View
30
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
EPISTEMOLOGY. Fundamental Q uestions. Cognitive states What are our cognitive states? (Knowledge, belief, perceptual state etc.) How are they related? What are their objects? When are they acceptable? Cognitive methods What are our cognitive methods? (Inference, perception, etc.) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Gábor Forgács, Tihamér Margitay, Zsolt ZieglerDept. of Philosophy and the History of Science
1111 Budapest, Egry J. st. 1. E 610.forgacsg@gmail.com, margitay@filozofia.bme.hu, batajba@gmail.com
www.filozofia.bme.hu
EPISTEMOLOGY
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
23.04.20. Epistemology
Fundamental Questions
1. Cognitive states
What are our cognitive states? (Knowledge, belief, perceptual state etc.)
How are they related?
What are their objects?
When are they acceptable?
2. Cognitive methods
What are our cognitive methods? (Inference, perception, etc.)
Are they domain specific or universal?
When are they acceptable?
Epistemology is essentially normative: it is to deliver standards of evaluation for our cognitive states and methods.
Where are the limits of our knowledge? What can be known and what cannot?
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
23.04.20. Epistemology
What is knowledge (the most precious cognitive state)?
Is knowledge possible at all?
What are the sources of knowledge and how can they produce knowledge? (What justifies our beliefs?)
(Epistemology = theory of knowledge)
Epistemology in a Narrower Sense
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
23.04.20. Epistemology
Psychology:
Mainly descriptive: How do we see, come to believe etc.?
Impartial: true and false beliefs included
Knowledge, truth and falsity etc. are taken for granted
Uses the methods of science, and takes it for granted
Philosophy
Normative: What is knowledge? What are the criteria for correctness, rationality etc.?
Interested in truth, veracity etc.
Uses the methods of philosophy
Reflexive: the philosopher’s and the scientist’s knowledge are also part of the problem
Philosophy and Psychology About Knowledge I.
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
23.04.20. Epistemology
The relationship between epistemology and cognitive psychology:
Epistemology is prior to and should serve as a foundation for cog.psy
Epistemology and cog.psy complement each other talking about different aspects of knowledge (conceptual and empirical) using different methods etc.
Epistemology is just part of cog.psy
They are independent talking about different things: the concept of „knowledge” and the way we acquire beliefs, respectively. What knowledge should be and we acquire whatever we call knowledge.
Philosophy and Psychology About Knowledge II.
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
23.04.20. Epistemology
Two important philosophical projects stimulated and contributed to epistemological enquiry particularly:
Definition of knowledge
Skepticism
Good points to start our philosophical journey.
Examples: Two Philosophical Projects
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
23.04.20. Epistemology
Knowledge: propositional knowledge (knowing-that), non-propositional knowledge (knowing-how) (E.g. I can swim, I know how to drive a car with manual transmission)
Knowledge is a special kind of belief-state (Perhaps special kinds of other cognitive states – e.g. special perceptual states -- also constitute knowledge without beliefs: non-propositional knowledge)
Knowledge is justified true belief, that is, s knows that p if, and only if
s believes that p
s is justified in believing that p
p is true
Justification supplies reasons for the belief that p. (It is a matter of degree.)
This definition captures pretty much of what we require of knowledge.
Knowledge and Belief
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
23.04.20. Epistemology
Gettier’s counter-examples:
Smith and Jones have applied for the same job. Smith is justified in believing that (a) Jones will get the job, and that (b) Jones has ten coins in his pocket. On the basis of (a) and (b) Smith infers and, thus, is justified in believing, that (c) the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. As it turns out, Smith himself will get the job, and he also happens to have ten coins in his pocket. So, although Smith is justified in believing the true proposition (c), Smith does not know (c).
It follows that something more is needed for knowledge than the 3 conditions of the definition above.
Gettier’s Problem
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
23.04.20. Epistemology
Do you need a definition of knowledge in cognitive psychology? Do you need to know what knowledge is to do proper research in cog.psy.?
1. What difference could different notions of knowledge make in cog.psy. research? What consequences could different concepts of knowledge have in cog.psy.?
2. Could you design an experimental situation in which it does make a difference what notion of knowledge is applied?
Questions
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
23.04.20. Epistemology
1. Knowledge is impossible: one does not know that p because one cannot know .
2. Justification is impossible because any belief / no belief can be justified.
The sceptical arguments
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
23.04.20. Epistemology
Brain in a vat (BV) and
Descrates’ evil demon
Neuroscientists and Other Demons
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
23.04.20. Epistemology
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
23.04.20. Epistemology
Is the question whether we are brains in a vat irrelevant to
our everyday knowledge?
our cog.psy. research?
That is, should we worry about the BV problem?
Questions
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
23.04.20. Epistemology
Ex hypothesis: You don’t know that you are not a BV. (Because ordinary and BV experiences are identical due to the setup.)
P1 You know that you are reading this.
P2 You know that (if you are reading this then you are not a BV.)
C1= P3 Therefore if (you know that you are reading this) then (you know also that you are not a BV).
P4 You do not know that you are not a BV.
C2 Therefore you do not know that you are reading this.
C3 Therefore you do not know anything about the world.
You can replace „know” with „are justified”, and you will get the skeptical conclusion about justification.
The Skeptical Argument
Filozófiai és Tudománytörténet Tanszék
23.04.20. Epistemology
The argument does not show that
we are BV.
we know nothing.
we must be skeptic .
our beliefs are false etc.
It shows that the premises are inconsistent with that we do know quite a few things (the denial of C3). So some of the premises must be false (or indeed we do not know anything about the world).
By analyzing the inconsistency, we can learn a lot about knowledge.
The Use of the Skeptical Argument
Recommended