Term
|
Definition
| Empiricism is the foundation of scientific study and thus the basis of most our common assumptions about the world. It is totally reliant on the 5 senses. For an Empiricist, the ultimate source of knowledge is experience. It would appear to us that the external world exists and impinges on us. |
|
|
Term
| What is the 'Tabula Rasa'? |
|
Definition
| This forms the basis of most empiricism. It argues the human mind is like a blank slate at birth, that is, it is not structured. A good illustration is a blank piece of paper vs. a piece of graph paper, the blank paper representing the empty mind at birth, the graph paper representing the structured mind. |
|
|
Term
| How does information get on the 'Tabula Rasa'? |
|
Definition
| An empiricist such as Hume would say that impressions (sensory and reflective) are imprinted onto the tabula rasa as a simple idea (through memory). e.g. The sensory experience of redness becomes the simple idea of red. These are then combined to make complex ideas (such as the red pen), and through this we construct our house of knowledge). |
|
|
Term
| How does the 'Tabula Rasa' support Empiricism? |
|
Definition
| It proves that sense data is foundationary and the simple ideas imprinted onto the tabula rasa constitute the building blocks of knowledge as being born blank it must be sense experience that builds up the knowledge. |
|
|
Term
| What are the main components of John Locke's empiricism? |
|
Definition
| He believed all our knowledge comes from sense experience (including maths which Hume acknowledged as a priori) which imprints itself onto our minds, our tabula rasa. He believed everything we knew came to us in our interaction with the world. The senses 'let in' ideas which are copied onto the minds blank slate. We reach concepts through repetition of particular experiences which we name and generalize from to form concepts. Locke distinguished between ideas of sensation and ideas of reflection. |
|
|
Term
| What is a concept to Locke? |
|
Definition
| A concept to Locke is thinking about a sense experience after having it. They are generalized sense experiences, we wouldn't have concepts without sense experience. The allow us to talk about the world as we can know of them even when not experiencing them. |
|
|
Term
| Why did Hume think that Locke's theory needed refining? |
|
Definition
| Whilst he agreed with Locke, he believed he had failed to distinguish between a sensation and a concept. E.g. red is a colour but colour is not red. For Hume, a sense experience makes us aware of an impression, and an impression is nothing more than an experience. This is not the same as an idea. An idea to Hume is something that we reflect upon after an experience, an impression is immediate, an idea however is not. |
|
|
Term
| How is this different to Locke's theory? |
|
Definition
| Locke's empiricism states that we get our concepts from impressions, although Hume acknowledged that an impression was to be developed into an idea, after which it could be developed into a concept through the combination of many other ideas under a general name. Hume's theory is considered one of how we acquire concepts, particularly complex ones. |
|
|
Term
| What are the two types of impression that Hume recognizes? |
|
Definition
| Impressions of sensation: from the senses. Impressions of reflection: emotions etc. |
|
|
Term
| How does Hume differentiate between an idea and an impression? |
|
Definition
| An impression is much more immediate and intense when we are having it, an idea is much more faint and grows more and more faint the more complex that the idea becomes. |
|
|
Term
| What is a category error? |
|
Definition
| This to Hume is a concept that cannot be traced back to an impression that is sensory or reflective. Meaning that any concept that isn't rooted in sensory experience is empty. He emphasized that just because we have a word for something doesn't mean that it exists. |
|
|
Term
| How does Hume's theory lead to radical skepticism? |
|
Definition
| Hume's theory leads to radical skepticism because he acknowledges that using Empiricism makes certain areas of inquiry unintelligible. E.g. the problem of induction. |
|
|
Term
| What is the problem of induction? |
|
Definition
| This states that we shouldn't take principles and laws about the universe to be necessary because they are contingent and inferred from habit and custom. This essentially suggests that things could always be otherwise and just about all of our knowledge is open to doubt. We can see how this would lead to radical skepticism. |
|
|
Term
| What is 'practical skepticism'? |
|
Definition
| Practical skepticism is Hume's solution to the radical skepticism that his theory invokes. He said not to live by radical skepticism, but to be practical about it and live with the consequences of Empiricism but not by them. This means that we are to essentially live with our inferred habits and customs, just know that they are not necessary truths. |
|
|
Term
| How can Locke and Hume's theories be used as critiques for other theories at simple face value? |
|
Definition
| This is because they are limiting the source of human knowledge down to sense experience alone. This is important because if people are going to say that there are ideas that don't require sense experience then we have to explain where they actually came from. |
|
|
Term
| How can the switch in recent years from Newtonian physics into Quantum Mechanics be used to support Hume's theories? |
|
Definition
| The newly emerging quantum mechanics culture where it is used much more commonly these days show that Hume might have actually been justified in doubting certain laws of nature such as causation. |
|
|
Term
| How is the utility of Empiricism considered a strength? |
|
Definition
| Empiricism links us common-sensically to the world and its functions by a fairly simple system which relies almost totally on sense experience, something that we are conscious of and aware of at all times. |
|
|
Term
| How is the ability to investigate a strength of Empiricism? |
|
Definition
| Empiricism is the basis of scientific inquiry and thus it allows us to investigate the world that we experience, which probably wouldn't be possible using rationalism as reason cannot tell us much about the world or the veracity of claims made about it. The a posteriori itself is all about investigation, to prove an a posteriori statement to be true we have to investigate whether it is e.g. you'd investigate if I said that I had 2 Dads, you would need to experience the proof. |
|
|
Term
| How can 'sensational knowledge' be used as a strength for Empiricism? |
|
Definition
| It appears that there are certain experiences that we all have in common which would back up the claim that we know and interact with the world through sense experience as it shows that we're not completely trapped in solipsism. e.g. inward sensations such as i'm hungry or cold etc. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Statements are divided up into two types: 1) Matters of Fact = Statements about the world, these are synthetic, contingent and known a posteriori. 2) Relations of Ideas = Statements about ideas, these are analytic, necessary and are known a priori. Matters of fact can never be certain due to the fallibility of our senses and the possibility of deception. Any given statement always has the logical possibility of being false. Hume does this to prove that science does not give certainty. Relations of ideas can only be used to prove other relations of ideas e.g. an equilateral triangle has 3 sides of equal length. |
|
|
Term
| What are the implications of Hume's Fork? |
|
Definition
| Relations of ideas can be proved to a point of certainty, but they can't tell us anything about the world. Relations of ideas therefore cannot be used to prove matters of fact. Because matters of fact have no certainty, they therefore cannot be used to prove anything because they can't interfere with relations of ideas. |
|
|
Term
| What are the implications of Hume's Fork on God? |
|
Definition
| It makes it pointless to try and prove the existence of God as a matter of fact. Therefore God must be a relation of ideas because it isn't literally made up of matter and doesn't have any observable effect on the world. Being a relation of ideas, it doesn't really tell us anything about the world. Because of this we can see how Hume's Fork voids the ontological argument and the causal argument. |
|
|
Term
| What is the problem of induction? |
|
Definition
| This states that we shouldn't take principles and laws about the universe to be necessary as they are contingent and inferred from habit and custom. It suggests that things could always be otherwise. |
|
|
Term
| Why does Hume's Empiricism invoke radical skepticism? |
|
Definition
| Because with the problem of induction, things could always be otherwise. This leaves all of our knowledge open to doubt. e.g. we've experienced the sun rising every day of our lives, but this doesn't mean the sun will rise tomorrow. |
|
|
Term
| What is practical skepticism? |
|
Definition
| This is how Hume thinks that we should live with avoiding radical skepticism. He believes that while we have to live with the consequences of Empiricism, but we should live with the habit and custom that we have built up and accept them as long as we don't say that they are necessary truths. |
|
|
Term
| Criticism of Empiricism: The trap of solipsism? |
|
Definition
| This suggests that with empiricism we are trapped in our minds. This is a criticism that Locke and Hume do not explain to us how we get from an impression to knowledge of the external world. This matters because of the problem of hallucinations and illusions showing us the fallibility of our senses. If all our knowledge is based upon impressions then how do we know what actually causes these impressions? All we can be sure of is that we're we experience sense data, apart from this it's hard to prove that anything else exists. Beliefs that are founded on our own personal experience is subjective, which is all of them, meaning we have no way of proving an objective reality. We can't be sure that any other minds exist. |
|
|
Term
| Criticism of Empiricism: A priori knowledge. |
|
Definition
| The problem of the a priori is whether or not the synthetic a priori exists. This is because the synthetic a priori is a matter of fact about the world that is discovered through pure reason and Empiricism believes that matters of fact cannot be certain as they are all discovered through sense experience. However, if they are discovered through reason, the a priori, then they can be certain and it would then seem that sense data is not the foundation of knowledge. |
|
|
Term
| Criticism of Empiricism: Skepticism about the future and the past? |
|
Definition
| Hume said knowledge of the future is inferred from habit and custom from the past. We rely on past experience to infer things that go beyond our current sense experience. Because Hume declares so many concepts void, it appears that Empiricism is not an asequate account of human knowledge because it leads us into skepticism about many fundamental ideas such as the Self, Causation and God. However this isn't necessarily a problem for Hume because he said that genuine knowledge has to be traced back to sense data and if can't get a direct trace back to an impression then this concept is a category error. |
|
|
Term
| Criticism of Empiricism: Linguistic Problems? |
|
Definition
| If all our knowledge of the external world is inferred from our own experience of sense data then how can we talk meaningfully about our experiences of the world to other people? A sense experience is private, only I am it at that time e.g. how can I be sure that my version of red pencil is the same as someone else's? This suggests that by going from a private experience to public talking we are making an assumption that others are experiencing this, something for which we don't ahve the justification to assume. E.g. Wittgenstein's Beetle in the Box. This showed Hume was wrong about how language is linked directly to sense experience. |
|
|
Term
| Criticism of Empiricism: Missing Shade of Blue? |
|
Definition
| This problem asks us to imagine that someone has seen all the shades of blue except one, then they are presented with the blue spectrum. One shade is missing, yet it is possible to form an idea of the missing shade without ever having experienced it. It appears then that all knowledge does not in fact come from sense experience. Hume himself identifies this as an 'exception'. He says because the different shades of blue are all related to each other this permits a person to form an idea of the missing one by using the similar impressions that he already has. |
|
|
