On [My Quick Summary Of] Epistemology
An inquiry into epistemology typically asks at least these two fundemental questions:
1. What does it mean to know something?
2. How can we know something?
1. To know something, is to justifiably believe that that something is the case, while that something really is the case. In other words, for P to know X, it must be the case that (i) P believes that X is true, (ii) X is true and (iii) P has a sufficient reason to believe that X is true. I have heard that this viewpoint is often referred to as the 'JTB', or 'Justified True Belief' theory of knowledge.
Inevitably, one might now inquire as to what it means for 'X to be true'. X is true iff. it is the case that X. This is commonly referred to as the 'correspondence theory of truth', wherein, eg, 'snow is white' if and only if it actually is the case that snow is white.
2. How does one (properly) arrive at knowledge regarding a particular proposition? As discussed, they must have some reason to believe that which they believe. There are several different methods of obtaining justificaiton in one's belief about a proposition which correspond to different classifications of propositions. Some of these categories are:
i) Axioms. These propositions are accepted as the foundations for the remainder of one's knowledge base. There are at least two types of axioms with which I am concerned:
a. Self-Validating. These axioms are the type which cannot be denied by any consistent, rational being. Their very denial neccessitates their usage. Some (undetailed) examples are:
aa. A is A; A is not non-A.
ab. Humans are capable of knowing.
ac. Communication can be meaningful and coherent.
ad. I (the speaker) exist.
ae. The senses can provide valid data to the mind.
b. Ad Hoc. These are axioms which are usually posited (only) in an attempt to validate some other belief that a person already holds. These axioms are not self-validating in that they can be consistently denied by a rational human being. 'Blind faith'-type statements
probably fall into this category. Some examples are:
ba. My first intuition regarding a proposition is always correct.
bb. There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.
bc. The Bible Alone is the Word of God.
ii) Empirical Statements. These propositions are the result of experiencing the world and making general assessments regarding that experience, keeping one's axioms in mind. They are held provisionally, and are often (and should be) the result of logically (and intuitively) choosing the best method to explain the several relevant facts of experience. Each empirical statement should be held with as much certainity as is possible given the strength of the evidence. Some examples are:
a. Probably, all swans are white.
b. Probably, there is at least one object of which I am unaware.
c. Probably, there are less Italians in the US then non-Italians.
d. Probably, there are other minds.
iii) Analytical Statements. These are statements that are true as a result of the combined meanings of the words of those statements, ie, when the predicate reveals only information identical to that found in the subject. For instance, "All bachelors are unmarried". These can be held as certainly true, but are (mostly) trivial in nature.
iv) 'Self-reports' (thanks steve conifer). Other types of statements can be held as certainly true. For instance, "I am experiencing pain." Whether or not I am delusioned, my *experience* is still such that I am in pain. (I am thinking that statements such as these *may* be just complicated examples of Analytical Statements, depending on how one views the self and its properties and the word 'I'. Suppose that 'I' refers to the speaker and all of his properties. One of the properties of 'I' is 'is experiencing pain'.)
A quick summary:
My epistemology is based upon the several pieces of knowledge entailed by self-validating axioms. Based upon these, I proceed to interpret the facts of experience in such a way as to arrive at the best possible explanation regarding those facts. I frequently dismiss 'arbitrary'/'ad hoc axiomatic'/'unsupported'/'blind faith' statements as not worthy for consideration.
posted by onceuponapriori at 2:27 م
A strong starting premise for several Cosmological Arguments is:
P. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Recently, some people I have spoken to regarding cosmological arguments have attemted to deny this premise. (P) seems to be self-evidently true, but I will provide two rough arguments in support of it, one of them inductive and the other deductive.
Ind.:
1. We have observed many objects (Os) that begin to exist.
2. Each one of (Os) seems to have a sufficient cause.
3. Therefore, probably, all objects that begin to exist have a sufficient cause.
Ded.:
1. Something that begins to exist must either come from something or nothing.
2. But no thing can come from nothing.
3. Therefore, something that begins to exist must come from something.
If you find (Ded.2) controversial, I need only mention that 'nothing' has NO properties; it is literally NO THING. If nothing were to be the cause of something, then it need possess at least one property - 'is able to cause things'. Unfortunately, nothing cannot have such a property, or it would be something, not nothing.
Of course, the deductive argument is stronger (always save the best for last). As a side note, Ded1 can be more formally and powerfully stated as such:
Ded.1'. For any object X, if X begins to exist, X either comes from something, or else X comes from nothing.
...ex nihilo, nihilo fit
posted by onceuponapriori at 12:20 م
