Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Epistemology Unit 5: Limits of Knowledge - Coggle Diagram
Epistemology Unit 5: Limits of Knowledge
Establishment of Scepticism
Definitions
Local Scepticism- The hyperbolic doubt of a specific knowledge claim/set of claims, this is normal incredulity, hence does not extend to all beliefs- these instances of scepticism can be checked by detaching an agent from the particular situation (see Argument from Illusion)
Global scepticism/Solipsism- The unlimited hyperbolic doubt of the foundational beliefs an agent possesses- i.e the existence of the external world (This goes beyond normal incredulity)
Use of Scepticism- Acts as a philosophical tool to challenge particular claims of knowledge, it requires indubitability in such justifications an agent possesses
3 waves of doubt
1st: Illusion: Descartes challenged whether an individual can rely upon perception to provide cases of knowledge about the properties of an object
Note this is Local Scepticism given that an agent can detach themselves from the illusion, take the oar out of water, and thus are assured of the true nature of such objects
2nd Dream/Waking Distinction: Develops further to attack whether an agent is aware of mind-independent objects upon perception thus can have such
knowledge
about them
3rd Evil Demon Hypothesis: Here Descartes reinforces global scepticism to doubt whether such mind-independent objects exist at all for sense experience could possibly be the product of the evil demon...
Note: At each case Descartes requires indubitability, the arguments progress from undermining our belief system to solipsism
BIV
Extends and reformulates the Evil Demon Hypothesis into a modern argument- challenges:
Existence of mind-independent object
Reliability of Memory
Reasoned Mathematical proofs
Attacking the nature of scepticism
Hume attacked through the impracticality of solipsism and refuting all an agent's beliefs, as the position is itself unworkable
Anti-foundationalism- Descartes has misunderstood our belief system by assuming that there are foundational beliefs which can be refuted:
Instead agents must look to deconstruct and analyse the belief system in a piecemeal approach
Foundationalist approach is improper and unworkable
Spuriousness of Descartes claim- Descartes did not refute all belief and agent has
Linguistics argument- We cannot have 'no knowledge' as would incur a paradox
Rationalist (Descartes') Response
Here utilise intuition and deduction thesis- note Descartes tries to meet the requirement of indubitability of the Sceptic- via A priori Intuition of the Cogito alongside the A priori Synthetic claims of God and Existence of the External World
Empiricists Response
Note: Empiricist's responses do not try to meet the requirement of the indubitability, they are incapable of the doing so as a posteriori (experience is contingent)
Direct Realism
Traditional appeal- Simply an agent is aware of how a mind-independent object exists immediately upon perception
However this cannot overcome global scepticism (well)
Common-Sense Realism- Operates as a development of direct realist stance:
Continues to adopt openness
Utilise Relational Properties
Murean Shift- challenge is now onto the Sceptic
Appeal to Ordinary Language Philosophy- Sceptic is incorrect to require indubitability given that the common understanding of propositional knowledge is fallible, built upon experience- what the sceptic requires is disassociated from this which is improper
Extended by an appeal to Ludwig Wittgenstein: The meaning of language comes from how it is used in society, hence the meaning of the terms of 'knowledge' must be fallible, the philosophical definition is guilty of misrepresentation (creating their own definition for themselves)
Indirect Realism
Utilise Russel's argument from the best hypothesis, aims to discount the hypothesis of the non-existence of mind-independent objects:
P1) Either MI objects exist and cause sense perceptions or they do not exist
P2) As neither claim can be proven (ED hyp) they must be both treated as a hypothesis
P3) The hypothesis that MI objects exist is better (appeal spatiotemporal relations- Russell's examples of the Cat and Rotten Apple)
C1) Therefore, mind-independent objects must be considered to exist
Locke's argument from sense coherence and Involuntary nature of perception- this uses Locke's combined example of the piece of paper
Attack through the counter-intuitive nature of an agent being not directly aware of MI objects instead sense-data... this leads into Common-Sense Realist approach
Idealism
Berkeley's position collapses the distinction between perception and reality given that objects of perception exist as they are perceived- an agent is directly aware of them
Criticise via attacking the foundations of Berkeley's argument, i.e his misrepresentation of the distinction between Primary and Secondary Qualities/misunderstanding of Secondary Qualities
Reliabilism- replaces justification condition with that an agent has used a reliable belief forming process
Avoids issues of scepticism given that an agent need not to require justifcation to possess a case of knowledge:
Such a belief forming process need not to be indubitable just reliable
Avoids issues of an infinite regression of justification
Reliabilism and BIV: This is dependent on viewpoint:
BIV can attack reliablism given that an agent could never be assured that their process is reliable
However Reliablism can also attack BIV given that an agent need not to require justification that their belief forming process is reliable, indeed there would need to continue to reliable processes in a BIV which continues to allow for cases of knowledge can be asserted
This can also be overcame through an appeal to Goldman's Normal Worlds
Hume's Mitigated Scepticism!