Just thinking
How do we know what we know? What is foundation of our knowledge? Well, most folks will answer this question in one of two different ways. First, someone might say that the basis of knowledge is sense experience. The things that I can taste, touch, feel, see, or hear form the framework of my knowledge. This is probably the most popular answer today. This position is called empiricism. The study of science operates on this assumption.
The second alternative that is frequently offered is that all knowledge is based on reason and logic. This theory is called rationalism. Math is a field that relies on this position. Rationalism teaches us deductive truths such as "All bachelors are unmarried" or "Triangles have three sides." In their most simple form, these statements are just equations. A equals B. B does not equal C. Therefore, A does not equal C. The problem is that rationalism can't tell us anything new about the world. Logic can't tell you that the grass in Nebraska is green in April or that some birds fly South in the winter. This sort of thing must be learned inductively by empirical observation.
Today the most common theory of knowledge called foundationalism. Foundationalism is a combination of these two theories. In the other words, all knowledge comes from sense experience or logic. The problem here is that this statement in of itself can't be known by logic or by sense experience. It's self-refuting. So this seems to lead us to radical skepticism of David Hume. How can we know that we actually know anything? We can't, if we adopt foundationalism. Therefore, we must mistrust knowledge of any kind.
But the problem is that we actually do know stuff, sometimes by observation, sometimes by reason, and sometimes by mere intuition. Maybe the answer is we admit that we know stuff, but we don't necessarily know how we know it. For instance, I know that torturing babies is morally wrong. I know that there is a God. I know that human life is of the upmost importance. And yet, I don't always know how I know that. Nevertheless, that does not diminish the fact that I still know these things.
The second alternative that is frequently offered is that all knowledge is based on reason and logic. This theory is called rationalism. Math is a field that relies on this position. Rationalism teaches us deductive truths such as "All bachelors are unmarried" or "Triangles have three sides." In their most simple form, these statements are just equations. A equals B. B does not equal C. Therefore, A does not equal C. The problem is that rationalism can't tell us anything new about the world. Logic can't tell you that the grass in Nebraska is green in April or that some birds fly South in the winter. This sort of thing must be learned inductively by empirical observation.
Today the most common theory of knowledge called foundationalism. Foundationalism is a combination of these two theories. In the other words, all knowledge comes from sense experience or logic. The problem here is that this statement in of itself can't be known by logic or by sense experience. It's self-refuting. So this seems to lead us to radical skepticism of David Hume. How can we know that we actually know anything? We can't, if we adopt foundationalism. Therefore, we must mistrust knowledge of any kind.
But the problem is that we actually do know stuff, sometimes by observation, sometimes by reason, and sometimes by mere intuition. Maybe the answer is we admit that we know stuff, but we don't necessarily know how we know it. For instance, I know that torturing babies is morally wrong. I know that there is a God. I know that human life is of the upmost importance. And yet, I don't always know how I know that. Nevertheless, that does not diminish the fact that I still know these things.
posted by Daniel | 2:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home