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.
