Philosophers and researchers have been trying to define and analyze the concept of individual knowledge for centuries. For most people, the difference between personal perception and truth is not clear. This paper includes descriptions of several approaches regarding the nature of knowledge, objectivity, and how it may affect people. It also considers the methods of interacting with reality that would be appropriate for the Christians.
Philosophers try to understand the origin of environmental and social comprehension, its essence, and the potential practical effect on humans. Entwistle (2018) analyses Epistemology as a humanitarian field that explains the nature and grounds of knowledge. Basset (2006) considers it the process of searching for the truth. There are three models of connecting human perceptions with reality: naive realist, anti-realist, and critical realist. The first describes a person who believes that everything they see or think is completely synchronized with the world (Entwistle, 2018). Such a view is typical for children, as they cannot analyze the surroundings from someone else’s point of view or abstractly. An anti-realist believes that all people see and feel reality, distorted by social theories. Finally, critical realists hold the middle position, as according to them, the objective reality is somewhat influenced by human biases (Entwistle, 2018). Most people choose one of the mentioned models unconsciously and do not change their views easily.
My position supports the critical realism model, as I choose to believe that absolute objectivity does not exist in human society, but the general truth could be acquired through observation and analysis. Such a view is comfortable for me as I can study my environment and make conclusions, but other people have the right to their opinion and beliefs. In the critical realism model, people with various world perceptions can co-exist peacefully as long as they respect each other and their environment.
Different methods of knowing include logic, empiricism, revelation/interpretation, and hermeneutics. The first one states that people can separate the belief from the truth by analyzing the rational consistency of human reasoning. It could be done through deductive arguments, using premises, inferences, and conclusions, or inductive logic requiring generalizations. This method is limited by its reliance on one’s sense that could be erroneous. Empiricism analyzes experiences to evaluate claims; people who follow this method of knowing check the incoming information sources to form their opinion. Its limitations contain the possible irrelevance or invalidity of the chosen events or documents. Revelation and interpretation focus on observing the signs and events and deciding what they mean. However, one can use their imagination to twist the meaning of the phrases or events for their benefit. The last method, hermeneutics, assumes that careless freestyle conclusions may lead to misunderstanding of the source or event (Entwistle, 2018). It is limited by the unclear difference between the correct and false findings of the observer.
For Christians, the revelation/interpretation and hermeneutics methods of knowing seem to be fitting. The former supports the idea that human understanding of the world is fallible, but God reveals Himself and his guidelines for the people. Romans 1:20 (The new student Bible, 1986) says that “God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen” (p. 1220). Sermons, Sunday schools, and Bible studies aim to help the Christians understand their purpose by interpreting His Word. Hermeneutics warns the people against the mistakes they could make when attempting to understand the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:8 (The new student Bible, 1986) claims that “scriptures are God-given and are trustworthy,” but careless interpretation may lead to misapplication of the biblical instructions (p. 1314). The combination of revelation/interpretation and hermeneutics methods would be most beneficial for the Christians.
To conclude, philosophers organized the knowledge models into naive, anti-, and critical realism categories. People choose their preferred methods of knowing from logic, empiricism, revelation/interpretation, and hermeneutics. The last two seem most appropriate for Christians as they allow following the Bible and God’s Word after analyzing this book. While theologists and religious leaders worldwide attempt to explain the meaning of the Scriptures, they make mistakes as any humans.
References
Bassett, R. (2006). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 25(4), 354.
Entwistle, D. (2018). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration. Cascade books.
The new student Bible. (1986). Zondervan publishing house.
Knowledge is power. That is one of the most popular slogans in the modern world. There is a general understanding of what that means but the question remains how does a human being acquire knowledge. The deeper question when it comes to epistemology is not merely knowing the veracity of the first statement given above but on a more basic level how does a person acquire knowledge that makes him a thinking, rational being capable of understanding.
John Locke is a philosopher whose genius was demonstrated in many areas of study. But his brilliant mind was put into good use in epistemology – the study of knowledge. He advanced the theory that all material things have primary qualities (e.g. shape and chemical properties) but their secondary qualities (e.g. color and sound) exist in the mind of the perceiver.
This has led many to believe that “Lockean matter” has shapes but no color. This is not an accurate interpretation of Locke’s idea about material things. A much better interpretation states that primary qualities are irrefutable facts about an object but its color and sound is based on sense-impressions that reside in the perceivers mind. It is erroneous to think that everything is subjective; Locke did not mean to say that. He believes that there is something in an object that will produce the said sense-impression such as color, sound, taste etc.
This study will try to investigate why Locke proposed the abovementioned thesis. A basic overview of epistemology will suffice for this part of the paper. On the latter part, the proponent will attempt to refute the ideas proposed by Locke, specifically that material objects do not contain secondary qualities and that these secondary qualities are only byproducts of their primary qualities.
Epistemology
Epistemology is the study of knowledge. How man acquires, perceives and retains knowledge is part of this branch of philosophy. It is very clear that John Locke’s theory about material things – understanding and perceiving them – is an attempt to contribute to the advancement of epistemology.
Before the modern world came to be, men like Locke set out to understand the mysteries of the universe. Ancient Greek philosophers preceding the Age of Reason laid the groundwork for future analysis into the microscopic and atomic levels of understanding matter. Placing oneself in the context or environment in which Locke breathe and live will make it easier for that person to appreciate what Locke was going through and why he was able to postulate such theories.
During the time of Locke, the Western world was undergoing a revolution of ideas. The intellectuals of his time steeled themselves to go against established ideas about the universe, human existence, and the material world they live in. Everyone was hyper critical of dogmas and will not accept information handed down from previous generations of policy makers and religious institutions. Everything must be tested, every body of knowledge must be overhauled to ascertain veracity and to prove once and for all that it was based on facts – that it ca be quantified using scientific laws.
Matter
There is no clear explanation as to how Locke was able to synthesize his ideas. No doubt he was influenced by his peers and also by the wisdom of the ancients especially from the Greek troika of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. But one has to enter his mind to be able to fully grasp his insights into the material world. For this study the proponent will simply look at available facts try to picture what life was like in an era before computers, powerful microscopes, and space age technology.
Limited Resources
Locke was mistaken in assuming that there is nothing certain in this world except for the primary qualities of matter. He has argued that one can only be sure of things like shape, bulk, texture, and motion of the object but aside from that everything depended on the person who perceives such stimulus.
He did not go way overboard by saying that everything is subjective but he was not very confident to say that an object has fixed color or taste. In other words he is trapped between subjectivity and truth; he is in the gray area in the middle. For those living in the modern age, such claims may seem to appear ludicrous but one has to understand the contest from which Locke speaks of these things.
John Locke was a product of his surrounding and there is no doubt that he was influenced by what was going on around him. Still, his genius could not be denied because he was one of the few who were able to challenge the notion of perception and acquisition of knowledge. He was one of the few who were able to systematically present a way of knowing things. But his genius was limited by available knowledge and technology that would have helped him go beyond what he knew back then.
Simple Experiments
Now, allowing a bit of imagination and be transported back in time one can see the crude equipment available for testing scientific hypothesis. It would not be hard to imagine Locke sitting in his study or laboratory if he had one and facing him is a set of mortar and pestle. Inside this simple equipment is a seed of wheat. And then Locke applied vigorous force to crack the seed open and then continues to do so until the seed was grounded to powder.
A man of his genius can easily conclude that further simplification of the object by breaking it into thousands of pieces will reduce it to something that the eye cannot see. Locke then concluded that what remains faithful is the primary quality of the object but the secondary quality is not anymore verifiable.
Eye of the Beholder
At this point in time mankind has evolved into a rationale being that will not accept truth or knowledge based on vision alone. Men like Locke tried to go around the normal way of acquiring knowledge. Truth is truth even if it cannot be seen. Therefore, truth can be verified even without the use of the eyes.
Again, it would not be a stretch to imagine Locke closing his eyes, acknowledging that vision is limited and that truth is beyond what one can see. Perhaps he conducted an experiment using a coin. By touching it, Locke can feel the shape of the object. Its primary quality in terms of shape is round. He begins to feel the texture of the coin and could feel the image stamped on the coin. And probably he had a “eureka moment” in epistemology. If object had qualities then it follows that there are primary qualities and there are secondary qualities. The first one consists of those things that can be verified without sight. And the other qualities which are considered secondary are those that can only be perceived by a human being.
Clarification
It is now clear what Locke was trying to say. He believes that an object has two kinds of qualities. In other words there are two levels in which an object communicates its qualities to a human being. The primary quality is the most basic one and this quality exists even if there are no individuals around it to affirm its shape, texture, and motion. The second one is an innate quality that allows humans to describe the object in a more complex way by saying that this coin is round but it appears to be brownish in color. The brown color which is the secondary quality is a product of man’s perception.
This brings this discussion to the next level which is the realization that Locke was proposing for a separation between the objects primary quality and secondary quality. This means that the coin is round but the color is not inherent or part of the basic structure of the object. This can be elaborated further by saying that two people observing the coin – feeling it and touching it – can conclude that the shape is round but the color is between the range of brown and gold and that there is no certainty which is truth. If this is what Locke meant by his thesis then he is wrong.
Rebuttal
The separation of between the primary and secondary qualities of an object is not supported by scientific laws and available evidence. If Locke insists that only the primary quality is fact and the other one is based on a person’s perception will destroy an object beyond recognition. If the mind can will the separation of the two qualities then the object in question will disintegrate and disappear. Therefore, it is impossible to separate the two.
This can be proven by using objects in elemental form. Take for example a nugget of pure gold. The nugget usually comes in a rectangular form and it is yellow in color. Exposing it to extreme temperatures will melt the gold but it will retain its color. If Locke was correct then the changing of the shape should also result in the change in how a person perceives its secondary quality.
This is true for all elements. What is certain now is the realization that at the time of Locke the chemical properties of a material were not fully studied. They do not have the capability to extract elements from the earth and simplify it so that it will only appear in elemental form.
Another possible experiment that will refute Locke’s claims is the use of a red flower and subjecting it to a test to show that its shape and color go together as one and not separate entities the other fact the second a product of perception. A red rose can be used in the said experiment and what one can do is to crush the rose so that its petals will begin to “bleed” then place the rose on top of a white piece of cloth. After a while the red rose will stain the white cloth with a reddish color.
If the white cloth’s whiteness is due to its inherent structure then why is it that parts of the cloth changed to red when the rose was placed on top? The white cloth’s structure was not changed because it was not cut or burned or subjected to extremes in temperature and force. A red rose was simply placed on top of it and then it was stained with red. This simply means that there is something in the red rose that is as sure as the primary quality of shape because the same property can be transferred to another.
If the red color of the rose is just a byproduct of perception then the white cloth should not have been stained because the white cloth is made of different materials, far different from that of the red rose. In fact if a hundred crushed red rose will be placed on top a piece of white cloth then the fibers of the said material will be saturated with a reddish hue.
Light waves and Chemicals
At this point it can be argued that John Locke and his generation were not yet well versed in the principles of light waves and chemicals. The coin is color brown, the gold nugget is yellow in appearance, and the rose is red not because of how a human being perceives them but simply because of light waves. The phenomenon of light waves could not be fully explained in this paper but suffice it to say that light waves have different wavelengths and this difference in wavelengths is the reason why one can see different colors e.g. red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. And this is the main explanation why object have colors and not due to the perception of human beings.
The same can be said about the “secondary quality” called taste. A fruit has a distinct taste not because the person eating the fruit perceives it as such. The simple explanation is that the fruit has chemicals that allow humans to differentiate the taste of a banana from an orange. But it cannot be said that John Locke was entirely wrong. In a sense Locke demonstrated his ability to see beyond the ordinary. This will be expounded in the following pages.
Pure Genius
In a popular cartoon series, Wile E. Coyote was a wily animal who continually boasts of his resourcefulness and inventive power in his pursuit to capture the slippery Roadrunner. He has been known to utter the phrase, “pure genius” in describing his capabilities. Well, the coyote’s genius is debatable because as of this writing he has yet to capture the Roadrunner. But one thing is sure there is no doubting the genius of John Locke.
This paper may appear to be a bashing of Locke’s mental power. On the contrary the proponent of this paper will conclude the study with a heightened appreciation of Locke’s brain power. To this guy, one can appropriately say – he is pure genius. Going back to the facts of the case, Locke proposed that in truth there is no color, but the primary thing that can be verified and ascertained is the shape, texture, and movement of the object.
A closer look at his thesis reveals that Locke did not believe that a color of an object is subjective, that it changes from person to person. He was simply saying that the color reveals itself after a human being uses his senses to perceive. He then elaborated on this by saying that an object has color because something in its structure, something innate, allows humans to see the coins as brownish and the red rose as reddish. But in simpler form the object has no color.
John Locke lived in a time and place where supercomputers, powerful microscopes, and sophisticated equipment to study light waves are not yet available. And yet he was able to move closer to truth without the aid of those things. He was not 100 percent on target but he was very close to truth. This is because in truth an object has no color in itself but it acquires that property due to the reflection of light waves. John Locke’s only error is in the assumption that the color comes from within the object while in truth it is coming from an outside source – light waves. Yet, still how did he figure it out that in its most basic form an object has no color without external factors? His only error was that he attributed the external factors to human sensory organs. Still, the ability to see beyond the natural and into the sub-atomic world without the aid of instrumentation is the mark of pure genius.
Conclusion
In the time of John Locke a brilliant person is one part philosopher and one part scientists. John Locke is one of those men who trail-blazed the path of knowledge and almost single-handedly carried the whole Western world – that was plunged into darkness and ignorance – into the light of reason and truth.
Just like men of exceptional talent and formidable mental acuity he proposed ideas that were clearly ahead of his time. This is the reason that even in the 21st century, professors, students, and men of similar pursuits continue to study his words. One of the controversial ideas that he proposed was the theory on how men acquire knowledge, specifically pertaining to the material world.
Locke espoused the idea that in its basic form an object has two qualities. The primary quality includes shape, bulk, texture, and movement. While the secondary quality includes color, taste and sound. He reasoned that only primary quality can be ascertained to a certain degree and this fact can be considered as truth. On the other hand secondary qualities such as an object’s color are only a byproduct of a human being’s perception.
At first glance, those who are living in the 21st century can easily refute Locke’s thesis. This is because one look at his ideas will make one conclude the Locke separated the two qualities. It seems that Locke can believe in a material world that has primary quality but devoid of color. The proponent of this study made a counter-argument that if these two qualities will be separated then the object will be obliterated and disintegrated into something unrecognizable. This is because an object’s color is part of its signature.
This can be proven by experimenting on objects in its elemental form. Take gold for instance; there is no further reduction of the object either by grinding or melting it that can remove its color. God is already an element, an object in its basic form and removing its color will create another object that is not gold and simply because its basic quality includes the color yellow in its basic matrix.
Moreover, if Locke was right then the melting of the gold ingot from a rectangular shaped object into liquid form should have altered its color but it did not. This same experiment can be applied to other elements like silver, lead, tin, tungsten and there is no further reduction possible that will make its color a variable. This is because an object’s basic form includes color, it is part of its make-up.
Another experiment that was presented in the discussion was the crushing of the red rose and allowing its red pigmentation to stain a piece of white cloth. The red color from the red rose was transferred to the white cloth. If the rose did not possess the red color then it could not give it to the white cloth. In other words one cannot give what one does not possess. Therefore, the red color is part of the basic structure of the rose.
But the genius of Locke could not be denied. He was correct in saying that an object has no color. This part he was right on target. A closer analysis of light waves and its corresponding property will reveal that color is a result of the different light wavelengths and that an object acquires color not because it is actually possessing that color but it is composed of a material that can reflect and absorb light wavelengths.
Thus, a gold nugget absorbs all wavelengths but its unique physical and chemical structure allows it to reflect the wavelength that will result in the color yellow. The same applies to the red rose and the coin in the aforementioned experiment. This realization greatly increases the proponents’ appreciation of Locke’ talent.
It may appear at the beginning that this study is a bashing of Locke’s ideas but it turns out that the philosopher was able to demonstrate his genius even against the tremendous odds stacked against his favor. He was analyzing these theories without the aid of sophisticated equipment that could have aided him in perfecting his ideas. Yet even with those limitations he was able to lead his generation into a path that points them closer to truth. And that would make someone of his stature feel a deep sense of accomplishment.
Robert Jeshion’s “The Epistemological Argument against Descriptivism”
Jeshion explores the validity and strength of the epistemological argument using logic and arguments of descriptivism. Jeshion explores the logic behind the epistemological argument concerning strong descriptivism, including an appendix expressing the associations between the epistemological argument and weak descriptivism. Jeshion says that the epistemological argument goes against descriptivism, beginning with the descriptivism about proper names which, when applied to the logical argument against it, proves descriptivism false. The author states that the main problem with the argument is that there is no supportive evidence to prove one of its premises.
Jeshion explores the problem with an argument against descriptivism by reviewing most of the popular arguments and proving why they do not hold up. The point of the paper is not to disprove the argument against descriptivism entirely, but to point out the insufficiency of the existing arguments. The author concludes by stating that the arguments made in the paper prove that support for descriptivism rests on an insubstantial epistemological thesis. In what seems like the author’s departure from mainstream, conventional logical philosophy and specifically epistemology, is that Jeshion makes clear that the paper is not meant to “clear the way for the descriptivist” (Jeshion 20). The author claims not to agree with the view at all, while not denying the possibility of a substantial epistemological argument against descriptivism. The major break the author makes though, is denying the soundness of the epistemological argument against descriptivism, specifically regarding proper names, that has otherwise had strong foundations in epistemological philosophy. This is a unique trait of the paper because the author intends, and arguably succeeds in deconstructing a widely popular theory.
Scott Cook and John Brown’s “Bridging Epistemologies”
Authors Scott Cook and John Brown explore the nature of knowledge, the essential root of epistemological philosophy, in this essay. They regard this innate understanding of knowledge as something one possesses, while incorporating what this “possession” definition leaves out—the knowing evident in the actions of a single or group. This second type of knowledge, the idea of “knowing” is not something a person possesses but something one commits or acts upon. The epistemology of possession focuses on explicit knowledge over tacit knowledge, and the knowledge possessed by one as opposed to that of which many can possess.
The essay offers an in depth exploration of epistemology of possession, and in turn, the epistemology of practice, breaking it down into sections like knowledge and knowing, and productive inquiry. The chief theory the paper develops is that differentiating among the terms of explicit, tacit, individual, and group knowledge is helpful to understanding the function of organizations and groups and how they receive and process knowledge. This is a significant theory but it reminds us that, within the philosophy of epistemology itself, the crucial task of understanding the various ways we are exposed to knowledge, especially in a group or organizational setting because each of the four elements of knowledge explored in the paper cover their own unique area of the understanding of knowledge. The authors go on to emphasize the importance of understanding the possession of knowledge and the act of knowing as contributing to each other as opposed to conflicting with each other. Instead, the authors say, knowledge should be considered a tool of knowing.
Paul Bloomfield’s “Virtue Epistemology and the Epistemology of Virtue”
This article explores a philosophical belief of the ancient Greeks that still applies in our time—the belief that virtues are skills. The author begins with an exploration of the nature of skills, including that skills have an intellectual foundation or logos and that possessing a skill means that the person who possesses inherently understands the logos of the skill, is able to problem solve, and has experience with the problems and nature of the skill. The article continues to provide two scenarios in which the argument for moral epistemology stands up.
Basically, the author argues that if one thinks of a virtue as a skill, then in applying the theory that one must understand the logos of the skill, the virtue-as-skill denotes the existence of a moral epistemology that is as philosophically relevant as general epistemology. The significance of this article is that it encourages us to examine our own beliefs of virtue, and whether in an intellectual realm based largely on logic we can allow this type of moral intellectuality to hold up as strongly as others. As the author states, we can also use this knowledge to understand the epistemological arguments for and against a given virtue-as-skill, and to evaluate the value of a particular virtue in the intellectual world. Among its main points, this paper shows that moral knowledge is on the same level as an intellectual knowledge, and therefore understanding morality and being righteous or virtuous is a type of intelligence.
Aaron M. Pallas’s “Preparing Education Doctoral Students for Epistemological Diversity”
Pallas begins the article by explaining the complexity presented to the educational field in the wake of ever-varying perspectives of epistemological philosophy. The author claims that the multitude of views presents an obstacle for academic research, especially for the faculty that seeks to guide doctoral programs that are raising the next generation of academic researchers. He considers the bevy of perspectives to be a challenge because the academic world continues to globalize and broaden its scope, and the epistemological theories that are being developed today must be understood by those leading doctoral programs so that the students are well prepared for the epistemological diversity that may deter them from making accurate and updated research and criticism. Pallas uses Wenger’s ideas to develop suggestions as to how to prepare doctoral students for this new level of research.
He explains that educational researchers being taught at universities are exposed to the community only on a local level, and that this creates a lack of access to varying views on epistemology since they only have connections to a limited number of faculty members in their area, which he calls “communities of practice”. Thus, Pallas charges faculty involved in grooming this new generation of researchers to challenge themselves and their students by elevating “the discussion and consideration of epistemology by both faculty and students in their schools of education” (Pallas 5). He continues to offer a multitude of ideas he has developed to help faculty learn how to further develop their doctoral students’ research and critical thinking skills, which can in turn improve the epistemological diversity and understanding of the engaged members of the faculty themselves. The significance of this article has implications throughout the academic world and beyond. Pallas’s arguments denote the effects of globalization on our ways of thinking. Because we have access and awareness to the rest of the world, we receive their new ways of thinking and must account for them. This is especially true in the world of philosophy, and even more so in the area of epistemological philosophy which must consider all the knowledge and theories provided to truly identify the true and substantial nature of knowledge.
Works Cited
Bloomfield, Paul. “Virtue Epistemology and the Epistemology of Virtue” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 60, No. 1, (2000), pp. 23-43.
Brown, John. Cook, Scott. “Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing” Organization Science, Vol. 10, No. 4, (1999), pp. 381-400.
Jeshion, Robin. “The Epistemological Argument against Descriptivism” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 64, No. 2, (2002), pp. 325-345.
Pallas, Aaron. “Preparing Education Doctoral Students for Epistemological Diversity” Educational Researcher, Vol. 30, No. 5, (June-July 2001), pp. 6-11.
This paper seeks to explain the meaning of epistemological turn and explains the views held by Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume on knowledge.
An epistemological turn is a philosophical term which in the history of philosophy, refers to the shift in philosophical attention from the classical and medieval focus on themes of metaphysics to a primary focus on themes and issues relating to human knowledge, usually considered to have occurred during the period from Descartes (1596-1650) through Kant (1724-1804).
On standard accounts, Descartes’ terms epistemological turn as a sea change in the history of philosophy which is usually marked by an inside-out approach to philosophical inquiry, an approach owed to the priority of thought.
A good example of this turn would be the one that occurred from Descartes to John Locke through Berkeley to Hume. All these had their observations and views during this philosophical turn and they all gave their accounts as far as knowledge is concerned, starting from Descartes.
Thinking comes after what is now known as the Epistemological Turn. The Epistemological Turn refers to the point in time when philosophers (and others) began to stress the knowledge of something rather than the belief in something. From this mode of thinking, Descartes sought to establish a starting point; he sought to find that one thing that could never be doubted. Therefore, according to him doubt everything until you find the one thing that you know is absolutely and necessarily true. Descartes sought to begin again from the foundations.
Descartes, who is commonly referred to as the father of philosophy seeks to define knowledge in terms of doubt. He distinguishes ‘scientia’ from ‘persuasia’ he says ” I distinguish the two as follows..there is a conviction when there remains some reason that might lead us to some doubt, but knowledge is a conviction based on reason so strong that it can never be shaken by any stronger reason(1640 letter. AT 3:64-65)” Descartes tries to make us understand doubt as to the contrast of certainty.
Descartes’ goal is to acquire knowledge of the truth. He says that for one to achieve this you have to doubt every proposition he has an insufficient reason for believing, and adding a proposition to his store of beliefs only when he has demonstrated that there is ample reason to believe it. But, for Descartes, we do not have “ample reason” for believing anything unless it is completely certain. He writes, for example, that “reason already convinces me that I must withhold assent no less carefully from what is not plainly certain and indubitable than from what is obviously false” (First Meditation).
Descartes’ ideas are however refuted by his predecessor John Locke who in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding published in 1690. Here he discussed how knowledge in the mind is formed, and also the types of knowledge humans can have about things in the world.
Central to his viewpoint, is the tabula rasa view of the mind, simple and complex ideas and their association, primary and secondary qualities, and others. In this view, he posited that the mind contains innate capacities for certain activities, but the rest of the knowledge comes from experience with the world
The refutation of innate ideas stands in opposition to the views of Descartes, whose ideas were still held during Locke’s time. The ideas in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding helped influence later psychological movements, most notably behaviorism.
Locke is generally viewed as the first in the line of British empiricists, with Berkeley and Hume adopting his starting point. His fundamental claim is that human knowledge begins with sense experience and primarily is derived from it. Locke begins his philosophical examination of knowledge by trying to refute the claim that some of our knowledge is original, in the sense that it comes from ideas that are innate or inborn. This view was held most prominently by Descartes.
On the line after Locke’s empiricist view came Berkeley whose theorizing was empiricism at its most extreme. In his first publication, regarding vision, he stated that we only really perceive two spatial dimensions, height, and width. The third spatial dimension of depth is not directly known; rather, it is inferred by the mind.
He says that any knowledge of the empirical world is to be obtained only through direct perception and adds that error comes about through thinking about what individuals perceive. In addition to this, he says that knowledge of the empirical world of people, things, and actions around them may be purified and perfected merely by stripping away all thought, and with it language, from their pure perceptions.
David Hume’s philosophy concerning causality and objectivity is an elaboration of another aspect of Berkeley’s philosophy. Hume is interested in how we come to form ideas. He describes our perceptions as falling into two categories: impressions and ideas. Impressions and ideas can be distinguished in two ways. Firstly, impressions are more vivid, because they appeal directly to the senses (e.g. placing one’s hand on a hot stovetop). Ideas are dull in comparison to impressions because they “recall” impressions while lacking their intensity and strength. The thought being that calling upon the idea of becoming burning is insignificantly as intense (painful) as actually being burnt. Secondly, ideas are always copies of impressions. It is important to note, as Hume does, that because of this every idea must have a root impression. In other words, for an idea to be intelligible and have meaningfulness it must have an originating impression (or impressions) that it can be traced back to.
Of all these philosophers, Descartes’ view is the best. For one Locke’s view is fundamentally flawed. It gives us no way of actually knowing external reality at all – only knowing certain qualities about it. And any complex ideas about these simple sensory ideas are merely probabilities in his view. Intuitive knowledge is certain, but there is no explanation of how this exists in itself within our minds. His concept of morality seems to stand in the same position as his idea of intuition – while it may not be doubtful, since it did not come from the senses, it is not clear how it is even known – since all knowledge is sensory-based. This does give the view that his philosophy does not seem to have integrity within its own.
In conclusion, I feel Descartes’s use of skepticism is ingenious, constructive, and produces a philosophy that is both workable and helpful for both science and the individual. Locke and the other empiricists produce a system which while it claims to reject skepticism does project a modest skeptical view, which quite easily – using logical deductions – leads eventually to an all-encompassing skepticism. His system makes any kind of study of the world invalid as a science. It does not help the individual since what he considers certain knowledge – that which is intuitive – does not seem to have any foundation for its existence, it merely exists without knowing how.
Epistemological Coherentism, as per contemporary debates provides a way to the theory of justification and hence an optimum solution to the epistemic regress problem. Discussion over coherentism begins with opposition to foundationalism and through the text “Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005”, Matthias Steup and Ernest Sosa have again delved into this justification theory. Coherentism till date has only been viewed as a negation to foundationalism and hence its true benefits remain under-discussed and at the same time, its potential being least appreciated. Coherence has its definition while relating itself with several other objective systems but still some of the social versions relate it to common knowledge prevailed in the given society. Similarly religious versions have its roots to theological doctrine. The above specifically mentioned two systems have been found to be objective in the sense that it’s the people’s belief which has got evaluated while enabling implication. There is also a possibility that versions could come out after combining subjective and objective systems. A theory which is based on person’s beliefs and is later supplemented with additional believable claims of coincidence with higher probability of occurrence; is perhaps the best example for combined subjective and objective systems (Kvanvig 257). The structure of this paper is as follows: first introduce a way general foundationalist thesis and coherent justification, thereby taking a first approach to the coherence theory.
The coherence theory of justification: a first look over foundationalism
Foundationalism is important in epistemology because it represents the classic choice about the definition of justification, and how this notion is related to the notion of knowledge. Foundationalism accepts the following two basics:
There are two types of belief, namely, that represent the basic beliefs foundation of knowledge, and basic beliefs, in which justification depends on the relationship with the basic beliefs.
The justification of beliefs depends on other beliefs, but all justification rests ultimately on appeal to the basic beliefs which do not require justification by other beliefs.
So, the justification is unidirectional and the basic beliefs to justify beliefs basic, while the justification of basic beliefs is not dependent on support of other beliefs. Without delving deeper into the characterization of the foundational theory of justification, analyze the basic ideas of coherence theory (Kvanvig, 257-275).
A Coherence Theory of justification is one that supports two central ideas that distinguish it from foundationalism:
There are basic beliefs that serve as the basis for other beliefs, and
Any justification between beliefs is not linear, i.e. no justification is unidirectional while going from basic beliefs to other beliefs.
These two features can be understood more appropriately with respect to foundationalism. The property of coherentism is not a distinction between different beliefs where all beliefs in principle have the same status epistemic, i.e., no self-beliefs that require no justification by other beliefs. As the justification for foundationalism is linear, but coherentism belief based justification may be bidirectional, ie, a belief can be justified by a group of beliefs, but in turn this belief along with others may warrant those beliefs that she had been justified (Kvanvig, 257-275).
A very loose and vague definition of the coherence theory runs the risk of being implausible as it will look more carefully similar to what is meant by a theory of empirical justification. Hence, the first thing to note is that the theory of justification through Coherence is clearly separated from the coherence theory of truth. Coherence theory of truth should be distinguished from theory of justification, although these theories were conceived almost simultaneously. The confusion is perhaps due to the coherence theory of truth was intended as a theory about the criterion of truth of propositions, i.e. as the theory provides answer to the question then under what criteria can we know whether a proposition is true or false. Moreover, coherence theories of justification does not involve acceptance of coherence theories of truth. Hence, it is possible to make a defense of the coherence theory of justification, while accept a correspondence theory of truth. Before continuing our analysis of the coherence theory of justification look at one of the problems that attempts to answer, then see how foundationalism theory relates to the justification for this problem and analyze which of the two theories-the-foundationalism and coherence can provide a better output the problem (Kvanvig, 257-275).
The weaknesses of the foundationalist position
The critique of foundationalist position usually focuses on showing that basic beliefs (which underlie all the knowledge) had different properties that many foundations have believed they have, properties such as that these beliefs appear to be true, infallible, indubitable, and so on. Bonjour argues that a genuine critique of foundationalism-both in its classic form and in its weak version is to make clear that there are beliefs that are justified without appeal to other beliefs. This criticism would be that the beliefs basic really would not end the infinite regress argument outlined by the return of the justifications. Foundationalism would seem to be incapable in solving the problem of the return argument of the justifications that are invoked as the strongest argument for his position (Kvanvig, 257-275).
The argument against foundationalism by Bonjour reveals the following: justification always seems to suggest that it refers to a goal or purpose. Hence one could morally justified in accepting a belief while referencing to certain standards and moral principles as illustrated by Bonjour in the following example: Let us suppose we have a friend who helped us in difficult moments of our lives, often at the expense of his own interests, of moment. All of a sudden, we come to know that our friend has been accused of a horrible crime and everyone thinks he is really guilty and under these circumstances we also believe that our friend is innocent, and our belief is justified morally. Epistemic justification certain similarities with the moral justification, but while what we interested in epistemic justification is knowledge, epistemic justification be closely related to the cognitive value of truth. “Cognitive doings epsitemically are justified, on this conception, only if and to extent that they are Aimed at this goal-which means roughly that one accepts all and beliefs which one has good reasons to think are true “(Bonjour p. 5). A corollary of this idea would be for a possible criterion for choosing a theory of epistemic justification is that justification is a good conductor to the truth, namely that the beliefs are justified on the theory of epistemetic justification to defend are more likely to be true.
Coherentism, its belief and other structure of justification
The subjectivity of belief in Coherentism has some appeal for the theorists but at the same time, the uniformity among coherentists is also a belief which needs to be defined. The reasons for all this possibility for uniform agreement is that of the relevancy in mental state i.e. appearance state and sensation state (Davidson 137-159). Other truthful way to move forward with the argument is that whether the mentioned states could have a role in justification or would substantiate the propositional content. This line of argument creeps with a range of difficulty like whether there should be a reason on the virtue of its content or the experience of people could be cited as the possible reason. Is it just an explanation of beliefs or a broad citation of experience; or it is like if one gets injured then through experience one could provide an explanation or he or she should rely on reasons that could make one think that the belief of an injury is correct (Kvanvig, 257-275). As coherentist’s thesis has got formulated as a contradiction to foundationalism, hence, coherentism encircles over the concept that negates pro foundationlistic approach of knowledge and justification based on noninferential wisdom and belief.
As the structure of justification or knowledge is being viewed as coherentism; this issue of coherentism has been the outcome of the regress problem. Epistemology due to the prominence of the regress problem, has led to the occurrence of negative construal of coherentism. Among several coherentists, it is widely prevailed that justification as a whole is a collective outcome of some plausible links between non privileged foundationalists’ beliefs with thoroughly substantiated specific relationships. Justification from several other beliefs creates a chain of inferential beliefs often classified as belief chain. This belief chain actually follows one of the two paths; one with indefinite continuation or the one to an end. In case of indefinite continuation, it goes into Infinitism i.e., continuously chain creation or into a continuous loop where the chain circles back to it which is separately categorized as Liner Coherentism. The end of the regress brings in beliefs justified through direct or indirect inferencing. As a whole, the delineation of regress problem would carve into three possible structures as well as four possible theories of justification. These four theories are namely Infinitism, which relies on infinite chain of beliefs, Linear Coherentism, which is based on a circular chain of beliefs and finite chain of belief based Foundationalism and Contextualism (Caraway 78).
Issues related to coherentism
As most of the versions of coherentism have followed a purely non-linear approach, it has also raised concerns on issues like the incompatibility of this coherentism with the basing religion. The concerns behind all these is that of the possibilities when clash of opinions creeps into while explanations for a person’s belief doesn’t get proper support from required evidences. It would be like basing the entire system of an individual who’s each belief would need basing and justification. Another problematic issue with coherentism is that of isolation objection which actually relies on empirical beliefs. A system would be justified and can be a constituent of empirical knowledge but cannot be dictated from the requirements of a coherent system. This actually dives into the inputs from the world which may influence the system as a whole (Bonjour 108). The outcome of a system of belief while following inputs from external world decides the relationship of that particular system and the world. The net result might be that of the theories which permits application of coherence even to those systems’s of beliefs where the subject matter doesn’t have any direct worldly experience.
Coherence: a relation on beliefs and Motivation
Coherence as a relation on beliefs has often involved issues that circumscribes over relevancy factor behind mental states while questioning the epistemic status of certain belief. The generation of positive epistemic status, like sensation state or appearance state or the issues that takes an individual beyond the range of sensation, argues over the insufficiency of appeals to experiential states for justification. The deeper motivation which dissuades coherentists from defining coherence through experiential states over a subjective system is that it may result into some version of foundationalism. This line of argument sprawled over various range of difficulty is like there should have various reason on the virtue of its relation to the experience of people. A range of beliefs and its relation fall under the roof of subjectivity with some of them are relatively more appealing. The understanding of foundationalism dissolves further into two features. The first of the two is that of an asymmetry condition when inferential beliefs have some justification in some other way than the non-inferential beliefs. The second feature is that of intrinsically and foundationally warranted as well as justified beliefs. The proposals which base over full justification despite its foundationalistic appearance, also includes some positive warrant notwithstanding any relationship to other beliefs. Positive epistemic status gets imparted through foundationalism. This foundationalism is actually the outcome of relationship between the appearance as well as beliefs. This warrant-conferring requirement tends to propagate coherentism which bypasses the above mentioned argument and doesn’t makes room for coherentists to impart any positive epistemic status. Coherentist from here continues with the belief that appearances are a necessity for all such beliefs so that there could have some certain degree of positive epistemic status. The net outcome of this theory is that it’s the experience which has got certain role which is indistinctive of foundationalism (Kvanvig, 257-275).
Conclusion
The structure of justification through coherentism has been ultimately viewed as something which is not committed to carve any relation with person’s beliefs. At one stage, coherence might propagate some relation on an objective body of information which could get supplemented through subjectivity of normal person’s belief. The subjective versions over a system of beliefs when viewed for defining coherence render any definitional requirement as meaningless. These conclusion as a whole is the outcome which relies on the sound argument according to which any relationship with experience would transform the presented theory into some specific version of foundationalism (Kvanvig, 257-275).
References
BonJour, Laurence, The Structure of Empirical Knowledge, 108. Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
Davidson, Donald. A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge, in Truth and Interpretation:Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, 137- 259 Ernest LePore, ed. :New York, 1989.
The problem of knowledge acquisition or epistemology is on the agenda today as it reveals the bias concerning its justification. The devised theories help to comprehend the essence of knowledge acquiring and its major goal. Many philosophers argue about the ways of regress problem resolution. The recent debates in epistemology were devoted to the regress problem solution relying on infinitism and foundationalism. In that regard, Ginet rejects the Klein theory of justifies beliefs thus putting forward his theory of inferential justification. Ginet is sure that inferential justification is impossible to ramify incessantly. The debate called Is infinitism is the solution of the problem, Ginet presents the ideas that justified beliefs are not based on plausible examples and therefore they infer. To divert the idea of justified beliefs he gives a grounded argument about priority premise beliefs.
Ginet gives the examples of non-inferential justification based on experience and understanding. He is confident that those factors are sufficient to accept the belief. Hence, the prior theory proves that understanding is a diligent ground for justification that does not require inference. His simple and evidence-based example completely justifies his theory of finitism and simplifies the Klein’s theory. The assumption turns out to be rather successful as it resolves the justification regress and epistemic regress in particular.
Another strong point of his response lies in the admission of notion of availability. Due to that, justification could be supported by the personal self-awareness and responsibility. Relying on his example, he supports the idea that experience and lack of awareness give the right to believe that the premise is true. The thorough examination of his point of view shows that in fact the example does not involve any references on the inference but is framed within one justification. In comparison with Klein’s arguments, concerning the availability of knowledge, justification cannot be always subjected to reason even if it is implicit. In addition, Ginet is confident that in this particular case there must be other ways for justification such as non-inferential. Because Ginet identifies the available reasons with potential ones, he is more inclined to think of the initial justification, which is a good explanation of the regress. Therefore, it is the initial justification is based on the premise it does not mean that refers to the inference, as the reason could be provisional as well. Another advantage of Ginet’s response lies in the fact that if justification is infinite series of beliefs, it could define the initial reason of the justification.
Other questions discussed during the debates and Ginet’s response have the right to existence. Hence, Ginet presents his innovative approach to the regress problem where inference could not generate series of justified beliefs, as the actual chain of them is not justified at all. To my mind, the finite chains of the beliefs are more warrant than the infinite ones as they are based on personal experience and visual practice. Further, in case the infinite chain of beliefs has at least one wrong assumption, the whole chain could be broken.
In conclusion, the consideration of non-inferential justification is more evidence-ground and credible as it is based on responsibility and self-awareness. Therefore, the foundalist theory is more relevant for the solution of the epistemic regress. In addition, Ginet’s finite series is proved by numerous reasonable examples that are hard to reject.
Works Cited
Steup, Matthias, and Sosa, Ernest. Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. US: Willey-Blackwell, 2005, p. 147.
In epistemology, we study the theory of knowledge, and this branch of philosophy is important. This branch of philosophy addresses the following: firstly it defines knowledge as ‘acceptable belief and is used as a working model most of the time’. Secondly it tries to explain where knowledge is coming from and this is divided further into two parts i.e. empiricism which says, we get knowledge as results of experiences in our lives and rationalism which defines the same as knowledge is based on reasoning, lastly in what way do we justified our beliefs.
How do we see our world because much of our knowledge does not come as results of our senses but through perception of things that around us in this physical world and. “The experience in this world can be determined by two things firstly the world itself and secondly part is determined by us” (Audi 20).i.e. the way we see our world varies differently from person to person therefore the way one person can define his physical world is different from another person.
Human beings don’t get information through senses alone but most of the time we get a as results of experiences which we get from the object around us in the physical world. There is a tradition in philosophies that say “we do not know anything “and this argument has been refuted by human beings as not true. But “the most problem in “theory of knowledge” i.e. epistemology, is not what knowledge is, but where can we find knowledge and can we prove that knowledge exists” (Audi 22). Knowledge can exist in various forms in this physical world and human beings have to be very attentive to get knowledge, as I said earlier human beings see their physical world differently.
“There are two broad ways in which philosophers are approaching knowledge and this ways are rationalism and empiricism” (Audi 35).Rationalist approach of epistemology defines knowledge as being based on certain principles and those principles are not learned through experience but they are implicit in reasoning Itself. Senses alone cannot provide any conclusion that what we know is right. “Just like in mathematics we must rely on reason as a basis to determine whether our basis is true, that is what we call knowledge” (Audi 45).
Argument for
An example of rationalist is Rene Descartes, before we begin to study reality in our nature, he imposed a question, and what does it help a person to know about the meaning of reality? Reality cannot be touched or be seen with our naked eyes but if we know our belief are acceptable first then can believe in them. “Then such a belief will provide a strong foundation to base our future arguments and he will be in a postion to claim that all his argument is true” (Hursthouse 30).
For identification of truth so that all other belief can be based upon. René Descartes came up with a method that is able to suspends the confidence of a person in what he believe in, what his senses tell him or her to do and what he or she thinks is obvious. In order to tell if there is anything that we claim to know, René Descartes tells us to first doubt the things we know no matter how well we know them. “What Rene Descartes is saying is that; let temporary put to questions or temporary doubt things we claim to know” (Hursthouse 30).even if we have know them for years because our senses cannot be trusted.
Experience as results of sense is not good because sometimes our eyes deceive us and by this alone we cannot claim the basis of knowledge because we do not know what we are experiencing with our senses is true to be trusted, we are not sure of it. In that situation we should doubt our senses. There is one belief that we might not mistake and this is ‘thinking’ “The evil genie must be disposed”,
“The principle of belief according to John Locke it exists as ideas and these ideas we are born with at birth” (Hursthouse 32). Locke tells us that this ideas do not exist.men don’t have any idea and they cannot accept any belief brought forward. It is through our reflections that we can have ideas but not from other places. But ideas which are complex in a person can only be understood through repeating these ideas, by comparing these ideas and by combining these ideas to produce a complex idea.“Locke further tells us that the idea that is produced in mind can be classified into two.i.e primary qualities and secondary qualities.
There are three degrees of cognitive adequacy. Firstly intuitive knowledge which is the knowledge of our own existence and cannot b doubted.Secondly, demonstrative knowledge and this is the given knowledge from God.
David Humes is in agreement with his predecessors, John Locker but he explained this idea further. His definition was, the ideas that we experience was as a results of feelings, obsession and emotions that human being experience in this physical world and as a results of being happy or being sad and it cannot be the middle. “The idea may be simple ones and may take the impression of a complex ideas which is formed as a result of many simple ideas or belief” (Hursthouse 40). Combined together by a person.
Human being who believed in “life after death” I.e. the external world that cannot be seen by anyone, but they cannot prove this beliefs.we don’t know what is their in the external world, when a person dies he is silence. So the truth of this expression cannot be known to be true. For this metaphysics is not possible. Hume said their two types of knowledge that human being can have, firstly the reason as a result of logic which is arrived at by relating these simple ideas and can be arrived at through observation or through touch with our own hands. a good example is when our phone rings naturally we know that someone is trying to talk to us.
Hume asks? “What is the connection between coincidence and real causation?” and the cause will necessitates the effects and due to this we can predict if A cccurs, B will follow. He concluded that when we study matter as a results of facts, it will only depend on the relations between this matters. We all know the knowledge of a human being is limited in thinking and uncertain and because of this the surely that the external world exist is not there.
Plato never considered any skeptical challenges. He had assumptions that there is knowledge and started to enquire on the conditions that make it possible to have it. But these conditions had to depend on the capacity of human being brain and his soul. At the same time human beings mind is limited but he can acquire the knowledge of the physical world. The experiences as a results of our senses cannot gurantee us the information we get from physical world because this physical world is changing constantly. But the principles do not change so this can be reliable and we can depend on them in this physical world.
If a person base his belief on this unchanging principles then the foundation that he will create as a result of that, he will be in a position to justify that his belief are true and the person will say he has knowledge when he cannot justify his belief he will not overcome the ever changing physical world. If our concept or ideas are based on the truth as a result of truth from our senses. Then we cannot limit on specific types of expression because for us to be knowledgeable we must show how physical world can be related to our senses in this physical world..
Argument against
The common anti-skeptical by sextus Empiricus (c.C.E 200) “if one a human being know nothing, one cannot know tat one knows nothing” what he wanted to sat is the power of reasoning and senses varies across persons and knowledge was a product of an individual person. For example a color blind human being sees the world differently from a normal person. We cannot give preference on the basis of the power of reason. In this world what we observe will determine who we are in life i.e. our personality but this observation of our physical world varies from person to person and other people will think differently about our world.
The perceptions of a person have are not related with other senses i.e. a colour yellow has noting to do with the feeling of smelling a yellow flower. Human beings senses can defeat the impression of seeing things because human beings lack the power to understand our physical world. If only human beings had the sixth sense he might in a position to know which our other five senses have been defeated to know because sometimes our five senses can not be relied upon for a person to make proper judgment on thing in this physical world. “We have reason not to believe based on “facts” for example the distance of an object will affect how they are perceived by a person” (Fumerton 23).
“Anekāntavāda had this to say “the physical world can be seen differently from a point of view of a person and this cannot be changed completely” (Fumerton 43). He further said an object has qualities and those qualities cannot be perceived in all manifestations because human beings where limited in senses. Anekāntavāda goes on to say no definite word can express the nature of reality because reality can be seen from different point of view depending on the person.
Some scientific theory cannot satisfactory be explained or it outcome cannot be predicted. A good example is the theory of light although you can predict the outcome from the double-slit experiment. “It will be a mistake to assert because this phenomenon is unpredictable because science cannot adequately explain a theory. So it is incorrect to say that because some scientific theories cannot be explained so it is not correct” (Fumerton 25).
In modern legal systems it is presumption innocent till proven guilty, it will be fallacy to assume because of lack of evidence a person have been acquitted from a crime he is innocent or because a person has been found guilty he cannot be innocent. “Simple by taking a criminal before the law is not adequate evidence to presume anything. A person would only be found guilty if there is evidence that he has committed the crime” (Fumerton 35)
Middle ground
Aristotle is says “human beings having ethical knowledge is not certain knowledge but can be regarded as general knowledge”. “Theoretical displine is not important for a person to succeed in life but you can only succeed in life if you have experience of life” (Knight 45). A person being brought in a fine life. This can contribute to a good habit. in order to be virtuous in this physical world a person must do the things that can be associated with virtues “There is no profit in it if you study and become knowledgeable but you don’t have virtues in your life” (Knight 23). A good example is a soccer player; if you want to play better during a match you must practice first, in order to achieve that.
But you cannot achieve that if you study football alone. Aristotle’s also said everything in life is as a result of goals set by the mind and the highest goal is the achievement of happiness in human being ( eudaimonia-“living well” ). There are “specific functions in human beings that will bring happiness in that person. He analyzed the soul and said it was divided into three parts” (Knight 34).the first kind of soul was called nutritive, second type was perceptive and lastly the third type of soul was rational.
There facts in the physical world in which human being cannot understand because they are independent from human beings. This belief is only formed in the mind and those that are formed in the mind are not products of social relationship but they are product of human beings minds by nature and cannot exist independently from human beings.
Conclusion
Why should we care about knowledge? Having knowledge is valuable in understanding epistemology. Sometimes our mind can cheat us in believing that we know things but these things might turn out to be falses. Knowledge demands truth then we are half way to know the answers why knowledge is valuable. We can have true belief on trivial things in life and it not good to value things like this. Imagine a person measuring each gram of sand or he wants to remember every number in his phonebook. Let believe true beliefs are of value but it does not have a guarantee to know all.
Works Cited
Audi, Robert. Epistemology: a contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. epistemology: New York: Routledge Publisher, 2003. Print.
Epistemology is part of philosophy which majorly deals with knowledge. Epistemology tries to define the concept of knowledge by explaining its nature and how it comes about. Rationalism is quickly gaining popularity and it is one of the branches of epistemology. The proponents of rationalism argue that knowledge can be developed out of the past experiences or out of critical thinking.
Several businesses and organizations are today depending on the application of reason and logic. They use them to develop strategies that can help them achieve their objectives. For example computer technology is currently relying on the use of logic in developing security systems. Computer security system deals with management of information. Management of information is very important due to increased number of cyber crimes and data corruption. Data security prevents an authorized people from gaining access to information illegally, but it allows the authorized individuals to access the information. There are several concepts that can be used in developing data security. However, the uses of security systems in computers are all dependent on the application of the concept of logic.
The security system of a computer is based on preset access information (code) which a person must use in order to access the data. Therefore one should use the right access code in order to access the documents or information. Deductive and inductive logic are two elements of scientific rationality which are always applied by scientists in the following ways. They use them in identifying a problem (Bernstein, 1983). After that they carry out an observation and then make an interpretation of it. They then develop a hypothesis after which they draw a conclusion. Postmodernists argue that rationality does not provide explanations about what goes on in the world (Delanty & Strydom, 2003). However they all agree that the concept of logic can apply in a given model of instructions for example in the case of computer security. It is therefore possible for a person to apply the concept of logic without necessarily believing in postmodernists’ critiques (Delanty & Strydom, 2003).
Most of the modern innovations are products of scientific research, yet some people continue to criticize the scientific concepts. Science tries to experiment on knowledge using empirical method. This method involves making observations and developing hypothesis after which a conclusion is made based on what is observed. Scientific methods have the advantage of giving evidence hence they can be proved. For example before anew product is launched in the market, a research is always conducted to determine its effectiveness (Delanty & Strydom, 2003). If this is ignored, the manufacture cannot have reliable information about his product. Scientific methods could also help various businesses that rely on technology to improve on their services. For example communication firms should always come up with better services for their customer. This can be realized only through scientific research.
Postmodernists do not give valid criticisms of science and they simply base their arguments on the fact that scientific methods are general and cannot be relied on (Bernstein, 1983). This is not true because scientific concepts can be proved. Even though some scientific knowledge has caused problems to the human race, scientific research has been very instrumental in transforming the way people do business and it has also helped in improving the life of mankind as a whole. It should therefore not be openly criticized because even its critics have also benefited from it.
References
Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: science, hermeneutics, and praxis. New York: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Delanty, G., & Strydom, P. (2003). Philosophies of social science: the classic and contemporary readings. New York: Open University Press.
The term Philosophy of Science deals with all the foundations, methodologies, implications, and assumptions of science during a given process. On several occasions, it determines the magnitude of truth in a particular set of scientific results, thereby the merits or demerits of the same. Most importantly, problems, which may influence various other sciences, also fall under this category. It is noteworthy that scientific facts are anchored on observation, hence evolution and not creationist theories. The concept also covers aspirations of the practice in addition to modes of result interpretation (Newall, 2004).
Paradigm
Scientifically, the term paradigm defines distinctive concepts. It also covers contemporary circles when referring to practices, which define scientific disciplines at particular periods. This implies; the content availed for observation and scrutiny; questions to be probed regarding the available content; structure of the said questions; interpretation of results from scientific investigations. Nonprofessionals define the term as an exemplar, making it a set of archetypical experiments for emulation.
Ontology
As a concept, ontology refers to a study of reality and existence from a philosopher’s perspective. This study should incorporate basic existence categories and their relations. It deals with questions regarding existing entities, in addition, to possible grouping methods within a specified hierarchy. Most importantly, subdivisions have to occur according to correspondences and discrepancies. Summarily, it is a concern with establishing the elemental kind’s of being.
Epistemology
Epistemology refers to the study of knowledge. This makes it the category of philosophy that studies the nature and limitations of knowledge. As a result, some of the areas addressed therein include the definition of knowledge and its acquisition. Most importantly, epistemology seeks to explain what people know and how they know it (Klein, 2005).
Researchers endeavor to discern facts from myths, using credible evidence as to the benchmark. These terms are hence important since they define different aspects and areas of specialty researchers and practitioners will encounter (Klein, 2005). This enables them to distinguish between credible facts and personal sentiments when faced with a scenario. In addition, they enable practitioners to maintain objectivity in the course of their operations, by ensuring they test their methods rigorously instead of attempting to verify their concepts.
Interpretivism
This concept emphasizes the meaningful nature of participation in social and cultural life by people. This makes methods of natural science unsuitable for such processes since personal opinions and actions are analyzed in the process (Byrne, 1998).
Positivism
This term is used for epistemological points of view, which argue that scientific methods provide accurate means through which human and physical events take place. This implies that valid knowledge draws reference from experience, sense, and affirmative substantiation.
Empiricism
It is a theory of knowledge, which informs that knowledge, is realized through sensory experience. This makes it an integral component of epistemological studies. It lays emphasis on the importance of evidence, experience, and perception of senses concerning the information of ideas. This makes the testing of all theories against real-world observations an elementary part of all scientific dealings. This takes place instead of relying on intuition or revelation, making science empirical in nature (Solomon, 2001).
Critical Theory
This is an appraisal and assessment of traditions and society based on humanities and social sciences, which are carried out with the hope of changing the public. In some quarters, it has been perceived as a radical form of the Marxist ideology, making it a critique of logical positivism. It has two core concepts, which propose advocating for historical specificity and the integration of all major sciences, hence improving the understanding of society.
Constructivism
It is widely believed that this theory is not a discovery, but a product of scientists. This is because scientific concepts, which are conceived mentally and proposed as an explanation for sensory experience. This implies the lack of a single method for qualitative research. This implies that the theory relies on social constructivism, education, and philosophy.
References
Byrne, A. (1998). Interpretivism. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Web.
Klein, P. (2005). Epistemology. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Newall, P. (2004). Philosophy of Science. The Galilean Library. Web.
Solomon, M. (2001). Social Empiricism. Massachusetts, MA: MIT Press.
Epistemology is a philosophical concept that looks at knowledge and its scope. Generally, epistemology tends to ask what knowledge is all about and how one can get hold of it. Further, it considers how relevant knowledge is to a particular subject. One of the philosophers behind the idea of metaphysics is Plato.
Metaphysics attempts to explain how the world is understood by human beings. It is also concerned with the origin and structure of the universe. Metaphysics thus looks at what is in existence and what it is like. Drawing from s study by Ram-Prasad (2013), metaphysics tends to revolve around the use of language and the ultimate picture that one may have about the world. For Plato, epistemology is regarded as the understanding of what knowledge really is. Apparently, knowledge is about what exists. This is totally different from belief which looks at that which is present as well as that which is not present.
Comparison
In epistemology, skepticism casts doubts about the existence and reality of knowledge. Arguably, the fact that a person believes in something does not necessarily imply that he or she has knowledge about it. In the same way, metaphysics presumes that there is nothing that exists unless it is possible to ascertain its existence.
Rationalism in epistemology looks at reason as the main source of knowledge. Consequently, the main criterion that is used to accept knowledge is based on intellectual arguments. Similarly, rationalism in metaphysics is concerned with the provision of sound reasoning to prove the existence of things. Apparently, nothing exists if its existence can not be explained through reasoning.
Both epistemology and metaphysics give consideration to what is real and not what is imaginary in a material sense. However, while metaphysics focuses on the physical existence of matter, epistemology applies the same reasoning to the existence of knowledge.
In epistemology, what really counts is the understanding of knowledge about a particular topic of interest. Although this is somehow different from what metaphysics looks at, both are concerned with reality.
Epistemology is concerned with the reality about knowledge while metaphysics is concerned with reality about the existence of material substances. According to Dicker (2002), it is imperative to ensure that a connection exists between epistemology and metaphysics. This is because of the obvious overlaps that are seen to bring the two together.
Contrasts between Epistemology and Metaphysics in Relation to Skepticism, Rationalism, and Materialism
Generally, epistemology looks at skepticism with regard to knowledge. It thus looks at different aspects of knowledge and the way knowledge can be acquired. Apparently, skepticism under epistemology is concerned with clearing any doubts that may exist about the existence of knowledge.
On the other hand, skepticism under metaphysics focuses on the actual existence. Under metaphysics, it is absolutely necessary to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that what one claims to be present, does exist in actual sense. Often, doubts arise in the absence of such a proof.
It is not enough for people to simply be aware that something exists. For recognition purposes, proof must be presented.
As far as rationalism is concerned, epistemology relies on an intellectual perspective to explain the existence of knowledge. There has to be a reasonable argument that supports the existence of knowledge. In metaphysics, rationalism is with respect to the existence of something. Seemingly, there is nothing that can be presumed to exist without a reasonable argument. Everything that exists must be evidenced by a logical argument.
In metaphysics, materialism assumes the existence of a world that is completely independent of the human mind. In other words, the existence of the universe has nothing to do with the human mind. In metaphysics, material reality is not possible in the absence of physical matter. Therefore, while metaphysics is concerned with the existence of physical matter, epistemology looks at the notion of reality with respect to knowledge.
Metaphysics is also all about the exact nature of reality while epistemology is about what people believe and the kind of knowledge in their possessions.
Examples of Real Life Applications of Skepticism, Rationalism, and Materialism
Regarding materialism, several logical arguments have been presented concerning the existence of God. To a large extent, the arguments depend on the way human beings reason. According to research findings, this concept of materialism was proposed by Thomas Aquinas and Saint Anselm, two ancient philosophers.
Apparently, most people tend to believe that God, being powerful and at the same time good, should be able to avert evil in the society. The fact that evil is ever present in the society makes people wonder whether God is really that powerful. As a matter of fact, there are some people who are convinced that there is another being other than God who in total control of what happens in the universe.
Generally, skepticism has to do with doubt.
One example about skepticism is about a common assumption that people like making about life. Oftentimes, people allege that we should eat, drink, and be happy since tomorrow we will be dead. While this may be true, it is surrounded by so much uncertainty. Since it is in God’s hand to determine our fate the next second, minute, hour, or day, it is wrong to make such assumptions. People who live by such a philosophy may end up in a sorry state in the event that they spend all they have and are unable to cater for their needs the following day. It is advisable to be prudent about such allegations.
Another common example of skepticism concerns the belief that taking a spoonful of sugar is helpful, for making the medicine sink down the throat. Usually, it is presumed while the medicine may taste bad at the moment, it has long term benefits. However, this belief may not apply if the medicine has no benefit in the long run or if the medicine is tasty without the sugar.
To a large extent, skeptics have very little confidence in anything unless there is solid proof to support any allegation that is made. Nothing is what it is alleged to be until solid evidence is presented to remove any form of doubt. However, according to Hetherington (2013), it is important to have physical matter in place before seeking to prove that it actually exists.
By and large, rationalists are people who believe that knowledge can only be understood through reasoning (Sharlow, 2007). Consequently, it is impossible to talk about having arrived at knowledge without reasoning. An example of rationalism in real life is where some people have denied religion because of the way they think. However, being rational does in any way overlook the presence of God in our lives. Advocates of rationalism such as René Descartes still believed in the existence of God. This notwithstanding, there is completely nothing to deny the fact that reason leads to the acquisition of knowledge. Rationalism can also be demonstrated by complex equations in mathematics created by René Descartes through reasoning. According to Descartes, this was one way of ensuring that errors are not overlooked when considering important matters.
Conclusion
As discussed in this presentation, epistemology and metaphysics help to explain why people behave or regard things in a certain way.
While epistemology looks at different issues with regard to knowledge, metaphysics considers the existence of things.
As pointed out earlier, epistemology is concerned with knowledge and as well as its reach. It asks what knowledge is all about and how can be accessed by any interested party. It also considers how relevant knowledge is to a given subject.
Metaphysics on the other hand is mainly concerned with providing explanations about the understanding of the world by human beings. To a certain extent, it is also concerned with the origin and structure of the universe. Metaphysics thus looks at what is in existence and what it is like.
While there are differences that exist between metaphysics and epistemology, it is equally important to be aware of the fact that there are similarities that bring these two branches of philosophy together with regards to different philosophical theories.
References
Dicker, G. (2002). Hume’s Epistemology and Metaphysics: An Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hetherington, S. (2013). Metaphysics and Epistemology: A Guided Anthology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ram-Prasad, C. (2013). Advaita Epistemology and Metaphysics: An Outline of Indian Non-Realism. New York, NY: Routledge.