rationalism –v- empiricism from where does knowledge come? mres philosophy of knowledge (slides...

Rationalism –v- EmpiricismFrom where does knowledge come?

MRes Philosophy of Knowledge (slides available at http://cfpm.org/mres)

Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-2

Introduction to the PoK Module

http://cfpm.org/mres

How are you going to demonstrate that you have contributed to what we know in your PhD Thesis?• Obtaining knowledge about social

phenomena is your job as a Doctoral Student (your contribution to knowledge)…

• But obtaining knowledge about social phenomena is very VERY hard…

• …and we still do not fully understand what kind of knowledge we can have of this…

• …under what circumstances and even…• …if this kind can be useful to anyone else.

Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Epistemology, Day 2 – seesion 1, http://cfpm.org/mres slide-3


How philosophy might help you

• It will not tell you what knowledge IS…• …nor, indeed, how to get it!• But it will…

1. Inform you about what others have thought about these problems (give you ways of thinking about knowledge)

2. Make you aware of some of the difficulties and assumptions behind knowledge

3. It will prepare you for some of the questions and debates that you will face (give you a feel for the academic ‘lanscape’ you inhabit



The End Product…

• Is that section of your Thesis which explains/defends your approach to knowledge

• Your assignment is to write the first draft of this section

• It will be full of guesses and tentative choices, and you will (I hope) change your mind a few times before you finish…

• But this part of the MRes is to start you on this journey



This is HARD

• You can not do this using ‘surface’ methods…• …you will have to think things out for yourself,

questioning what you are told and writing from the understanding you have gained

• If you hand in an assignment which is essentially just ‘regurgitating’ bits of text you have read, without questioning them or sorting them out in your own mind

• I will fail you• But, if you have started to think things out for yourself,

have done some reading, show some knowledge then…• You will pass, even if your arguments are wrong, or

naïve, or tentative or partial



How to do this

1. Don’t worry if you don’t understand at first, if it all seems complex and gobbledegook (a lot is!)

2. Come to ALL the philosophy of knowledge sessions and actively participate

3. Read papers in your field that touch on philosophy and approach, as well as the set books

– Read a bit, think, discuss it with someone, think, read it again or some more, think…

4. Question (in your /out loud) what you are told5. Try to be precise, clear and honest as possible in

your own thoughts/arguments6. Come and discuss your thoughts/worries/plans

concerning your assignment with me




A Review of Some Key Terms


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 AB we can deduce B• Can be pretty watertight – true by its nature• e.g. Working out that not everybody voted



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




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



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



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 postiori knowledge

– What one knows after taking into account observations and evidence

– May include laws and explanations of natural or social phenomena



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



The Idea of Causation

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 BE.g Does smoking cause Cancer

Event A Event B


Exercise: thinking of some examples

• A deduction• An induction• A necessary truth• A contingent truth• An analytic truth• A synthetic truth• Causation

• A priori knowledge• A postiori knowledge• A context of discovery

for some knowledge• A context of

justification for some knowledge


With someone else think of an example of the following (one we have not mentioned yet):



The Rationalist/Empiricist Debate



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

Specific Truths

Contingent facts and observations



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

General Principles



Specific Truths

Specific Truths

etc…

Reason



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”



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”



A brief account of some of the arguments



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



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



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?



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



Comments on Popper’s Falsificationism

• History of science does not fully support it (e.g. Michelson-Morley experiment)

• How does one know whether the counter-example 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)



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”)


Exercise: considering programmesFor 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?




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



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• A key decisions is what to do if some evidence

seems to conflict with a hypothesis


rationalism –v- empiricism from where does knowledge come? mres philosophy of knowledge (slides...

Documents

orgmres slide

kind of knowledge

orgmres introduction

mmubs mres epistemology

pok module slide

social phenomena

tentative choices

phd thesis