Athena Summary PSM PDF

# AthenaSummary ## Week 1 ### Introduction: Between Scepticism and Scientism #### 1.1. Introduction - Science is the crowning achievement of the human mind and seemingly doesn't have borders, providing an understanding of reality that keeps getting better and better. - According to scientism, the...

# AthenaSummary ## Week 1 ### Introduction: Between Scepticism and Scientism #### 1.1. Introduction - Science is the crowning achievement of the human mind and seemingly doesn't have borders, providing an understanding of reality that keeps getting better and better. - According to scientism, the laws of science provide certainty in securing knowledge. - Ignorance might be the most important product of knowledge. #### Scientism - Philosophers and scientists take some claims to be true without having proof for it: - We are (or not) alone in the universe. - Evolution is responsible for life (wherever in the cosmos it can be found). - String theory is a futile exercise in physics. - There is (or not) an independent reality from one's consciousness. - Minds will (or will not) survive death. - There is a lot we don't know and most likely will never know. - The human mind is a "crooked mirror" or "an enchanted glass, full of superstition and imposture": - We are prone to making mistakes as our senses are far from perfect. #### Scepticism - Sceptics (relativists and post-modernists) have attacked science for monopolizing truth: - There is no proof in science, but rather faith. - Contemporary science is a product of failed ideologies from the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. - Scientists are captivated by the prejudices of society. - There is no objectivity of observations. - Science is a form of thought, developed by the man. However, instead of the scientific method, a majority of approaches to truth and knowledge should be allowed: Anything goes. ## Nature and Utility of Scientific Theory - Watt, J. H. & van den Berg, S. (2002) #### 1. Naïve Science and Theory - We are interested in understanding how things work, in finding explanations and in predicting outcomes. This is referred to as naïve science as we are not acting in awareness with the rules of science. As naïve scientists, we try to understand interesting situations in a way that will explain or predict its operation. This understanding is kind of a theory. - **Theory**: a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions and propositions that present a systematic view of certain phenomena by specifying relations among the variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena. - **Variables**: things that vary - different values, intensities, states - We are only interested in changing variables. - **Concepts (constructs)**: the mental image of the thing which varies - Humans naturally try to explain observable phenomena as we are quite uncomfortable with unexplained events. - The utility of a theory is limited by the extent of which we are confident that it reflects reality. - The process of developing explanations for phenomena and for testing whether the explanations are true or false has many opportunities for error. To overcome this, the scientific method has evolved as highly formalized and systematic version of the innate human activity of collecting and summarizing information into naïve theories. #### 2. Naïve inquiry vs. Scientific Method - The main difference between science and naïve inquiry is the awareness that our observations and reasonings are error-prone and that we must employ strategies to help us guard against committing error. - 5 points of difference: 1. Development of theories 2. Testing of theories 3. Control of alternative explanations 4. Nature of relationships 5. Testing theories with observable evidence #### 2.1. Development of Theories - A theory presents us with an explanation of a phenomenon. It consists minimally of a concept considered to be a cause, one considered to be an effect, and a statement about how and why the two are related. - Scientist will systematically select all concepts that could be a cause of certain phenomenon. They will also eliminate all other causes that are deemed irrelevant to the phenomenon. This process continues until the total set of available concepts has been reduced to concepts deemed relevant to the theory by the scientist. - The naïve scientist doesn't go through this systematic review process. A concept may be selected as a cause due to biases or convictions, just because it seems appealing. Naïve scientists base their explanation of phenomena on their own observations and reality. #### 2.2. Testing of Theories - The naïve scientist will be satisfied a theory is correct if its truth is obvious and won't indulge in further testing. Theory is a "self-evident" truth in this case. When more evidence is sought out it's usually done in such a way that it is consistent with the existent theory and ignore any conflicting information. - Opposed to that, true scientists insist on obtaining objective evidence before making judgments about the probable truth or falsehood of a theory. - **Objective**: the evidence can be collected by any other person (it is reproducible) and it's not biased towards proving the theory true or false. - The true scientist is aware of the human tendency to ignore contradicting information and fights this by providing alternate explanations of the phenomenon. - There are many procedures to ensure against biased testing of theories. Some of them are: 1. Theories must be tested objectively, rather than just assumed to be true or false. 2. All information must be considered on an equal basis rather than selected just to support the theory. 3. Testing of theories must be done under conditions which will minimize the possibility of conscious or unconscious subjective biases of the researcher. #### 2.3. Control of Alternative Explanations - In order to measure the effect of any single causal variable on the effect variable, the scientist will have to control for any other potential causal variables. The study should be designed in such a way that it can be stated with certainty that this particular variable causes that particular effect, independent of all other causal variables. - The naïve scientist is not through or systematic in his investigations. Consequently, control over other confounding variables is not possible. A particular cause and effect can be linked together but we can't claim with certainty that cause is solely responsible for that effect. - Key idea: The scientist will control the research situation so that it can be stated with confidence that whatever effect is observed is in fact due to the particular cause and not to competing causes. #### 2.4. Nature of Relationships - There are three possible relationships between causes: 1. Null relationship - the concepts operate independently of each other. 2. Covariance - the concepts vary together but one is not the cause and the other is the effect. This relationship can be positive or negative. - More of the one, more of the other → positive relationship - More of the one, less of the other → Negative relationship 3. Causal relationship - all concepts are related and changes in once concept precede changes in the other. The causal relationship between the two can be justified logically. - It is essential that theories distinguish between these kinds of relationships. Failure to do so can lead to falsely explaining the reality with our theory. - Scientists apply the rules of mathematics and statistics to differentiate between null and non-null theories. Naïve scientists on the other hand are likely to capitalize on the joint occurrence of certain phenomena and assume they can be linked in a cause-and-effect fashion, especially if it fits their beliefs. #### 2.5. Testing Theories with Observable Evidence - Science requires objective evidence before making decisions about the truth or falsehood of a theory. Answering scientific questions demands unbiased observation and testing. Variables should be observable by any person. Naive scientists will assume the truth is observable to any reasonable person, observable evidence is not required. - Opposed to that, true scientists insist on obtaining objective evidence before making judgments about the probable truth or falsehood of a theory. - **Objective**: the evidence can be collected by any other person (it is reproducible) and it's not biased towards proving the theory true or false. #### 3. Methods of Knowing - 4 main methods of reality; categories of "fixing belief": 1. The method of tenacity - truth is assumed to be true simply because it's commonly known to be true. 2. The method of authority - truth is established because someone or something in high regard states it to be true. Often relies on testimony of experts. 3. The a priori method (the method of reasonable men) in a "marketplace of ideas" arguments are weighted and the most logical and reasonable one is considered truth. - Problem with this method is what is defined as reasonable. Statements agree with reason but not necessarily with observable fact or experience. 4. The method of science - this method moves from the individual to the group by establishing a set of mutually agreed upon rules for establishing truth. #### 4. Contrasting the Methods of Knowing - It is interesting to consider the relationship between beliefs that are accepted as truth and TRUTH, the objective reality that exists "out there". - Science states that there is an objective reality and that our ideas about it do not alter that reality. Science is self-correcting in the way that it requires the scientist to test theories against observable reality. - Because science requires we determine the extent to which our theories about the real world agree with how the real world actually operates, we need a method for testing theoretical predictions against observed reality. #### 5. Scientific Method - Basic Requirements - 5.1. Use and Selection of Concepts - We begin by conceptualizing the cause-and-effect phenomena by developing a description for the event. Scientists arrive at causally related concepts through a thorough review of previous research by using logical deductions. - 5.2. Linking Concepts by Propositions - If we want to explain a phenomenon, we need to specify the functional mechanism whereby a cause brings about an effect. This statement distinguishes between a causal relationship or the other. - 5.3. Testing Theories with Observable Evidence - Any theory will not be regarded as potentially true until we test it against some observable reality. - 5.4. Definition of Concepts - Bridging the gap between theory and observation is done through a process of defining the meaning of concepts and their measures that will be used to capture the meanings. - 5.5. Publication of Definitions and Procedures - We should be as explicit and objective as possible when publicizing definitions and procedures as all other researchers should have the ability to replicate our study. - 5.6. Control of Alternative Explanations - Scientific studies have to be designed in such a way that we can rule out alternative causes. Isolating a true causal variable means that all other confounding variables should be identified and eliminated/controlled for. - 5.7. Unbiased Selection of Evidence - The decision to accept a theory as presumably true or probably false is based on the observation of limited evidence. Science requires this evidence to be selected in such a way that it eliminates biases and is representative of the greater population. - 5.8. Reconciliation of Theory and Observation - The degree of agreement between what theory predicts we should observe and what we actually observe is the basis of the self-correcting nature of the scientific approach. Any disagreement will result in scrutiny of the used method and will lead to new predictions. - 5.9. Limitations of the Scientific Method - The scientific method cannot be used to study all questions. We cannot employ it when objective observation is not possible. Basic beliefs or assumptions are not testable propositions. The limits of science are clear. The limits of beliefs are not. ## Week 2 ### Chapter 1: Out of the Cave: Rationalism and Empiricism in Antiquity #### 1.1. Introduction - What is knowledge? (Socrates, 470-399 B.C.): - How can we justify knowledge? - What are the ultimate sources of knowledge? - What is the method by which we gain knowledge? #### Two rival approaches: - 1. **Rationalism** - True knowledge about reality derives from the proper use of our reasoning capacities. Our capacity to think generates ideas and concepts which we cannot arrive at by using only our sensory capacities. - Based on the work of Plato. - 2. **Empiricism** - The ultimate source of knowledge is sense experience. - Based on the works of Aristotle. #### 1.2. Plato's Rationalism - Plato (427-347 B.C.) - pupil of Socrates - Socrates's method of "intellectual midwifery": method of dialectic (cross-examination). - Not knowing is his only certainty. - Socrates was asking people about things they claim to know with certainty. - He tried to determine the essence of abstract concepts as beauty, justice, love, etc. - **Plato's metaphysics and epistemology**: - **Metaphysics**: the branch of philosophy that asks, "What is the world made of?" - **Ontology**: the study of being. - Central issue in philosophy: The difference between being and becoming. - The clashing views of being and becoming: 1. **According to Heraclites**: - Change (flux) is at the heart of existence - nothing is, everything becomes. - "Panta rei": everything flows. - The essence of reality is change: "you cannot step twice into the same river, for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you". Due to the ever-changing nature of appearances, most people are not able to attain knowledge. 2. **According to Permenides**: - It is the senses that mislead human beings into thinking that things are changing all the time. - There is a permanent and unchanging reality that is immutable. - If something changes it no longer is: everything is, nothing becomes. - Real existence is without change and as senses are misleading, we should rely on reason to discover the truth. - **Plato's ideas**: - If we equate knowledge with perception, knowledge becomes downright impossible due to the fluctuating nature of the perceptual world. Our perceptions and our knowledge will vary from moment to moment - knowledge becomes relative to the observer and his perceptions and beliefs. - **Protagoras' homo mensuna doctrine**: "opinion is true to each person which he acquires through sensation." - Plato disagrees: Truth and knowledge are about how things really are, not about how they are for me or for you. - The real world is a supernatural realm that contains the eternal and perfect Forms (or Ideas) of almost everything. One's knowledge about a thing is about this Form and not about its less-than-perfect manifestations. - The allegory of the cave: We must learn to see behind the appearances into the world of Forms, of which perceptions allow only shadowy glimpses. The universal Forms are the ultimate realities that ground true knowledge. - **Nativism**: human beings possess innate (inborn) ideas. - Innate ideas: knowledge states that we possess at birth. - Plato claims we were born possessing all knowledge, that is lost at birth but can be regained by using reason throughout our lifetime. - To learn is to remember, so there is no such thing as new knowledge. - Ideas about reincarnation: human beings can recollect knowledge through reason from their previous soul in the World of Forms. - **Anamnesis**: learning-by-recollection. - If we use our reasoning capacities properly, we can recover from our condition of oblivion and remember the eternal Forms. #### 1.2. Aristotle's Empiricism - **Empiricism**: Source of knowledge is not reason but sensory experience as our senses bring us into immediate contact with the world. - There is only the world we inhabit. Essences are part of the natural world and are accessible by empirical inquiry. Knowledge comes from observing nature. - There is no such thing as innate knowledge: all knowledge stems from sense experience. - We are born with no knowledge, a mind that is tabula rasa (a blank slate), ready to receive information. - Science consists in the discovery of the causes of objects: we have knowledge when we are able to provide causal explanations. - Causal explanation involves reasoning from theoretical principles to particular cases: syllogism, a deductive argument. A syllogism consists of two premises and a conclusion based on them. We move from true laws to specific cases - if the premises are true, the conclusion can be derived with absolute certainty. - Principles of knowledge: causative, immediate, and true. - **Induction**: moving from observation of a particular phenomenon to universal laws. - Universal principles are derived from sensory observations. However, there is no guarantee in the certainty of the first principles. - Gathering empirical data will not be sufficient to establish the truth of a principle. There is no universal validity to the inductive method. It can be understood as a first step in data collection. It must be intuition that apprehends the first principles. - **Nous**: infallible intellectual capacity - Intuitive induction by the mind (nous) guarantees the truth of the empirically acquired correlations. The definitive establishment of theoretical principles depends on an intuitive grasp of intellect. It is nous, and not sensory powers, which is able to detect with absolute certainty the essential causal properties of objects. - Aristotle identifies four types of cause: 1. the formal cause - relates to shape 2. the material cause - relates to material 3. the efficient cause - relates to primary source of change or its absence 4. the final cause - the goal for the sake for which something is done - To have an explanation of something is to have knowledge of these four causes. ## Chapter 2: Beyond the Pillars of Hercules: A New (Philosophy of) Science #### 2.1. Introduction - Francis Bacon publishes *The Novum Organum* (New Method) in the early 17th century. It is a medieval compilation of Aristotle's writings on logic and science. In the text, Bacon provides the outline of a new scientific method for a "total reconstruction of sciences arts, and all human knowledge, raised upon proper foundation." Science as guided by observation and experiment rather than faith or tradition. #### 2.2. The Aristotelian-Medieval Worldview - The Aristotelian Cosmos: - Concentric, crystalline spheres with attached to them planets and stars. - Earth as the centre of the universe. - Two distinct realms: 1. Superlunary (celestial) region that is the domain from the moon onward. - Everything in the celestial region is eternal and perfect. - Objects are imperishable and they move in perfect, uniform circles. 2. The sublunary, terrestrial realm. - Everything is made up of four elements in various combinations: earth, air, fire and water. - The heavenly bodies are composed of a fifth, perfect element (quinta essentia) - a pure, invisible substance. - Ptolemy's elaboration on Aristotelian Cosmos: - The Earth sits motionless in the centre of the universe, and planets travel in circles in their larger orbit around the Earth. - Copernicus argued that the sun sits in the centre and the Earth and other planets revolve around it - heliocentrism over geocentrism. #### 2.3. Bacon's New Methodology - Ancient learning relied on argumentation and authority, which made theorizing rigid and unproductive. Truth does not come from contemplation and authority but relies on the testimony of the sense. Experimental methods offer a royal way to knowledge. - In order to establish a science based on accurate knowledge of reality, one must first purge the mind of its "idols" that stand in the way of science. - **Idols**: characteristic errors, deceptions or sources of misunderstanding. - Categories of idols: 1. Idols of the Tribe: innate and shared by all human beings. 2. Idols of the Cave: peculiarities of individuals due to their upbringing and training. 3. Idols of the Marketplace: distorted beliefs that stem from common language. 4. Idols of the Theatre: accepted dogmas and methods of old schools of thought. - Bacon introduced the method of induction as a scientific method to replace the old syllogistic logic that was in place until the end of the 16th century. Deductive arguments are only useful to the extent they are adequately supported by empirical facts. According to Bacon's scientific method, scientists must gather as much empirical data as possible as the basis for proceeding to formulate theories. - Science is not only about the careful, inductive collection of data, but needs interpretation through theories as well. It is not just observation or reason, but rather the combination of both that makes good science. #### 2.4. The Scientific Revolution - Johannes Kepler introduced the idea that planets orbit the sun in elliptical trajectories. Galileo Galilei upgraded a telescope with a spyglass that allowed him to discover that the surface of the moon is in fact rough and uneven and not as perfect as the ancients had thought. This finding was followed by the one about Jupiter's four moons, which implied there were more than seven bodies in the celestial system. These discoveries challenge the Aristotelian sublunary-superlunary distinction. - The Scientific Revolution was continued by Isaac Newton, who presented his three laws of motion and law of gravitation, which explained in mathematical terms the behavior of all objects. #### 2.5. Taking Stock: The Main Characteristics of the Scientific Revolution - The Scientific Revolution put emphasis on empirical observations. - **Experimentum crucis**: an experiment carried out in order to force a decision between two or more alternative hypotheses. - The two characteristics of the Scientific Revolution: 1. commitment to the observational method and 2. universal mechanics. - The Aristotelian worldview had been anthropomorphic: human purposive behavior was taken as the model for everything else. - The new mechanical philosophers challenge the notion of the final causes of Aristotle: to explain a phenomenon is to refer back to the cause or mechanism that preceded it, not simply focus on the final cause. - The third characteristic of the Revolution: universal mathematics (describing universal principles in precise mathematical terms) - The Scientific Revolution was primarily about the mechanization, mathematization, and demystification of both remote parts of the universe and mundane non-living objects. - The demystification leads to conclusions that there are not only natural but also social sciences as well with comparable universal laws. - To understand the things people do, you have to refer to their purposes, intentions and goals. - Social sciences must have a different methodology than natural sciences. ## Chapter 3: Behind a Veil of Ideas: Early Modern Rationalism and Empiricism #### 3.1. Introduction - The emergence of the new sciences forced a full-scale break with Aristotle's science, metaphysics, and philosophy of science. The distinction between a sublunary and superlunary systems were abolished. #### 3.2. Rene Descartes - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) - the father of modern philosophy. - Descartes defended the view that in the end it is not perception but human reason that grounds knowledge. - For Descartes, geometry was the prototypical form of science. All knowledge should be built on basis of self-evident, absolutely certain statements as in mathematics. Thus, it is important we find every science on statements that are known to be absolutely true. - We should use a method of doubt to obtain true knowledge (scientia): anything that can be doubted is uncertain and should for this reason not be regarded as knowledge. - Doubting the senses as a way to gather knowledge. As senses might deceive you, they cannot be trusted: if they fool us some of the time, they might have been fooling us all the time. - Man is fallible, some even make mistakes with respect to the simplest geometrical problems (like 2+3). - Descartes thinks our senses fool us. It is possible that we dream that we are at some place else than our body actually is. - To prevent him from falling back into believing his former certainties, Descartes invokes an all-powerful demon (malin genie) - There is a malicious demon that tries to deceive you into believing some things are true. - In doubting everything, he knows one thing with certainty: that he is doubting. If he is deceived in thinking, he has to exist. - **Cogito ergo sum**: I think, therefore I am. - **Res cogitans**: an immaterial, thinking thing. - The notion of innate ideas: there must be a number of innate ideas. - The idea of infinity - we are not infinite, so that cannot be an idea that we generated ourselves but was rather placed in our minds by something infinite itself. - Since God does not deceive us, the physical world indeed exists. Descartes concludes that he is not only a thinking thing, but also a physical thing (res extensa). - Res extensa is characterized by having extension: physical objects have height, width and length. #### 3.3. The British Empiricists - 3.3.1. John Locke (1632-1704) - There are no innate ideas: when we are born, the mind is like an empty paper. - The empiricist theory of knowledge formation: perception is the production of ideas in the mind as a result of the actions of the tiny corpuscles (atoms) of which material objects are composed. - All our ideas, our mental representations, stem from sensation and reflection and these two constitute experience. - **Sensation**: source of ideas, depending wholly upon the senses. - **Reflection**: we have experiences of the events that go in our mind so we can form ideas about them. - Locke draws distinction between three types of properties (qualities) that we attribute to objects. 1. **Primary qualities** - these qualities exist in the object no matter whether we perceive them or not. - Mind-independent 2. **Secondary qualities** - properties that only exist when the object is perceived. - Mind-dependent - The falling tree needs an observer, a perceiving subject, for it to make a sound. - Colours, sounds, tastes, etc. are produced by the objective properties of an object in perceiving minds and only subsequently ascribed to natural objects in the world. - Secondary qualities cannot be in natural objects. 3. **Tertiary qualities** - powers objects have to change another object so that it causes different sensation to us. - 3.3.2. George Berkeley - We cannot be sure that objects exist outside of the mind. There is no "twofold existence" of ideas and the objects they are supposed to resemble. - Regarding Locke's arguments about primary and secondary qualities: - Berkeley argues that primary qualities are in fact mind-dependent: Primary properties are dependent for their existence upon them being perceived. - Everything that exists, exists in virtue of being perceived. - **Esse est precipi**: to be is to be perceived - idealism. - There are no material objects, they only exist as a "collection of ideas". - As ideas cannot exist in an "unthinking substance" there can only be spirit or thinking substance immaterialism. - The dualism of Descartes: the material and mental substances. Either of these can exist without the other. - In modern philosophy, it is believed that the material world has primacy over the mental world and not vice versa. There are no souls (mental substance), just brains with mental functions. - 3.3.3. David Hume - David Hume argues that every science has relation to human nature. - Science is based on experience and observation. - The contents of the mind should be called perceptions: impressions and ideas. - **Impressions**: immediate data of experience. - **Ideas**: faint copies of impressions. - **Hume's Copy Principle**: all our ideas are nothing but copies of our impressions. - Knowledge derives from impressions received through the senses. - The Copy Principle provides an instrument that can be used to test the legitimacy of a term, especially in the case of abstract ideas. - First, the complex idea for which the term stands should be determined. This complex idea should be divisible into simple ideas and their corresponding impressions. If a term cannot be broken into those simple ideas, the conclusion must be that the term lacks empirical content and is therefore meaningless and should be discarded. - The concept of substance is regarded as meaningless and illegitimate, as it is not derived from impressions (regarding Berkeley's idea about spiritual substance that carries all ideas). - **Problems of the Copy Principle**: 1. An impression or idea is called complex if one can distinguish several components in it. Complex ideas can become a problem, as it is not possible to think about things that haven't been seen or experienced. - Every complex idea is made of simple ideas, and every simple idea corresponds to a simple impression. 2. In the absence of a solution, the case casts doubt upon the universal validity of the first principle on which the science of human nature is supposed to be built. - The notion of blending: blending of simple ideas makes it possible to generate an idea of a missing concept. ## Week 3 ### Chapter 4: The Limits of Science: Hume and Kant on Human Knowledge #### 4.1. Introduction - Hume concludes that human knowledge is quite limited. Scientific knowledge might not be possible at all. Due to the way in which the human mind works, only fallible knowledge is within our reach. #### 4.2. David Hume and the Science of a Man #### 4.2.2. Hume's Philosophy - Hume concludes from his critique of reason that it is not reason that is the most powerful capacity in human nature. It is the passions that rule reason. Furthermore, he argues that reason ought to be the slave of passions. - Of every important idea or concept, we have, Hume asks from what set of sense impressions we derived this idea or concept. If we cannot find the sense impression, the idea is only a product of our imagination and is altogether insignificant. - **Hume's notion of cause and effect**: - The causal relation between two events or things: 1. Contiguity 2. Priority - one event precedes and causes the other. 3. Constant conjunction - the same result will be applied every time. 4. Necessity - The belief of causality is an operation of the mind. Anticipation is simply drawing conclusions based on past experiences: our experience teaches us to think the way we do. - Concluding from cause to effect is the most important form of reasoning and the basis of our knowledge. - **The problem of induction**: - We conclude to effective causes, not because we find such causes on our sense impressions or experience but because we have learned to anticipate in exactly this way the world and the events it contains. In this we simply assume that nature will behave uniformly. This assumption is not self-evident. Just as we do not see the causality in our experience, we cannot see the uniformity of nature that we anticipate in every single instance. In other worlds, we cannot conclude from past experience that the world will behave uniformly. - Where human reason fails, our habits are our guide to life. - Reason is subordinate to our habits and customs, the result of a learning process instigated by the interaction between us and the world, which make us anticipate the future and believe one thing is the cause of something else. - Our beliefs are the result of habit formation. In the cases in which reason is incapable of forcing us to conclude from cause to effect, habit formation does the trick as it is human nature that indeed makes us act and believe. - **The analysis of free will**: - If individuals in the same situations act in the same way, there is no real free will at play (necessity). The feelings of free will only arise when we explicitly test our will. - Freedom is the feeling that emerges as a consequence of human nature that has its aim to survive in a risky world. - The constant conjunction of our motives, situations, and actions is what we mean by necessity in the domain of our actions. Hence, there is no free will. It is only because our passions put our reason in order via habit formation, that we have the idea of freedom at all. - **Hume as the inventor of the principle of association**: - By association or habit formation our seemingly unbridled imagination is bridled. Since we are sensitive to such associating relations, we are able to categorize the universe for ourselves. - **Naturalism**: the idea that thinking about humans as naturally evolved creatures has consequences for the search for answers to traditional philosophical questions. - Our beliefs are conjectures and best guesses arrived at by applying habitual passions. - We can only understand our anticipatory success if 1) we assume that the world is rather uniform and constant, while 2) observing that human nature is such that associates and forms habits. That's all we can say about our knowledge. - Everything we think about the world in terms of causes and effects, in terms of future events, and in terms of laws, is just a habit of mind. Knowledge is "an illusion of the imagination". #### 4.3. Immanuel Kant and the Limits of Knowledge #### 4.3.1. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason - We obviously have judgements which are necessary and universal, so we need to investigate what makes such knowledge possible. - Under what condition we can attain knowledge - the transcendental question. - Necessity and universality are simply the result of the imagination of the human mind. - The distinctions between *a priori* and *a posteriori* judgements and between synthetic and analytical judgements. These distinctions make it possible to understand how humans have universal knowledge about the world. - **Analytic vs. Synthetic judgements**: - The general form of a judgement is one in which a predicate is assigned to a subject: S is P. - A judgement is analytic if the subject already contains the predicate. To understand whether this judgement is true we do not need to perform further inquiry. These judgements do not add information. - Synthetic judgements add information by assigning a predicate to a subject. We need to do some empirical investigation to check whether the judgement is in fact true. - **A priori vs. A posteriori judgements** - An a priori judgement is independent of sense experience and stems from reason, while a posteriori judgement is dependent on sense experience. - Kant argues that we have necessary and universal knowledge in the case of the most general statements of physics and mathematics. Kant thinks we also need senses as a source of knowledge. In this way, he tries to synthesize the empiricist and rationalist traditions in philosophy. - Given the two main distinctions, there are 4 possible types of judgements: | Judgements, according to Hume and Kant | Analytic | Synthetic | |---|---|---| | A priori | Analytic a priori [Possible according to both Hume and Kant] | Synthetic a priori [Possible according to Kant, impossible according to Hume] | | A posteriori | [Impossible according to both Hume and Kant] | Synthetic a posteriori [Possible according to both Hume and Kant] | - A synthetic a priori judgement: statements that have 1) origin in the human mind but 2) add information about the world. #### 4.3.3. The noumenal and phenomenal world - The noumenal and phenomenal world: - **The noumenal world** is the world of things as they are in themselves. - **The phenomenal world** is the world as it appears to us, humans. - We can have knowledge of the phenomenal world, but not of the noumenal one. - Kant argues that to think we are free, is something we must necessarily assume in order to be able to act morally. - Knowledge can only be the result of the synthesis of input from the noumenal world and input from reason. #### 4.3.4. The logical stages of knowledge - 1st stage: the subject has the capacity to be affected by the noumenal world. This receptivity results in impressions. - 2nd stage: The manifold of impressions is molded into appearances by another capacity of the subject's, namely the spontaneity of the power of imagination. Everything that can possibly be input is already put into space and time. Space and time are preconditions of the senses. - 3rd stage: The manifold of the appearances synthesized into experience by the application of the categories by human reason. It is our mind that makes it possible for us to experience the world, using space and time as templates to generate appearances. - **Causality** as a category of reason: one of the twelve general categories used by human reason to unite phenomena. The human reason will always think of some event that it is caused by something else. Causality is a relation between phenomena within the boundaries of sensibility. - 4th stage: the reflective power of judgements brings experiences to a further unity by applying its ideas. - **Kant's logical analysis of human knowledge summarized**: | Step | Result | |---|---| | Stage 1 | The noumenal world impinges on the affective subject | Manifold of sensations | | Stage 2 | The power of imagination synthesizes the manifold of sensations by using its templates of time and space | Manifold of appearances | | Stage 3 | The determinate power of judgement applies its categories and unifies the manifold of appearances | Manifold of experiences | | Stage 4 | The reflective power of judgement brings experiences to a further unity by applying its ideas | Systematic knowledge | #### 4.3.5. The limits of reason - We cannot have knowledge of God, the immortal soul or freedom as appearances never elicit the application of categories that can offer us such knowledge. - **The limits of human knowledge**: - Science is possible to the extent that it maps the phenomenal world with