that whatever experiences we do haveThey will all take place at some time and at some particular placeSlide33

The A Priori

So Kant concludes that there is pure A priori knowledge

‘pure’ because it does not depend on experience

But is rather the pre-conditions for any possible experience

It is necessaryIt is not possible to have experience without space

And universal

All experiences will be in spaceSlide34

Analytic vs. Synthetic

An analytic truth is one that is true by virtue of the meaning of the words themselves

All bachelors are unmarried males

They do not add to our knowledge

Synthetic truths are true in virtue of the kind of experience we haveAll bachelors are messyThey do add to our knowledge Slide35

Hume’s Mistake

Hume’s criterion for being a priori

P is a priori if the denial of p is a contradiction

Let him divide all of our knowledge into that which was necessary (RoI) and that which was contingent (MoF)

Kant argues that we really have four categories

Analytic & A priori

– truths which are true by definition and also necessary and universal

All analytic truths are a prioriSlide36

Hume’s Mistake II

Analytic & A posteriori

– truths which are true by definition but also discovered by experience

Kant denied that there were any such truths

Synthetic A posteriori– Adds to our knowledge and learned from experience

Synthetic A priori–

Adds to our knowledge and also necessary and universal

Hume denied that there were any such truths

That was his mistakeSlide37

Kant’s 4 Distinctions

A Priori

A Posteriori

Analytic

Synthetic

All Bachelors are unmarried males

All triangles have three sides

Dogs bark

Apples taste good

7+5=12

???????

Cause & effect

!!!!!!Slide38

Synthetic A Priori Knowledge

So Kant’s answer to Hume is his theory of synthetic a priori knowledge

Take ‘fire causes pain’

It is synthetic, it adds to our experience

But it is also a priori, that is, necessary and universalIt is a priori in the sense that we can tell by looking at the structure of our experience that it must be a certain way

This Kant calls phenomenaSlide39

Phenomena vs. Noumena

The phenomenal world is the world as it appears to us.

It is the world that we see touch taste etc.

The noumenal world is the way that the world is in-itself

The world as it is when no one is looking at it

All we can know is the way our experience of the world will be

We can’t know the noumenal worldSlide40

Phenomena v. Noumena II

Noumena

Understanding

Sensibility

Wasup

?Slide41

Kant’s Philosophy of Mind

The mind has two components

Sensibility

Understanding

Sensibility takes in ‘raw’ unorganized noumena and organizes it into phenomena (our experience)Each has their categories that they use in order to construct our experience

The sensibility has Space and Time Slide42

Kant’s Philosophy of Mind II

The understanding has 12 categories

Unity, plurality, totality, reality, negation, limitation, substance/property,

cause & effect, community, possibility/impossibility, existence/non-existence, and

necessary/contingentWith these categories, and the two from the sensibility, our mind constructs our experienceWe can know with absolute certainty that our experience will conform to the categoriesSlide43

Kant’s Philosophy of Mind IV

That is the only way that experience like ours is possible

The same cause must bring about the same effect or else our experience would be like a dream

Now here, now there…

Yet this comes at a heavy costScience studies our experience of the world

It does not, cannot, study the noumenal world

How can I every talk to you?Slide44

Phenomena v. Noumena III

Wasup

YouSlide45

Kant’s Philosophy of Mind V

Kant called this a Copernican Revolution in philosophy

Instead of the mind passively acting like a recorder of an outside reality

Kant sees the human mind as actively constructing reality

This is his mix of Rationalism and EmpiricismEmpiricism– science is synthetic knowledge

Rationalism– but based on a priori categoriesSlide46

KANT ON THE SYNTETIC A PRIORI AND THE PHENOMENAL AND NOUMENAL WORLDS

THE SYNTHETIC A PRIORI

Necessary and universally true

a priori—

can be discovered independently of experience

Synthetic

in the sense that it provides us with genuine information regarding our experience in the world

THE PHENOMENAL AND NOUMENAL WORLDS

phenomenal reality

is the world as we constitute it and experience it

noumenal reality

is the world beyond our perceptions, reality “in-itself”

Slide47

APPLYING KANT’S THEORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF MALCOLM XSlide48

ALLISON JAGGAR: EMOTIONS SHAPE OUR UNDERSTANDING

Jaggar believes that the “new science” of Newton and Galileo spawned a wide split between reason and emotion, so that “dispassionate” reason was considered the only source of knowledge

She argues that “dispassionate investigation” is a myth, and that emotions should be incorporated into our epistemological framework, including the framework of scientific knowledge