"... there are known knowns..."

2. "... there are known knowns..." Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know. -Donald Rumsfeld

3. Questions for Thought Can you trust your “intuition”? Is there a limit to “human reason”? Are there things we cannot know? If so, how do you know there are things we cannot know? What are they? If you know what there are (things that you don’t know), then do you really notknow them? Does knowledge come from experience? Can we be certain about our beliefs? How do you know if what you think is true is really true? What is truth? Are some things true even if we don’t yet know them?

4. Epistemology is… …the study of knowledge & theories of knowing. The epistemologist wants to know how we can distinguish between opinion and knowledge. Can YOU distinguish between opinion and knowledge? How do you know if a thing is true and/or real?

5. LET’S PLAY A GAME…Which of the following can you say that you know is true?( Be prepared to be able to explain WHY you think it is true.) You exist. I exist. It will rain tomorrow. All fat cats are fat. The sun rose yesterday. Two plus two equals four. God exists. Every event has a cause. It’s real if I touch it. It’s real if I see it. It’s real if I can think it. Golden mountains exist. The cat is on the mat. No bachelors are married. Tigers are mammals. The moon is lavender.

6. If line A were extended, which would be its continuation – B or C?

8. A.Theory:RATIONALISM Rationalismis a theory grounded on the idea that some things are true (whether or not I have ever or will ever experience them) and that I can “reasonthem out” in order to know they are true. Even if I have never seen a “fat cat,” I know what “fat” means and what “cat” means, so I can reason out that a “fat cat” would be “fat” – even if I had never seen a fat cat (or even a skinny one, for that matter).

9. . Math problems (2 + 2 = 4) are determined by using reason. By definition, a bachelor is not married, and if he ever gets married, he will not longer be a bachelor. You know that by using reason. Most Rationalists also believe that some ideas are already built into our minds at birth, and theseinnate ideas(as they are called) are part of the hardwiring of our minds that help us make sense of our sensory experiences. Innate ideas are true and exist in our minds even before our minds have developed to the point of being able to think about them.

10. . How do we know thatinnate ideasare true? By direct intellectual intuition (reason). Sensation does not tell us that “Every event has a cause.” Reason tells us that. Hence the Rationalist believe that knowledge isa priori(or prior to and independent of our actual experiences. We know things not learned from sensation, and we can prove things are true without reference to sensation. We can reason it out, and are proofs aredeductive(meaning that the conclusion follows necessarily from our premises).

11. B.Theory: EMPIRICISM Empiricismis an epistemological theory that says the only things we can “know” (for certain) are things that we have actuallyexperiencedthrough oursenses(i.e., via taste, smell, touch, sight, and hearing). Anything else, whether we have read about it in a book or even a college professor has taught us about it, can “sound” true and even “be” true, but we cannot know whether in fact it actually is true until we can experience it for ourselves.

12. . Empiricism claims that prior to sensation, the mind is empty – like a blank piece of paper or blank slate (tabula rasa). Sensation makes impressions on this slate, like pressing a stylus into a writing tablet made of wax or clay. From those impressions, we learn through other experience what is true or false, and then over the years begin to build up a storehouse of knowledge. So for an Empiricist, our knowledge comesa posteriori(after experience). We cannot know anything is true until we have experienced it.

13. . If we want to be able to verify that our knowledge is true about something, we have to look for other experiences to prove it. We also cannot say for certain that what has happened some way over and over again in the past will happen the same way in the future. At best, we can say that it will “probably” happen that way again in the future. So our knowledge isinductivewhen we make conclusions about future events based on present or past experiences. Of course, our inductive conclusions may be wrong, but probability is the best we can hope for if we want to know something about the world in which we live.

14. Rationalism v. Empiricism innate ideas tabula rasa reason sensation a prioria posteriori deductive inductive

15. REALISM: Knowing the “Really Real” EMPIRICISTS Naïve or Direct Realism – What you see is what you get (like a photograph); our sense put us in touch with reality Dog in the world Dog in the mind

16. . Dog in the world Representative or Indirect Realism (John Locke) – The mind “represents” the external world to itself but does not duplicate it (e.g., you see a shaggy dog, and the mind sees this or this figure)

17. . Subjective Realism (George Berkeley) – Reality exists only if there is some “subject” who is perceiving it as an idea; fortunately, God is always perceiving, even if we are not Q: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise? A: Yes. God hears it.

18. . RATIONALIST: Cartesian Realism – What you see is not what you get (since you’re getting geometrical figures). Reality is in the mind; it’s not “out there” to see; ideas (and innate ones at that) are “real.” dog

19. C.Pseudo-Theory:SKEPTICISM = Doubt How do you know, if you know? Take “God” for example. The skeptic would say, “I think we just believe or we don’t, but we can’t really know whether God exists or not.” If knowledge is not certain (via reason or the senses), the skeptic says that we should just suspend judgment or doubt both sides. Everyone is a skeptic or doubter at one time or another in his or her life.Common-sense skepticismkeeps us from being too gullible at times.

20. . Scientists and some philosophers use a kind of skepticism called “methodological skepticism” in their search for truth. In order to be certain of something (such as the temperature at which water freezes), they begin by doubting the original hypothesis and then conduct several experiments under different circumstances to see if the evidence supports the original claim/hypothesis. Absolute skepticismsays that we can never know anything for certain (without the possibility of doubt), so the best we can do is act on what seems to work (even if it’s not true).

21. .The sentence in this box is false. Everything I say is a lie. There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. - Douglas Adams

22. Rene’ Descartes – a French Rationalist Radical Doubt (and the four-rule Method) Cartesian Dualism Two Substances from God: Mind (thought) and Body (extension) Primary qualities (measurable) are in objects and quantifiable; and Secondary qualities are in the mind Cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) Four innate ideas: self, identity, substance, and God

23. Descartes’ METHOD The progress and certainty of mathematical knowledge, Descartes supposed, provide an emulable model for a similarly productive philosophical method, characterized by four simple rules: 1.Accept as true only what is indubitable (not doubtable). 2.Divide every question into manageable parts. 3.Begin with the simplest issues and ascend to the more complex. 4.Review frequently enough to retain the whole argument at once. This quasi-mathematical procedure for the achievement of knowledge is typical of a rationalistic approach to epistemology.

24. Descartes’ Meditations I & II I have accepted many falsehoods as true I am now going to doubt everything and start only accepting back as true what I can know for certain Is this my hand? How do I know I have a body? Am I a madman to accept a false reality? Maybe I am dreaming. In my dreams, things seem very real but are not. Well, at least 2 + 3 = 5 whether I am awake or dreaming. Or is it?

25. . There are some things which seem more reasonable to believe than to deny, and God’s existence is one of them I will believe only those things about which I have “clear and distinct” ideas in my mind Let’s suppose that instead of God who is the source of all Truth that an evil demon exists who wants to deceive me Color, shape, sound, and other external things are just dreamed illusions which the demon uses to ensnare my judgment; body, shape, extension, motion, and place are fantasies Memory is also unreliable

26. . Although Descartes probably did not say this, he could have, since he would agree with it. We know that our senses lie to us, else how could we say that feet smell and noses run ?

27. . If I don’t have a body, then it follows that “I” don’t exist But surely I must exist if it’s “me” who is convinced that I am always deceived by the evil demon But whether I am convinced or deceived or just thinking about being deceived, I must finally conclude that the statement “I am, I exist” must be true whenever I state it or mentally consider it even if I am saying “I am deceived” But what is this “I”? I’m not sure, but as long as I’m thinking, there is some “I” that must exist who is thinking

28. . If I completely stopped thinking, I would cease to exist. “I think, therefore I am”(Cogito ergo sum) Descartes walked into a bar and sat down on a stool. The bartender asks, “Would you like a beer?” Descartes says, “I think not,” and - poof - he disappeared. But what am I then? A thinking thing. And what is that? Something that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and also senses and has mental images. It is me who seems to gain awareness of physical objects through the senses. But these things are unreal, since I am dreaming. Properly speaking, sensing is just thinking

29. . Take for example this piece ofwax. The candle is hard & round; and it smells and tastes sweet, as if it were straight from the honeycomb.

30. . When it is heated, everything having to do with the taste, smell, sight, touch, and hearing is changed; yet the wax remains. Let’s remove everything that doesn’t properly belong to the wax (since those things were lost when the wax was heated). My idea of the wax remains real, and I have grasped that with my mind. Although the wax changes when heated, there still exists some measurable characteristics in the wax, so they must exist in the wax as well. However, color, smell, taste, etc must exist in my mind and not in the wax, since they did not remain in the wax.

32. No! We know that we can have “clear and distinct” • ideas about the rest of the world, because we have an • innate idea of God. • God is the only guarantee that: • our clear and distinct ideas are true, and • we are not being tricked by an evil & wicked demon

33. The Cartesian Circle

34. . CARTESIAN REALISM (Radical Dualism) GOD (Infinite substance) MIND (soul) BODY (material) (will)(finite substance) || Thought (takes up no space)Extension (occupies space) (my true identity – “I”)(essential attribute) || || affirm perceivingfigure size denial thinking quantity shape volition understandingnumber location etc reasontime motion (intelligence = natural light)(no mention of "force") Primary Qualities – measurable Color, smell, taste, etc are Secondary Properties; and can be known by reason they are in themind, but not in the object MIND and BODY are totally separate but work like 2 clocks keeping perfect time.

35. David Hume – a Scottish Empiricist 1. First Principle: We cannot have a thought which has not been experienced 2. Conceivability Principle: what is conceivable is possible; if the contrary is also conceivable, then what was first conceived cannot be an absolute certainty 3. PUN (Principle of the Uniformity of Nature): experienced regularities will lead to expectations of the same regularities in the future

36. Analytic v. Synthetic Hume said everything about the world can be expressed either as an Analytic Statement (Relations of Ideas) or a Synthetic Statement (Matters of Fact) However, only Matters of Fact can be used to describe reality, because they come from experience

37. . It sounds like Hume's a bad empiricist since he's admitting a priori necessary truths (analytical statements), BUT he said that the analytic Relations of Ideas are TAUTOLOGICAL (always true, redundant, and repetitious): All sisters are siblings 2 + 3 = 5 All bachelors are men PQ, P, Thus Q There is no new information about the world in an analytic statement, only information about the meanings of words. So they are basically useless for telling us about reality.

38. . So the rationalistic dream of reality which is defined "a priori" (innate ideas) and thus must be necessarily true has been shot out of the water, since "a priori" truths aren't descriptions of anything. Only synthetic claims (matters of fact) can correctly describe reality, and these claims are necessarily "a posteriori" (learned by experience which can be traced back to the ideas when our senses first encountered the information). Only synthetic statements can give us true facts about the world, but we can know they are true only by verifying them with experience. The only way you would know that the statement “The cat is on the mat” is AFTER you looked to see if the cat really is on the mat, and that statement would be true for only as long as the cat actually is on the mat. If he gets up, the statement is no longer true.

39. .

40. How do we learn/know from our senses? Impression: immediate sense data/element from sense organs; sensation Idea: reflection on sense data (memory/recollection of impression) Complex idea: composite consisting of several ideas

41. False Ideas False ideas come from combining unrelated sense impressions, like “golden mountain” or “angel”; we have an idea of gold and of mountain (or wings and man) and then wrongly combine them into a complex idea.

42. . Hume says, “Not every event has a cause” (think PUN). There’s no cause and effect (just priority and contiguity), & there is no necessary connection between events. There’s no personal identity or ego (just constancy and coherence of similar ideas).

43. Habit causes us to “expect” certain things (e.g., that our friend looks older after 5 years of not seeing them seems predictable); we’re not surprised by the changes KEY: w=woodpile l=a lit firer=roaring fire d=during fire c=glowing coals a=ashes Continued perceptions:w--l--r--d--c--a

44. coherence:w--l--(leave)--a The imagination fills in the gaps. Habit causes us to expect that a roaring fire will end in ashes.

45. 1. How many f ’s are in the following sentence?Frank followed a few of the fellows toward the fiery circle at the front of the forum, where Frank fell off the final stair and landed flat on his back. 2. Read aloud the message in the triangle: I see the sun’s slowing dying rays shining the colors of the the rainbow above the gray horizon.

46. . If you’re a good reader, you don’t look at every word, much less at every letter, when you read. Your eyes pick up a few clues, and then your brain fills in the rest. This is Hume’s point. Our brain wants to believe that there is “cause and effect,” and it wants to believe that we have a “continuous ego” (personal identity), so it fills in any missing details which might suggest otherwise. By the way, there were 16 “f”s and two “the”s.

47. Soren Kierkegaard – a Dane Kierkegaard thought Descartes was correct to begin with "I think, therefore I am" but that Descartes was wrong in equating the self with thought. “To think is one thing, to exist is another."

48. . I can think and say many things about myself: "I am a teacher; I am an American; I am a natural blonde"; but I cannot think about my existence. I cannot think it, rather I must live it. My lived existence is equated with passion, decision, and action. Kierkegaard was NOT particularly interested in "objective thought or truth"; he believed that philosophy beginswith "wonder" (like Aristotle said) rather than with doubt.

49. . Objective (also analytic) truths: (1) there exists a criteria of "truth" (2) math, science, history (2+3=5; Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC) (3) recognizable standards to determine truth (4) no essential relationship to human existence (i.e. if I found that one of them were false, I wouldn't become a different person) (5) Kierkegaard is uninterested in "Objective truths”; the meaningful knowledge for the individual, he thinks, is found in “Subjective truths.”

50. . Subjective truths (thought): (1) there is no criteria of "truth" (2) personal values, such as religious and ethical claims (Kant thought that there was something underlying the "value" of things) (3) subjective: if I claim "God is love" and you challenge me, I cannot appeal to any objective criterion of truth to justify my assertion - You can't talk about "death," an "afterlife," or really anything about the future (e.g. "I'll make an A on the next test, if I'm not dead."