Epistemology 101

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Epistemology 101

Post by Ginkgo »

bergie15 wrote:Descartes wasn't talking about if other objects existed, he was questioning his own existence. The cogito ergo sum means I think, therefore I exist. (The computer program idea was not around in his time, obviously it had not been invented yet.) He came to the conclusion that his existence was real because he had the ability to think rationally.

The brain in a vat is the modern version of Descartes' evil genius. Same argument.
User avatar
RG1
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Epistemology 101

Post by RG1 »

Gary Childress wrote:What, if anything, can we know with absolute, infallible certainty?
The only thing that can be known with absolute certainty is that ‘experiences exist’. Experiences include thoughts, feelings, and awareness (sensory experiences). Whether these experiences relate to something real or certain, cannot be known.
Gary Childress wrote: Regardless of the nature of my existence, can't I know with certainty that I am?
No. Experiencing the thought/notion/concept of an “I” does not make such a notion true or certain. It is only the ‘experience’ of said notion that is certain. And likewise, experiencing the thought/notion/concept of a "unicorn" does not mean that this "unicorn" truly exists, or is certain.

'Experiences' are certain. "I" and "unicorns" are just notions.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Epistemology 101

Post by Arising_uk »

HexHammer wrote:1. What, if anything, can we know with absolute, infallible certainty?

- nothing!
Do you know this with absolute, infallible certainty?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Epistemology 101

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Gary Childress wrote:One major aspect of philosophy which I've never taken a formal course in is epistemology. I've read Descartes' Meditations and Discourse on Method and hence have a bit of a basic primer on the subject but I've never really delved into the fine aspects of epistemology. In this thread I would like to try to learn a bit more about the subject with the help of some of the more learned folks in the forums.

Here are some questions to kick things off with:

1. What, if anything, can we know with absolute, infallible certainty?

2. What does it mean for us if we cannot know something with absolute, infallible certainty? How does/should doubt affect our actions?

3. Is radical Cartesian doubt even possible? For instance I may not know for certain that jumping off a particular window ledge of a tall building will kill me but that is not going to prevent me from avoiding said window ledge regardless.

4. What are some of your personal reflections on the subject of epistemology?

Thank you for the discussion. :)
1 All deductive knowledge can be asserted with absolute infallible certainty. The reason for this is that the answer to a deduction is implied by the premises. For example. If 1 and 1 is 2, then 2 minus 1 is 1. Or all unmarried men are bachelors. The first is analytically true, and the second is definitely true.
The next big step is the one where fools fall. Having satisfied themselves that such things are wholly reliable they they go on to make the same assertions with induction.
Or they congratulate themselves with major arguments such as god only performs good deeds, by using the same species of argument as all unmarried men are bachelors. On Socrates asking the question is a thing good because god does it, or is it because god does it it is good: then the person asserting the argument gets confused and turns into jelly.

2/3. Obviously for most things such deductions are rarely useful except in defining what words mean. For the most part we have to rely on empirical knowledge and the probability of constant conjunctions. Try dropping a plant pot out of the window and then ask yourself if you are any different? With a little empirical thought, and a bit of empirical knowledge we can be certain enough about how things might turn out. When we are not sure we are also equipped with evolved senses to avoid certain types of mishaps. Mammals already know that falling is harmful, they don't need to fall off a cliff; they are born with that knowledge. This pays off Descartes somewhat. When he sat in the fireplace with his eyes closed he knew that he would not fall up the chimney, and his body was able to tell him not to go too near the flames.

4. Francis Bacon is useful, if a little dated, for his Idols of the "tribe, theatre, cave and the marketplace" in his Novum Organum. It is remarkable how this timely reflection set the stage for the birth of modern science. There are two remarkable things here. The first is how obvious, and widespread were the list of fallacious belief commonly held by the people of his time; and how accurately he categorised them with his method. What is more remarkable is how limited his method was for unpacking those endemic assumptions and what we would now call simply falsehoods. We can only reflect upon how much of our everyday assumptions, now, will, in future, appear false, and how poor humans are at seeing what little truth lies behind the world we create around us. For the world we walk about in is not a clear objective reality, but a facade full of make-belief. We know this from psychology, and intellectual history.
ncrbrts
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 1:47 pm

Re: Re:

Post by ncrbrts »

Philos wrote:
If you are a computer program, or a brain in a jar, or anything else, then you exist.
What if you are a brain in a jar or a computer program that exists only in the consciousness of another brain in a jar? And that other brain in the other jar provides you with everything contained within your consciousness? Do you still exist in your own right, or are you just part of some higher up consciousness, therefore a pawn in a massive game?
dionisos
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:03 am

Re: Epistemology 101

Post by dionisos »

Hi all, i found by chance this forum, and i can’t resist to give my opinion on this :p
1. What, if anything, can we know with absolute, infallible certainty?
The first thought i had on this (long time ago) is :
Naturally, no conclusion from inductive reasoning is certain, but the frustrating things, is that we also make error with deductive reasonings. We are relatively certain of some conclusions, because we verified them many time, and they are simple.
But verification and simplicity will only diminish uncertainty, it will diminish it greatly, but never make it zero, because if N verifications would diminish the uncertainty to zero, only one of the verifications would diminish uncertainty to zero.
Then, no "constructed knowledge" are certain.
But then, some of the things we thought not to be constructed knowledge, we thought to be "basic/fundamental truths", was in fact constructed knowledge.
It seem that the differentiation between a "constructed knowledge", and a "basic truth", is a constructed knowledge, and then we can’t be sure that something is a basic truth or not,
And then the conclusion is that, nothing is certain.

But rapidly you could see that "nothing is certain", is sort of "self contradictory": If "nothing is certain", then "nothing is certain" is uncertain, and then maybe there are some certainties.
And yes, in fact, all reasonings i saw to prove that "nothing is certain", including my own, rely on a lot of (not very well defined) deductions, and a lot of time, rely also on some inductions.
The thing is, "nothing is certain" rely on a lot more uncertain things, that something like basics logics, or even most of mathematical reasonings.
This is why i will give more weight to "(1+1=2 and 1+2=3) ⇒ (1+(1+1)=3)", than to "nothing is certain".


2. What does it mean for us if we cannot know something with absolute, infallible certainty? How does/should doubt affect our actions?
It mean total self-referential madness.
Some people think that "Nothing is certain, but we could still reason on uncertain things, and give a level of certainty", or something like it.
They just don’t give it enough thought, they don’t really draw the consequences.

First it is uncertain that we could reason on uncertain things, it is also uncertain that we could give level of certainty.
If we give a level of certainty, it is uncertain that this level of certainty is useful, or that we could use it to act.
Worst, it is uncertain that "even if it is uncertain it could be true", and it is also uncertain that "if it is true it can’t be false", and that every words i could or you could say, mean something. And it is not because it doesn’t mean something that it could not be true, and we are also uncertain that it is not absolutely true and certain…
This break every reasonings, even itself.
3. Is radical Cartesian doubt even possible? For instance I may not know for certain that jumping off a particular window ledge of a tall building will kill me but that is not going to prevent me from avoiding said window ledge regardless.
It depend how you define it, but if it is about doubting all your beliefs, it is impossible, because "I doubt A", is a particular believe, that you will need to doubt, and you will even need to doubt the believe that "whatever N, I doubt that i doubt that…N time…that i doubt A"
This sort of construction is self-referential in the worst way, you can’t doubt all your believes because you are "finite", but even if you was "infinite", you still couldn’t do it.
van Keister
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:11 pm

Re: Epistemology 101

Post by van Keister »

In a changing universe where even its basic laws are slowly changing, it would be a grave mistake to claim absolute knowledge, which no one certainly believes today. We must be content with relative knowledge and accept probabilities as exacting knowledge, "More than likely" has replaced "absolute certain" in our world and I don't know anyone losing sleep over it.
Post Reply