You must learn what is a Socratic dialogue, how to write one, and then write one.
Due in 2 weeks, 4th October.
Here are the essay questions, choose one.
Here are some examples of Socratic dialogues.
Before you do anything, you should read this document about how to question the Question.
Then read this book chapter about how to write a ToK essay.
And here are Mr Roo's tips.
Go here if you need to update your general writing skills.
Go here if you were stupid enough to lose the marking criteria or the essay questions.
.
Monday, 20 September 2010
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Plato & Gettier
To understand Gettier and Gettier problems, first we must know a little about Plato.
Platonic epistemology holds that knowledge is innate, so that learning is the development of ideas buried deep in the soul, usually under the guidance of a teacher. Plato believed that each soul existed before birth in a perfect state and with a ''knowledge of everything.'' Thus, when something is "learned" it is actually just "recalled."
Plato drew a sharp distinction between knowledge, which is certain, and mere opinion, which is not certain. Opinions derive from the shifting world of sensation; knowledge derives from the world of timeless forms, or essences. Thus Plato thought that there was no new knowledge, but that knowledge was simply re-discovered.
I think it's interesting to note that even though Plato was very logical, he was not necessarily non-religious, for example he believes in the soul. Now days we tend to think of these two types of thought as incompatible.
And now - Gettier problems
Gettier cases are meant to challenge our understanding of propositional knowledge. It is knowledge of a truth or fact (e.g. kangaroos do not have wings)— knowledge of how the world is. Usually, when epistemologists talk simply of knowledge they are referring to propositional knowledge.
Gettier problems are named in honor of the American philosopher Edmund Gettier, who discovered them in 1963. They challenge the definition of knowledge as propositional knowledge (justified true belief in that proposition). The problems are situations in which someone has a belief that is both true and well supported by evidence, yet which — according to almost all people — fails to be knowledge.
Platonic epistemology holds that knowledge is innate, so that learning is the development of ideas buried deep in the soul, usually under the guidance of a teacher. Plato believed that each soul existed before birth in a perfect state and with a ''knowledge of everything.'' Thus, when something is "learned" it is actually just "recalled."
Plato drew a sharp distinction between knowledge, which is certain, and mere opinion, which is not certain. Opinions derive from the shifting world of sensation; knowledge derives from the world of timeless forms, or essences. Thus Plato thought that there was no new knowledge, but that knowledge was simply re-discovered.
I think it's interesting to note that even though Plato was very logical, he was not necessarily non-religious, for example he believes in the soul. Now days we tend to think of these two types of thought as incompatible.
And now - Gettier problems
Gettier cases are meant to challenge our understanding of propositional knowledge. It is knowledge of a truth or fact (e.g. kangaroos do not have wings)— knowledge of how the world is. Usually, when epistemologists talk simply of knowledge they are referring to propositional knowledge.
Gettier problems are named in honor of the American philosopher Edmund Gettier, who discovered them in 1963. They challenge the definition of knowledge as propositional knowledge (justified true belief in that proposition). The problems are situations in which someone has a belief that is both true and well supported by evidence, yet which — according to almost all people — fails to be knowledge.
Gettier’s original article had a dramatic impact. Almost all epistemologists agreed that he had refuted the traditional definition of knowledge; but he didn't offer any new definition of knowledge, so everyone began trying to develop a new definition. There have been many, many attempts to repair or replace that traditional definition of knowledge, resulting in several new conceptions of knowledge and of justificatory support. In this respect, Gettier sparked a period of innovative ideas — all with a single two-and-a-half page essay. However, there is no consensus on a new simple definition for what it is to have knowledge of a truth or fact. Adapted from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/
This leads to the criticism that Gettier problems are rare and contrived and would never actually happen in real life. If a situation would not happen in real life, then is it fair to use that situation a ascertain what is knowledge in the real world? Some good attempts have been made to repair the original definition of knowledge. Lehrer, for example, proposed that there must be no false steps in reasoning from the proposition to justification to belief (for example, in the wedding example we saw - there was no connection between the belief and the justification).
Homework
Easy H/W because I'm soft.
Define the words below. Use philosophical definitions, not everyday English language ones.
You will be asked to write one on the board on Monday, so please do it.
justified true belief
proposition
Platonic
dogma
epistemology
Occam's Razor
Meta-cognition
Semantics
Sunday, 5 September 2010
What are the differences between “I am certain” and “it is certain”?
What are the differences between “I am certain” and “it is certain”, and is passionate conviction ever sufficient for justifying knowledge?
Certainty is a little like light – you take it for granted, but when you think about what it actually is, you probably couldn’t describe it too much in detail, even if you knew it was a congregation of photons. You can’t exactly pinpoint one spot in the air where light is a tangible object, and yet it affects everything you do. For thousands of years, the particularly wise people sought to discover just what can be known with certainty, that is to say, what can fit into the sentence, “it is certain that...” Certainty in the passive voice meant universal certainty, which everyone was out to find. Nobody ever thought of a personal validation of their knowledge until Rene Descartes, who performed a 2000 year revolution by meditating on his existence. This resulted in the phrase “I am certain,” now as equally profound to be said as “it is certain.” Each phrase has a completely different meaning and a subjective truth which can’t be taken for granted.
I know that the American Revolution occurred in 1776, that my heart pumps about 7000 litres of blood throughout my body per day, that there is a country named Spain, and that my tongue responds to chocolate particularly well because of taste buds. In fact, I claim to know these with certainty. None of these things, however, could I describe why or how it happens in enough detail to the point that a doubtful person would believe me. All these things I know by authority, including the fact that there are obscure things called “taste buds,” and this knowledge constitutes everything I’ve learned sitting in a classroom. Someone more erudite in the subjects of history, biology, or geography may be able to explain them better, but it proves that, since I was old enough to think, I have relied on authority for roughly 95% of my knowledge.
The fact that passive certainty (it is certain) is translated from personal certainty (I am certain) is demonstrated another way as well. Consider an educated, scholarly man in the 15th century who researches a topic of his interest, say, the possible curvature of the Earth. This man might study and research all the beliefs and “proofs” of a flat Earth and make his own judgment of a round Earth, of which he personally is now certain. This might be accepted by the other educated men, which in time will be accepted by children and uneducated men through authority. Indeed, no child now questions the spherical nature of Earth. The first man didn’t come up with a random theory and promulgate it, but became certain of his belief in order to make it a fact. In that way, “I am certain” can eventually evolve into “it is certain.”
The existence of God is something everyone has debated, challenged, or “proven” at some point in their life, whether with another or within themselves. It is just one example of a situation in which “I am certain” cannot become “it is certain,” even with logical evidence. If one believes that God exists, they may say “I am certain.” As long as the truth is not undoubtedly known, no one may say “it is certain that God exists.” St. Thomas Aquinas set out to prove God’s certainty in Summa Theologica, but people can still refute that work by their own evidence and contradict Thomas Aquinas. Someone may personally accept God, but cannot say it is a fact for all mankind. Areas of knowledge like ethics are often relative to a culture or religion, and therefore are subjectively moderated. Therefore, those who believe in certain ethics, morals, and religions can address their own personal certainty, but may not say “it is certain” because others will not agree.
Certainty is a little like light – you take it for granted, but when you think about what it actually is, you probably couldn’t describe it too much in detail, even if you knew it was a congregation of photons. You can’t exactly pinpoint one spot in the air where light is a tangible object, and yet it affects everything you do. For thousands of years, the particularly wise people sought to discover just what can be known with certainty, that is to say, what can fit into the sentence, “it is certain that...” Certainty in the passive voice meant universal certainty, which everyone was out to find. Nobody ever thought of a personal validation of their knowledge until Rene Descartes, who performed a 2000 year revolution by meditating on his existence. This resulted in the phrase “I am certain,” now as equally profound to be said as “it is certain.” Each phrase has a completely different meaning and a subjective truth which can’t be taken for granted.
I know that the American Revolution occurred in 1776, that my heart pumps about 7000 litres of blood throughout my body per day, that there is a country named Spain, and that my tongue responds to chocolate particularly well because of taste buds. In fact, I claim to know these with certainty. None of these things, however, could I describe why or how it happens in enough detail to the point that a doubtful person would believe me. All these things I know by authority, including the fact that there are obscure things called “taste buds,” and this knowledge constitutes everything I’ve learned sitting in a classroom. Someone more erudite in the subjects of history, biology, or geography may be able to explain them better, but it proves that, since I was old enough to think, I have relied on authority for roughly 95% of my knowledge.
The fact that passive certainty (it is certain) is translated from personal certainty (I am certain) is demonstrated another way as well. Consider an educated, scholarly man in the 15th century who researches a topic of his interest, say, the possible curvature of the Earth. This man might study and research all the beliefs and “proofs” of a flat Earth and make his own judgment of a round Earth, of which he personally is now certain. This might be accepted by the other educated men, which in time will be accepted by children and uneducated men through authority. Indeed, no child now questions the spherical nature of Earth. The first man didn’t come up with a random theory and promulgate it, but became certain of his belief in order to make it a fact. In that way, “I am certain” can eventually evolve into “it is certain.”
The existence of God is something everyone has debated, challenged, or “proven” at some point in their life, whether with another or within themselves. It is just one example of a situation in which “I am certain” cannot become “it is certain,” even with logical evidence. If one believes that God exists, they may say “I am certain.” As long as the truth is not undoubtedly known, no one may say “it is certain that God exists.” St. Thomas Aquinas set out to prove God’s certainty in Summa Theologica, but people can still refute that work by their own evidence and contradict Thomas Aquinas. Someone may personally accept God, but cannot say it is a fact for all mankind. Areas of knowledge like ethics are often relative to a culture or religion, and therefore are subjectively moderated. Therefore, those who believe in certain ethics, morals, and religions can address their own personal certainty, but may not say “it is certain” because others will not agree.
This brings me to another point: is passionate conviction sufficient for justifying knowledge? For millennia, reality was everything that people could touch, smell, see, and hear. They were convinced of certain truths and values that today are questioned and some proven false. Before 1500, the Earth was the centre of the universe. Each and every European at that time was more or less convinced of that belief, yet today we realize its falseness. In cases like this, where other options are there but not considered, passionate conviction cannot be sufficient.
One way passionate conviction can be disproven to be sufficient in all cases is to consider an argument. To use another cosmological analogy, I will say that Venus is a rocky planet, while Jack argues that it is one of the gas giant planets. Jack is passionately convinced that he has learned and seen through his telescope Venus, which is most certainly a gas giant. There are only two possible outcomes in an argument where two sides are both passionately convinced – one man is correct or no man is correct. In this case, we know that Jack’s perception of the planet Venus is wrong, even though he is passionately convinced. I could even change my argument that Venus was a star, in which case neither of us would be correct. This furthermore proves that passionate conviction does not determine truth.
However, there are times when ardent conviction does produce truth. To be convinced of something by empathy or introspection is valid because emotion dictates these ways of knowing. Emotion also dictates one’s passionate conviction. Therefore, matters concerning one’s emotions, cannot be contradicted by another because that person will never know the true emotions of another. This method is not fool-proof, however, because one’s own emotions may be incorrect. For example, a girl who thinks she in love with a boy by introspection may only feel that way because of physiological reasons, like pheromone emission. She may or may not be in love with the boy, but this cannot be determined by another. In this manner, passionate conviction can sometimes be sufficient.
In finding the differences between “I am certain” and “it is certain,” it is evident that the passive and the personal assertions of certainty are not the same and cannot be applied to the same issues in all cases. “It is certain” is usually attained first through “I am certain,” because for all men to believe something, one man must have believed it. The transition is not flawless, however, because where matters are not accepted by all, two conflicting statements of “I am certain” cannot both be correct. Ethics and religion, subjective and often contradictory matters, are a perfect example of this.
Passionate conviction is rarely sufficient, and never necessary for justifying knowledge. Only through emotion can zeal for a cause justify truth, and even then only a part of the time. Passionate conviction, by eliminating all other doubts, may turn an “I am certain” into an “it is certain.” Passionate conviction connects the personal with the passive assertions of certainty and sometimes justifies this certainty. Through every way certainty is determined, there is only one solid conclusion about it: “I am certain” may be to anyone, but “it is certain” must be to everyone.
Adapted from:
Determining Truth by Johnathan @ Writing.com
http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/969810-Determining-Truth
Determining Truth by Johnathan @ Writing.com
http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/969810-Determining-Truth
© Copyright 2005 Jonathan (UN: go0danplenty at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)