"... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."
-Douglas Adams
My purpose here is to expand Adams' statement into our everyday life. We take so much for granted in our common conversation and social interactions. I hope to elucidate those unseen processes involved in our "average everyday-ness." The posts here will examine the nature of evidence presentation and argumentation, as well as showing examples of each. This should, in turn, give you new analytic tools for use in the constant pursuit of exercising argumentation.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Distinguishing the Foundational from the Coherent
It's commonly held in philosophy, as in life, that we cannot truly know something unless it's backed up by some sort of evidence. In philosophy, there is a simple formula used to describe this correlation. It says that knowledge = belief + truth. In other words: in order to have knowledge, one must have a justified true belief. That is, a belief backed by evidence which is found in the real world. Unfortunately this easy formula provides more questions than answers about our understanding of knowledge. The largest is called the “regress” argument which challenges the very foundation of this popular formula. Here, I will illuminate this challenge to the knowledge formula as well as attempt to respond to it in a way which will allow the soul of justification to survive. Unfortunately, we are unable to fly before we can run. So, let us first examine the nature of this, so called, “regress” argument.
The main disagreement with the knowledge formula is not difficult to see if you know what you’re looking for. As was stated before, knowledge requires a belief backed by evidence. However, in order to accept this evidence, we need to believe in its legitimacy. This, in turn, requires evidence which must also be supported by evidence, on and on ad infinitum. In this way, no belief could ever be more than conditionally justified. An example of this is seen in the debate over the origins of our universe. Theologians and classic scientists hold that the universe has a finite existence period, intelligent design and the “Big Bang” theory, respectively. However, a recent theory stipulates that the “big bang” was not the origins of the universe, but instead the resulting explosion from a previous universe’s implosion. Assumedly, that universe would be the result of the one before that, etc., etc.. There are two ways to answer this problem. The first harkens back to the theological/original scientific claims.
The main disagreement with the knowledge formula is not difficult to see if you know what you’re looking for. As was stated before, knowledge requires a belief backed by evidence. However, in order to accept this evidence, we need to believe in its legitimacy. This, in turn, requires evidence which must also be supported by evidence, on and on ad infinitum. In this way, no belief could ever be more than conditionally justified. An example of this is seen in the debate over the origins of our universe. Theologians and classic scientists hold that the universe has a finite existence period, intelligent design and the “Big Bang” theory, respectively. However, a recent theory stipulates that the “big bang” was not the origins of the universe, but instead the resulting explosion from a previous universe’s implosion. Assumedly, that universe would be the result of the one before that, etc., etc.. There are two ways to answer this problem. The first harkens back to the theological/original scientific claims.
A Defense of Foundationalism
Thesis:
Laurence Bonjour’s argument that Foundationalism fails to answer the regress problem with empirical justification fails because the requirement for justification that he requires is impossible to attain.
Exposition:
Laurence Bonjour’s paper Can Empirical Knowledge Have a Foundation? is a lengthy prose into the classic skeptical problems with knowledge and the various alternatives given over the years. In particular, he focuses on what he calls the untenable position of Foundationalism. In the body of his paper, Bonjour argues that Foundationalism fails to sufficiently answer the regress problem on empirical grounds. In order to prove this, Bonjour defines not only the nature of the infinite regress, but also two specific responses potentially given by a foundationalist to the immediate dispute over their claim to knowledge. However, in order to understand his claim against Foundationalism, Bonjour begins by defining the nature of the infinite regress.
Laurence Bonjour’s argument that Foundationalism fails to answer the regress problem with empirical justification fails because the requirement for justification that he requires is impossible to attain.
Exposition:
Laurence Bonjour’s paper Can Empirical Knowledge Have a Foundation? is a lengthy prose into the classic skeptical problems with knowledge and the various alternatives given over the years. In particular, he focuses on what he calls the untenable position of Foundationalism. In the body of his paper, Bonjour argues that Foundationalism fails to sufficiently answer the regress problem on empirical grounds. In order to prove this, Bonjour defines not only the nature of the infinite regress, but also two specific responses potentially given by a foundationalist to the immediate dispute over their claim to knowledge. However, in order to understand his claim against Foundationalism, Bonjour begins by defining the nature of the infinite regress.
Ali G on Consequentialism
There are few better examples of a consequential dilemma than the one posed by Ali G in his last question.
Redefining argumentation
I think that if you believe in something, you should be able to back it up through facts, not opinion. If, through debate with your peers, you discover that your belief doesn't hold the weight you thought it did, you should consider changing it. It's cowardly to present a strong emotional message about how one ought to act and then hide behind unresponsiveness in order to avoid dissenting criticism.
It seems to me that, as of late, people have forgotten how to argue. That's not to say that people don't know how to have an argument, but, as they say; I don't think that word means what you think it means. An argument, scholastically known, is a conclusion supported by premises. In other words, it's a position you're taking and the evidence you're using to back it up.
This is contrary to the colloquially understood accounts of argument widely used today. We recognize the word 'argument' to mean two opposing positions on one idea fighting over which side is correct, or more factual. Imagine two kids fighting on the playground over which has more right to the swing set. They both believe each one is right and neither will back down. One might even present support for herself by claiming she was there first, etc. A better description of this state of affairs is simple "contradiction".
It seems to me that, as of late, people have forgotten how to argue. That's not to say that people don't know how to have an argument, but, as they say; I don't think that word means what you think it means. An argument, scholastically known, is a conclusion supported by premises. In other words, it's a position you're taking and the evidence you're using to back it up.
This is contrary to the colloquially understood accounts of argument widely used today. We recognize the word 'argument' to mean two opposing positions on one idea fighting over which side is correct, or more factual. Imagine two kids fighting on the playground over which has more right to the swing set. They both believe each one is right and neither will back down. One might even present support for herself by claiming she was there first, etc. A better description of this state of affairs is simple "contradiction".
Vetting your knowledge base
We've discussed the basic requirements for knowledge. If you remember, knowledge is obtained when you have a belief justified by real-world truth. We even discussed two schools of thought about when you do and don't have that real-world justification. What we didn't cover is the criteria under which we gain that justification.
So, what should we consider the proper conditions under which we attain justification for knowledge? Consider the following story (with added drama for effect). You are the sonar operator on a submarine. You are currently engaged with an enemy submarine and you have one torpedo left. It's up to you to save your crewmates by finding the other sub before it finds you. Suddenly, on the screen, a blip appears. The other sub! You relay the coordinates to the torpedo room and they use the last missile to sink the enemy into a watery abyss. Congratulations! You lived to scuttle another day.
Now, I'd like to pose a question. Did you know the other submarine was there? Of course you did. The sonar showed the blip and the torpedo hit the other submarine, which was right where the sonar told you it would be. You had knowledge (the other sub's location) based on a justified belief (the sonar blip) which came from truth (the enemy submarine's location).
So, what should we consider the proper conditions under which we attain justification for knowledge? Consider the following story (with added drama for effect). You are the sonar operator on a submarine. You are currently engaged with an enemy submarine and you have one torpedo left. It's up to you to save your crewmates by finding the other sub before it finds you. Suddenly, on the screen, a blip appears. The other sub! You relay the coordinates to the torpedo room and they use the last missile to sink the enemy into a watery abyss. Congratulations! You lived to scuttle another day.
Now, I'd like to pose a question. Did you know the other submarine was there? Of course you did. The sonar showed the blip and the torpedo hit the other submarine, which was right where the sonar told you it would be. You had knowledge (the other sub's location) based on a justified belief (the sonar blip) which came from truth (the enemy submarine's location).
Epistemology 101
It's commonly held in philosophy, as in life, that we cannot truly know something unless it's backed up by some sort of evidence. In philosophy, there is a simple formula used to describe this correlation. It says that knowledge = belief + truth. To put that into words: in order to have knowledge, one must have a justified true belief. That is, a belief backed by evidence which is found in the real world.
It's simple enough if you think about it. Picture yourself right now, sitting at your computer reading words on the screen. If this is what you believe you are actually doing at the moment, then congratulations! You are a foundationalist.
Foundationalists believe that there are certain things that we can know for sure. They call these "basic beliefs". What those basic beliefs are is relative to the foundationalist. What is important is that she believes there is no need to investigate or question beyond a certain point (in this case, that the chair, computer, and words all exist definitely outside of your mind).
It's simple enough if you think about it. Picture yourself right now, sitting at your computer reading words on the screen. If this is what you believe you are actually doing at the moment, then congratulations! You are a foundationalist.
Foundationalists believe that there are certain things that we can know for sure. They call these "basic beliefs". What those basic beliefs are is relative to the foundationalist. What is important is that she believes there is no need to investigate or question beyond a certain point (in this case, that the chair, computer, and words all exist definitely outside of your mind).
In Defense of Paternalism
When I was a child and I would ask my father how he knew something was best for me, he would say: “Because dads know everything”. At the time, that was enough for me. After all, he was my father and if I didn’t listen to him, I’d see the dangerous end of his belt. 20 years later and very little has changed, except my father has been supplanted by state government and his belt, by the local police department. Both have always thought they knew what was best for me. According to John Stuart Mill, they were both wrong.
The idea that one person or entity knows what is best for another is called Paternalism. The alcohol prohibition of the 1920s is a perfect example. John Stuart Mill claims that no one person should dictate to another how to live their life because that person has the closest relationship to personal well-being. However, Mill’s argument for personal autonomy over external social interference is flawed because he refuses to address addictive activities and substances and their ability to cloud objective decision-making.
The idea that one person or entity knows what is best for another is called Paternalism. The alcohol prohibition of the 1920s is a perfect example. John Stuart Mill claims that no one person should dictate to another how to live their life because that person has the closest relationship to personal well-being. However, Mill’s argument for personal autonomy over external social interference is flawed because he refuses to address addictive activities and substances and their ability to cloud objective decision-making.
The Center of the Universe
One of the most well known philosophic clichés is the question: “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” While somewhat pedestrian in nature, the adage broaches a much denser philosophical argument: can the properties of nature exist in a manner conducive to inquiry without observance? This raises a further question in regards to alethic modality: can a world exist without a self-aware being? Alternatively, can self-aware beings exist without an external world? I will argue that the only answer to these questions is no. Without some being who is aware of itself and its surroundings, the collection of matter making up the universe serves no purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)