Download Session 1 Rationalism –v

The Philosophy of Knowledge
motivation and introduction
MRes Philosophy of Knowledge:
Session 1 – part 1
(slides available at http://cfpm.org/mres)
Motivation for Learning about the
Philosophy of Knowledge
• Ultimately each of YOU will have to defend the claim
that you have made a contribution to knowledge in your
thesis and viva…
• …to others (your examiners etc.) who have to know how
to judge your contribution
• That is, you have to produce some (sound, novel,
significant) public knowledge
• Something that is only useful to you personally will not
pass (e.g. a way of thinking about things)
• In other words, what you produce in your research has
to be valuable/useful/informative/something to other
people that might read it (your public!)
• The valuable stuff that you will produce is called
Knowledge
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Epistemology, Day 2 – seesion 1, http://cfpm.org/mres slide-2
But there are many questions
about this knowledge…
• What is the nature of this knowledge that you will
produce?
• Are there different kinds of it?
• How can you produce it?
• How can it be valuable to someone else?
• Can it be said to be objectively true?
• If it is not objectively true then why would anyone
else be interested in it?
• What is the connection between how its produced
and its value to someone else?
• How can a third party judge it?
Knowledge in the social sciences is a difficult
and contested notion!
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Epistemology, Day 2 – seesion 1, http://cfpm.org/mres slide-3
Which leaves YOU with a big BIG
problem…
• You have to produce this knowledge
somehow…
• Then defend the claim that it is
knowledge…
• Even when nobody is entirely sure what it is
and how it works…
• And when everybody has different opinions
about it…
• And, indeed, argues ferociously about it!
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Epistemology, Day 2 – seesion 1, http://cfpm.org/mres slide-4
About Philosophy
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-5
THE SMALL PRINT
• Philosophy always comes with caveats and
warnings, including this!
• There is no substantial consensus as occurs in,
perhaps, physics (except possibly in the style,
presentation or practice of philosophy)
• Everything is contested – there will different views
on all issues, including:
– Key terms in philosophy
– The history of philosophy
– What philosophers have said
• I will simplify considerably in order to present this
material – for the complexity you have to read
What is Philosophy? MMUBS Mres Epistemology, http://cfpm.org/~bruce slide-6
The nature of philosophy
• As a tradition or history
– The thinkers, schools, approaches, books,
papers that happened to arise over time
• As a style of enquiry
– Characterised by argument and counterargument
• As it defines itself
– The nature of philosophy is itself a contentious
issue, so in general this is avoided except
– When a philosopher needs to redefine it
What is Philosophy? MMUBS Mres Epistemology, http://cfpm.org/~bruce slide-7
Why you need to know something
about philosophy
Not (necessarily) to do philosophy but to:
• Understand the tradition so that you:
– Can understand what others are saying
– Can situate your research with respect to the tradition
– Are prepared for comments, questions and objections
to your research
• Have access to some different ways to think
about what you are doing
• Develop a critical approach to arguments and
evidence
– By knowing some of the possible arguments and/or
difficulties
What is Philosophy? MMUBS Mres Epistemology, http://cfpm.org/~bruce slide-8
What philosophy does not
(in general) do
•
•
•
•
•
Provide the answers
Simplify/clarify concepts/ideas
Provide solid foundations for methodology
Tell you what you should be doing
Help one to distinguish what is true
(alternatively holds/works/can be said etc.)
and what is not
• Tell you what words/texts really mean
What is Philosophy? MMUBS Mres Epistemology, http://cfpm.org/~bruce slide-9
What philosophy is (generally)
good at
• Critiquing arguments and positions by
pointing out
– Hidden assumptions
– Counter examples
– Limitations
– Fallacies
– Consequences
• Providing conceptual frameworks/positions
– With which to describe or think about issues
What is Philosophy? MMUBS Mres Epistemology, http://cfpm.org/~bruce slide-10
Some warnings about philosophy
• It can involve:
– Unnatural/weird counter examples
– Extremely strong definitions
– Over generality (attempts to cover too many different cases in one
approach)
– Abstractness (lack of relevance to practice)
– An obsession with itself
•
•
•
•
Overemphasis on certainty, necessity and 100% proof
Often attacks straw men and concludes opposite
Tends to ignore process
Sometimes just seems premature
– e.g. early philosophising about the nature of matter
• It does not necessarily help one do better research
What is Philosophy? MMUBS Mres Epistemology, session 1, 30 October 2003, http://cfpm.org/~bruce slide-11
Some tips as to how to approach
philosophy
• Don’t worry about it too much – but keep going!
• Note down and try to understand the terms – one
has to understand the language before the
content becomes clear
• Continually think of examples – especially with
respect to your research/domain
• Remember they may be talking complete rubbish,
so rethink the issues yourself!
• If one text does not seem to be helping, don’t
continue to bash your head up against it, try a
different source
What is Philosophy? MMUBS Mres Epistemology, session 1, 30 October 2003, http://cfpm.org/~bruce slide-12
How to talk back to a philosopher
• How does this argument relate to practical
matters, in particular …?
• Can you give me some examples that
distinguish between …?
• What is the scope of this argument/claim?
• On what basis do you make that claim?
• How does your usage of the term … relate
to the common usage?
• What are the opposing views to this?
What is Philosophy? MMUBS Mres Epistemology, session 1, 30 October 2003, http://cfpm.org/~bruce slide-13
My philosophical position
• What I do – formal (but non-analytic) modelling using
agent-based computer simulation (see
bruce.edmonds.name for papers etc.)
• Contrasts somewhat with Robin Holt’s position
• Common sense words like “truth”, “meaning” etc. hide
complex and multifarious sub-cases
• This means that there are lots of different kinds of
truth, meaning etc.
• Each has different properties, is established in
different ways, has different uses etc.
• Therefore one has to think what one is trying to do in
each case based on the practicalities
• Philosophy is only a guide to this
• Thus I am pluralistic, pragmatic, and deflationary
What is Philosophy? MMUBS Mres Epistemology, http://cfpm.org/~bruce slide-14
Philosophical words
• Truth, Phenomena, Deduction, Induction,
Causation, Objective, etc.
• These are abstractions of common words used in
phrases, e.g “It is true I saw it”, “I used to know
this” etc. (often meta-statements)
• Thus they can be seen as a meta-language to talk
about talking, knowing, discovering etc. in general
• This is also argued about in philosophy etc. etc.
• Note: these words have a philosophical use that
has subtly drifted apart from common usage
What is Philosophy? MMUBS Mres Epistemology, session 1, 30 October 2003, http://cfpm.org/~bruce slide-15
One of these philosophical words:
“Knowledge”
Traditional definition: a justified, true belief
– Belief: something we “have” about the world
– True: otherwise we are simply wrong
– Justified: the belief isn’t true purely by accident
This has the following consequences:
– Some of our beliefs are mistaken (false)
– There are truths we don’t know
– There is some connection/process between
what is true and what we believe (induction?)
What is Philosophy? MMUBS Mres Epistemology, http://cfpm.org/~bruce slide-16
However this picture/definition of
Knowledge is criticised…
• …as we shall see!
• Hence this course of philosophy will NOT give
you final answers to these questions
• But rather present it as a series of
debates/issues (4 of them)
• Covering the foundational aspects of the
disputes and some of the main arguments
• With an AIM of getting you into reading this
difficult and complex literature
• Enough to develop your ideas and be able to
defend your contribution to knowledge
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Epistemology, Day 2 – seesion 1, http://cfpm.org/mres slide-17
Rationalism –v- Empiricism
From where does knowledge come?
MRes Philosophy of Knowledge:
Session 1 – part 2
(slides available at http://cfpm.org/mres)
Some Key Ideas
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-19
Induction and deduction
• Deduction
– Finding the necessary consequences of other
propositions
– An analytic “unfolding” of what is already known
– Produces a new form of old knowledge
– If we know A and AB then we can deduce B
– e.g. Working out that not everybody voted
• Induction
–
–
–
–
–
Finding new generalisations from evidence (facts)
A learning process
Results in new knowledge
S1 was W, S2 was W, S3 was W, …. All Si are W
e.g. Discovering that racism is increasing
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-20
Deduction
• An activity – something one does
• Generally what happens in an argument
• Can be statistical, logical, mathematical,
computational, linguistic
• Finding the necessary consequences of other
propositions
• An analytic “unfolding” or “working out” of what
is already known
• Produces a new form of old knowledge
• If we know A and AB we can deduce B
• Can be pretty watertight – true by its nature
• e.g. Working out that not everybody voted
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-21
Induction
• Another activity – something one does
• Usually spotting patterns or facts from
observations or data
• In other words something is learned
• Finding generalisations from evidence
• Results in new knowledge
• S1 was W, S2 was W, S3 was W, …. All Si
are W
• Obviously fallible, i.e. it could be wrong
• e.g. Discovering that racism is increasing
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-22
Examples of Induction and
Deduction
• In small groups, choose an example from
the sheet
• Try and work out
– what mix of deduction and induction is being
used
– how and where each of deduction and
induction are applied
– whether the conclusions are more deductive or
inductive
• If you have time pick another one etc.
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-23
A picture of reasoning we get
from Ancient Greece
• Reasoning is (largely) a public activity
involving rhetoric and debate
• An effort to distinguish (and exclude) bad
arguments (e.g. identifying “fallacies”)
• Good argument results in good decisions
• Argument seen to lead from known (i.e.
agreed) truths to conclusions…
• …which may be new or used to show other
beliefs are wrong (or inconsistent)
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-24
This activity is abstracted to
“Reason” and “Rationality”
• These are ideals
– Not necessarily what people actually do
– They acquire a normative flavour
• Major questions are then:
– What is the role of Reason (as opposed to perception,
action etc.) in particular as to its relation to knowledge?
– What is Rational (in contrast to irrational)?
• Can be seen as a search to escape the
contingencies and particularities of the observed
world…
• …to more general/fundamental/etc. truth
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-25
The necessary – contingent
distinction
• Necessary truths
– Statements that have to be true
– For some reason it is not possible that they
could be false
– e.g. Sentient beings exist
• Contingent truths
– Statements that just happen to be true
– If things were different they might not have
been true
– E.g. The UK has a Reigning monarch
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-26
The analytic – synthetic
distinction
• Analytic truths
– True by definition or deduction
– Are necessary
– Abound in mathematics or logic
– e.g. All bachelors are unmarried
• Synthetic truths
– True of the world
– Are contingent
– Abound in natural sciences
– e.g. The Earth orbits the Sun
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-27
The a priori – a posterior
distinction
• a priori knowledge
– What one knows before taking into account
observations or evidence
– May include necessary/analytic truths,
assumptions, given facts, etc.
• a posterior knowledge
– What one knows after taking into account
observations and evidence
– May include laws and explanations of natural or
social phenomena
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-28
The context of discovery –
context of justification distinction
• The context of discovery:
– The situation/context where an item of knowledge is
discovered or hypothesised
– When and how knowledge is learnt
• The context of justification:
– The situation/context where the knowledge is justified,
established or verified
– When and how knowledge is established as reliable
e.g. Fleming discovered penicillin when he
accidentally let a culture be contaminated by
mould but … it was justified as knowledge as the
result of further experiment and observation by
many
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-29
The Idea of Causation
Event A
Event B
One event (A) causes another (B) if
• B always follows A
• A is necessary to B occurring
• And (generally) there is some mechanism
connecting A to B
E.g Does smoking cause Cancer
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-30
Descartes’ Two Ways to Truth:
from the general to the particular
“There are and can be only two ways of searching into and
discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and
particulars to the most general axioms, and from these
principles, the truth of which it takes for settled and
immovable, proceeds to judgement and the discovery of
middle axioms. And this way is now in fashion. …
Reason
General
Principles
Contingent facts
and observations
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-31
Specific
Truths
Descartes’ Two Ways to Truth:
from the particular to the general
…The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars,
rising by a gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives
at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way,
but as yet untried."
Francis Bacon (1620), First Book of Aphorisms
Reason
Contingent facts
and observations
Specific
Truths
etc…
Contingent facts
and observations
Specific
Truths
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-32
General
Principles
Rationalism
• A Philosophical position – something one
believes – about where knowledge comes from
• Knowledge arises from reasoning
• Is the position that the way to knowledge is
from the general to the particular
• Requires some general a priori truths which it
views as necessary (usually)
• Characterised by deduction
• The general principles gives meaning to the
observations by relating them
• E.g. Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-33
Empiricism
• A Philosophical position – something one believes
– about where knowledge comes from
• Knowledge arises from observation
• Is the position that the way to knowledge is from
the particular to the general
• Requires some particular a posterior truths
(perceptions) which are contingent
• Characterised by induction
• The general principles arise from the process of
relating observations
• E.g. Galileo’s “All truths are easy to understand
once they are discovered; the point is to discover
them”
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-34
Part 3: An Example – Rational
Choice Theory
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-35
Basic Idea of Rational Choice
Theory
• Humans are (imperfectly) rational
• That is, their behaviour can be explained
(modelled) by assuming they are basically
rational at least as a starting point
• The conception of rationality here is a
generalisation of economic rationality
(constrained optimisation)
• E.g. Smith’s “invisible hand” balancing
supply and demand via price changes
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-36
Principles of Rational Choice
Theory
• Resourceful: man can search for and find
possibilities, he can learn and be inventive;
• Restricted: man is confronted with scarcity
and must substitute (choose);
• Expecting: man attaches subjective
probabilities to (future) events;
• Evaluating: man has ordered preferences
and evaluates (future) events;
• Maximizing: man maximizes (expected)
utility when choosing a course of action
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-37
Example: please assess
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What evidence is presented?
What kinds of evidence does he use?
What are the a priori assumptions used?
What is the nature of the rationality that the
author presents?
What does his argument show?
Do you find it convincing?
How would you argue against this?
How could he be shown to be wrong?
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-38
The Example: more issues
• Is the author a Rationalist or an Empiricist?
• Does the author rely on a priori truths or a
postiori evidence?
• Is the author claiming his arguments are
necessarily true or only contingently true?
• Has the author go to his conclusions using
deduction or induction?
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-39
Part 4: A brief account of some of
the arguments
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-40
Recap of Induction
Supposed structure:
– The 1st swan is white
– The 2nd swan is white
– … etc.
– Therefore all swans are white
•
•
•
•
Relies on there being observable patterns
Produces (fallible) generalisations
A source for hypotheses and theories
A natural thing to do
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-41
The Problem of Induction
• Hume A Treatise Concerning Human
Understanding
• Although one does repeatedly observe a
particular conjunction (or sequence) of
events…
• …this never guarantees that this will always
be the case.
• Thus there are no causal laws
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-42
The Inductive Justification of
Induction
• The argument
– Induction worked in case 1
– Induction worked in case 2
– … etc. …
– Therefore induction works in all such cases
•
•
•
•
A self-referring and self-justifying argument
But if it is false it does not justify itself
Is it supported by the evidence?
What is the scope of the cases?
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-43
Some difficult questions about
induction
• What are these facts?
– Are they states of the world?
– Are they statements in language?
– Are they something else (propositions)?
• How do we select these facts?
• Why did we look for these facts?
• What conceptual framework did we use to
construct our generalisations about them?
• What background assumptions are there
common to all these facts?
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-44
Popper’s Falsificationism
• Induction never proves anything
• Hypotheses can only be disproved by observing a
counter-example (a black swan)
• We rely on hypotheses more as they survive
attempts to disprove them
• If there is constant innovation of hypotheses and
attempts to disprove them then knowledge will
progress
• Hypotheses that are not amenable to being
falsified (unfalsifiable hypotheses) are dubious
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-45
Comments on Popper’s
Falsificationism
• History of science does not fully support it
(e.g. Michelson-Morley experiment)
• How does one know whether the counterexample shows the main hypothesis is
wrong or merely an auxiliary assumption?
• Marks a switch from the context of
discovery to the context of justification
• Results in an evolutionary picture of the
development of knowledge (evolutionary
epistemology)
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-46
Lakatos’ Core and Protective Belt
• Research programs as key entities
– These have a core of fundamental frameworks,
methods and assumptions that characterises
them
– And a belt of less fundamental hypotheses,
observations, techniques
• In the face of counter-examples research
programs change things in the belt and
preserve the core
• Some programs are more successful than
others (the “degenerate programs”)
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-47
Exercise: considering
programmes
For your own field/area of work decide:
• What key deductive techniques does it use/rely
upon (are there any not used)?
• What key inductive techniques does it use/rely
upon (are there any not used)?
• Do these tend to be used in any particular
order, if so what order?
• What are the core assumptions/tenants of
your field (i.e. if you don’t hold to them you do
not really belong in this field)?
• Are claims effectively falsifiable, if so how?
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Epistemology, Day 2 – seesion 1, http://cfpm.org/mres slide-48
In the Social Sciences
• One is usually dealing with meaningful
behaviour
• Meaning is (almost always) an a priori given
but not always agreed upon
• The context (or scope) of the induction or
falsification is of great importance
• Falsification is difficult since it is easy to
adjust the belt to protect any hypotheses
• Coherency with other thought often as
important (to academics) as evidence
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-49
Summary of Session
• Both reason and evidence are needed for
good generalisations about the world
• But how these are combined is important
• When and how to use/mix induction and
deduction is still a big issue in all fields
• Care and awareness are needed with any a
priori assumptions and frameworks…
• …although ultimately these are unavoidable
• Key decisions are what to do if some evidence
seems to conflict with a hypothesis – beware!
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-50
The End
Experiment escorts us last His pungent company
Will not allow an Axiom
An Opportunity
Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
(as usual slides etc. at: http://cfpm.org/mres)
Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-51