The Philosophy of Knowledge motivation and introduction MRes Philosophy of Knowledge: Session 1 – part 1 (slides available at

The Philosophy of Knowledgemotivation and introduction

MRes Philosophy of Knowledge: Session 1 – part 1

(slides available at http://cfpm.org/mres)

Motivation for Learning about the Philosophy of Knowledge

• Ultimately each of YOU will have to defend the claim that you have made a contribution to knowledge in your thesis and viva…

• …to others (your examiners etc.) who have to know how to judge your contribution

• That is, you have to produce some (sound, novel, significant) public knowledge

• Something that is only useful to you personally will not pass (e.g. a way of thinking about things)

• In other words, what you produce in your research has to be valuable/useful/informative/something to other people that might read it (your public!)

• The valuable stuff that you will produce is called Knowledge

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

http://cfpm.org/mres

But there are many questions about this knowledge…• What is the nature of this knowledge that you will

produce?• Are there different kinds of it?• How can you produce it?• How can it be valuable to someone else?• Can it be said to be objectively true?• If it is not objectively true then why would anyone

else be interested in it?• What is the connection between how its produced

and its value to someone else?• How can a third party judge it?

Knowledge in the social sciences is a difficult and contested notion!



Which leaves YOU with a big BIG problem…

• You have to produce this knowledge somehow…

• Then defend the claim that it is knowledge…

• Even when nobody is entirely sure what it is and how it works…

• And when everybody has different opinions about it…

• And, indeed, argues ferociously about it!



Rationalism –v- Empiricism. MMUBS Mres Philosophy of Knowledge http://cfpm.org/mres slide-5

About Philosophy


What is Philosophy? MMUBS Mres Epistemology, http://cfpm.org/~bruce slide-6

THE SMALL PRINT• Philosophy always comes with caveats and

warnings, including this!• There is no substantial consensus as occurs in,

perhaps, physics (except possibly in the style, presentation or practice of philosophy)

• Everything is contested – there will different views on all issues, including:– Key terms in philosophy– The history of philosophy– What philosophers have said

• I will simplify considerably in order to present this material – for the complexity you have to read


The nature of philosophy

• As a tradition or history– The thinkers, schools, approaches, books,

papers that happened to arise over time

• As a style of enquiry– Characterised by argument and counter-

argument

• As it defines itself– The nature of philosophy is itself a contentious

issue, so in general this is avoided except– When a philosopher needs to redefine it


Why you need to know something about philosophyNot (necessarily) to do philosophy but to:• Understand the tradition so that you:

– Can understand what others are saying– Can situate your research with respect to the tradition– Are prepared for comments, questions and objections

to your research

• Have access to some different ways to think about what you are doing

• Develop a critical approach to arguments and evidence– By knowing some of the possible arguments and/or

difficulties


What philosophy does not(in general) do

• Provide the answers

• Simplify/clarify concepts/ideas

• Provide solid foundations for methodology

• Tell you what you should be doing

• Help one to distinguish what is true (alternatively holds/works/can be said etc.) and what is not

• Tell you what words/texts really mean


What philosophy is (generally) good at

• Critiquing arguments and positions by pointing out– Hidden assumptions– Counter examples– Limitations– Fallacies– Consequences

• Providing conceptual frameworks/positions– With which to describe or think about issues

What is Philosophy? MMUBS Mres Epistemology, session 1, 30 October 2003, http://cfpm.org/~bruce slide-11

Some warnings about philosophy

• It can involve:– Unnatural/weird counter examples– Extremely strong definitions– Over generality (attempts to cover too many different cases in one

approach)– Abstractness (lack of relevance to practice)– An obsession with itself

• Overemphasis on certainty, necessity and 100% proof• Often attacks straw men and concludes opposite• Tends to ignore process• Sometimes just seems premature

– e.g. early philosophising about the nature of matter

• It does not necessarily help one do better research


Some tips as to how to approach philosophy

• Don’t worry about it too much – but keep going!• Note down and try to understand the terms – one

has to understand the language before the content becomes clear

• Continually think of examples – especially with respect to your research/domain

• Remember they may be talking complete rubbish, so rethink the issues yourself!

• If one text does not seem to be helping, don’t continue to bash your head up against it, try a different source


How to talk back to a philosopher

• How does this argument relate to practical matters, in particular …?

• Can you give me some examples that distinguish between …?

• What is the scope of this argument/claim?

• On what basis do you make that claim?

• How does your usage of the term … relate to the common usage?

• What are the opposing views to this?


My philosophical position• What I do – formal (but non-analytic) modelling using

agent-based computer simulation (see bruce.edmonds.name for papers etc.)

• Contrasts somewhat with Robin Holt’s position• Common sense words like “truth”, “meaning” etc. hide

complex and multifarious sub-cases• This means that there are lots of different kinds of

truth, meaning etc.• Each has different properties, is established in

different ways, has different uses etc.• Therefore one has to think what one is trying to do in

each case based on the practicalities• Philosophy is only a guide to this• Thus I am pluralistic, pragmatic, and deflationary


Philosophical words

• Truth, Phenomena, Deduction, Induction, Causation, Objective, etc.

• These are abstractions of common words used in phrases, e.g “It is true I saw it”, “I used to know this” etc. (often meta-statements)

• Thus they can be seen as a meta-language to talk about talking, knowing, discovering etc. in general

• This is also argued about in philosophy etc. etc.• Note: these words have a philosophical use that

has subtly drifted apart from common usage


One of these philosophical words: “Knowledge”

Traditional definition: a justified, true belief– Belief: something we “have” about the world– True: otherwise we are simply wrong– Justified: the belief isn’t true purely by accident

This has the following consequences:– Some of our beliefs are mistaken (false)– There are truths we don’t know– There is some connection/process between

what is true and what we believe (induction?)

However this picture/definition of Knowledge is criticised…• …as we shall see!• Hence this course of philosophy will NOT give

you final answers to these questions• But rather present it as a series of

debates/issues (4 of them)• Covering the foundational aspects of the

disputes and some of the main arguments• With an AIM of getting you into reading this

difficult and complex literature• Enough to develop your ideas and be able to

defend your contribution to knowledge



Rationalism –v- EmpiricismFrom where does knowledge come?

MRes Philosophy of Knowledge: Session 1 – part 2

(slides available at http://cfpm.org/mres)


Some Key Ideas



Induction and deduction

• Deduction– Finding the necessary consequences of other

propositions– An analytic “unfolding” of what is already known– Produces a new form of old knowledge– If we know A and AB then we can deduce B– e.g. Working out that not everybody voted

• Induction– Finding new generalisations from evidence (facts)– A learning process– Results in new knowledge– S1 was W, S2 was W, S3 was W, …. All Si are W– e.g. Discovering that racism is increasing


Deduction

• An activity – something one does• Generally what happens in an argument• Can be statistical, logical, mathematical,

computational, linguistic• Finding the necessary consequences of other

propositions• An analytic “unfolding” or “working out” of what

is already known• Produces a new form of old knowledge• If we know A and AB we can deduce B• Can be pretty watertight – true by its nature• e.g. Working out that not everybody voted



Induction

• Another activity – something one does• Usually spotting patterns or facts from

observations or data• In other words something is learned• Finding generalisations from evidence • Results in new knowledge• S1 was W, S2 was W, S3 was W, …. All Si

are W• Obviously fallible, i.e. it could be wrong• e.g. Discovering that racism is increasing



Examples of Induction and Deduction• In small groups, choose an example from

the sheet

• Try and work out – what mix of deduction and induction is being

used– how and where each of deduction and

induction are applied– whether the conclusions are more deductive or

inductive

• If you have time pick another one etc.




A picture of reasoning we get from Ancient Greece

• Reasoning is (largely) a public activity involving rhetoric and debate

• An effort to distinguish (and exclude) bad arguments (e.g. identifying “fallacies”)

• Good argument results in good decisions

• Argument seen to lead from known (i.e. agreed) truths to conclusions…

• …which may be new or used to show other beliefs are wrong (or inconsistent)



This activity is abstracted to “Reason” and “Rationality”• These are ideals

– Not necessarily what people actually do– They acquire a normative flavour

• Major questions are then:– What is the role of Reason (as opposed to perception,

action etc.) in particular as to its relation to knowledge?– What is Rational (in contrast to irrational)?

• Can be seen as a search to escape the contingencies and particularities of the observed world…

• …to more general/fundamental/etc. truth



The necessary – contingent distinction

• Necessary truths– Statements that have to be true– For some reason it is not possible that they

could be false– e.g. Sentient beings exist

• Contingent truths– Statements that just happen to be true– If things were different they might not have

been true– E.g. The UK has a Reigning monarch


The analytic – synthetic distinction

• Analytic truths– True by definition or deduction– Are necessary– Abound in mathematics or logic– e.g. All bachelors are unmarried

• Synthetic truths– True of the world– Are contingent– Abound in natural sciences– e.g. The Earth orbits the Sun


The a priori – a posterior distinction

• a priori knowledge– What one knows before taking into account

observations or evidence– May include necessary/analytic truths,

assumptions, given facts, etc.

• a posterior knowledge– What one knows after taking into account

observations and evidence– May include laws and explanations of natural or

social phenomena


The context of discovery – context of justification distinction• The context of discovery:

– The situation/context where an item of knowledge is discovered or hypothesised

– When and how knowledge is learnt

• The context of justification:– The situation/context where the knowledge is justified,

established or verified– When and how knowledge is established as reliable

e.g. Fleming discovered penicillin when he accidentally let a culture be contaminated by mould but … it was justified as knowledge as the result of

further experiment and observation by many


The Idea of Causation

One event (A) causes another (B) if • B always follows A• A is necessary to B occurring• And (generally) there is some mechanism

connecting A to BE.g Does smoking cause Cancer

Event A Event B


Descartes’ Two Ways to Truth:from the general to the particular

“There are and can be only two ways of searching into and discovering truth. The one flies from the senses and

particulars to the most general axioms, and from these principles, the truth of which it takes for settled and

immovable, proceeds to judgement and the discovery of middle axioms. And this way is now in fashion. …

Reason General Principles

Specific Truths

Contingent facts and observations


Descartes’ Two Ways to Truth:from the particular to the general

…The other derives axioms from the senses and particulars, rising by a gradual and unbroken ascent, so that it arrives

at the most general axioms last of all. This is the true way, but as yet untried."

Francis Bacon (1620), First Book of Aphorisms

General Principles



Specific Truths

Specific Truths

etc…

Reason


Rationalism

• A Philosophical position – something one believes – about where knowledge comes from

• Knowledge arises from reasoning• Is the position that the way to knowledge is

from the general to the particular• Requires some general a priori truths which it

views as necessary (usually)• Characterised by deduction• The general principles gives meaning to the

observations by relating them• E.g. Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”


Empiricism

• A Philosophical position – something one believes – about where knowledge comes from

• Knowledge arises from observation• Is the position that the way to knowledge is from

the particular to the general • Requires some particular a posterior truths

(perceptions) which are contingent• Characterised by induction• The general principles arise from the process of

relating observations• E.g. Galileo’s “All truths are easy to understand

once they are discovered; the point is to discover them”


Part 3: An Example – Rational Choice Theory


Basic Idea of Rational Choice Theory

• Humans are (imperfectly) rational

• That is, their behaviour can be explained (modelled) by assuming they are basically rational at least as a starting point

• The conception of rationality here is a generalisation of economic rationality (constrained optimisation)

• E.g. Smith’s “invisible hand” balancing supply and demand via price changes


Principles of Rational Choice Theory

• Resourceful: man can search for and find possibilities, he can learn and be inventive;

• Restricted: man is confronted with scarcity and must substitute (choose);

• Expecting: man attaches subjective probabilities to (future) events;

• Evaluating: man has ordered preferences and evaluates (future) events;

• Maximizing: man maximizes (expected) utility when choosing a course of action


Example: please assess

• What evidence is presented?

• What kinds of evidence does he use?

• What are the a priori assumptions used?

• What is the nature of the rationality that the author presents?

• What does his argument show?

• Do you find it convincing?

• How would you argue against this?

• How could he be shown to be wrong?


The Example: more issues

• Is the author a Rationalist or an Empiricist?

• Does the author rely on a priori truths or a postiori evidence?

• Is the author claiming his arguments are necessarily true or only contingently true?

• Has the author go to his conclusions using deduction or induction?


Part 4: A brief account of some of the arguments


Recap of Induction

Supposed structure:– The 1st swan is white– The 2nd swan is white– … etc.– Therefore all swans are white

• Relies on there being observable patterns

• Produces (fallible) generalisations

• A source for hypotheses and theories

• A natural thing to do


The Problem of Induction

• Hume A Treatise Concerning Human Understanding

• Although one does repeatedly observe a particular conjunction (or sequence) of events…

• …this never guarantees that this will always be the case.

• Thus there are no causal laws


The Inductive Justification of Induction

• The argument– Induction worked in case 1– Induction worked in case 2– … etc. …– Therefore induction works in all such cases

• A self-referring and self-justifying argument• But if it is false it does not justify itself• Is it supported by the evidence?• What is the scope of the cases?


Some difficult questions about induction

• What are these facts?– Are they states of the world?– Are they statements in language?– Are they something else (propositions)?

• How do we select these facts?• Why did we look for these facts?• What conceptual framework did we use to

construct our generalisations about them?• What background assumptions are there

common to all these facts?


Popper’s Falsificationism

• Induction never proves anything• Hypotheses can only be disproved by observing a

counter-example (a black swan)• We rely on hypotheses more as they survive

attempts to disprove them• If there is constant innovation of hypotheses and

attempts to disprove them then knowledge will progress

• Hypotheses that are not amenable to being falsified (unfalsifiable hypotheses) are dubious


Comments on Popper’s Falsificationism

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

• How does one know whether the counter-example shows the main hypothesis is wrong or merely an auxiliary assumption?

• Marks a switch from the context of discovery to the context of justification

• Results in an evolutionary picture of the development of knowledge (evolutionary epistemology)


Lakatos’ Core and Protective Belt

• Research programs as key entities– These have a core of fundamental frameworks,

methods and assumptions that characterises them

– And a belt of less fundamental hypotheses, observations, techniques

• In the face of counter-examples research programs change things in the belt and preserve the core

• Some programs are more successful than others (the “degenerate programs”)

Exercise: considering programmesFor your own field/area of work decide:• What key deductive techniques does it

use/rely upon (are there any not used)?• What key inductive techniques does it use/rely

upon (are there any not used)?• Do these tend to be used in any particular

order, if so what order?• What are the core assumptions/tenants of

your field (i.e. if you don’t hold to them you do not really belong in this field)?

• Are claims effectively falsifiable, if so how?



In the Social Sciences

• One is usually dealing with meaningful behaviour

• Meaning is (almost always) an a priori given but not always agreed upon

• The context (or scope) of the induction or falsification is of great importance

• Falsification is difficult since it is easy to adjust the belt to protect any hypotheses

• Coherency with other thought often as important (to academics) as evidence


Summary of Session

• Both reason and evidence are needed for good generalisations about the world

• But how these are combined is important

• When and how to use/mix induction and deduction is still a big issue in all fields

• Care and awareness are needed with any a priori assumptions and frameworks…

• …although ultimately these are unavoidable

• Key decisions are what to do if some evidence seems to conflict with a hypothesis – beware!


The End

Experiment escorts us last -

His pungent company

Will not allow an Axiom

An OpportunityEmily Dickinson (1830-1886)

(as usual slides etc. at: http://cfpm.org/mres)

The Philosophy of Knowledge motivation and introduction MRes Philosophy of Knowledge: Session 1 – part 1 (slides available at

Documents