Epistemology: Testimonial Knowledge. Absolutely everybody wants to know more than he knows. In order to do this he tries to obtain new knowledge from the sources or other people who really have it. Why is it so, why knowledge is so important for us? Lets imagine that we are present in the court where a case is considering. Mrs. Black says that Mr.
White stole the money in her flat. The lawyer asks her if she is sure about it and she answered: I know that he stole the money, I saw him take the money. But it was dark in the flat and another witness says that he saw Mr. Braun who looks like Mr. White, near Mrs. Blacks flat that night.
The judge is to decide if he can believe Mrs. Blacks testimonial or not. This case raises a lot of questions: what knowledge really is, if it is important to have it and if we are able to get any? We can answer these questions only with the help of epistemology. It is a branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It helps to answer the basic questions concerning knowledge: how we can distinguish the true knowledge from false, what theory or model of knowledge is the best. It also forms one part of the new sciences of cognition, based on the psychological method of information, and on the artificial intelligence, as an attempt to develop computer programs with human intellectual abilities.
The main idea of epistemological theories is the avoiding of skepticism by means of adopting a foundationalist approach. Studying the history of epistemology we cant but notice that in spite of the great number of contradictory positions, this science has one direction and develops logically. While the first theories of knowledge defined its absolute, permanent character as the most important and were based on it, the later theories consider its relativity or situation-dependence to be the most important, making the stress on its continuous development or evolution, and its dynamic interference with the subjects and objects of the world. The knowledge has one developing trend that is going from a passive view of knowledge towards more active one. The knowledge and certainty are not the same. In order to obtain a certainty we need to gain experience and it is not easy, because we know that experience is invaluable.
The Term Paper on Marx’s Theory Of Money
The Theory of Money and the Theory of ValueThe most important point to emerge from Marx's theory of money is the idea that money is a form of value. The difficulty with this idea is that we are more familiar with money itself than with value in other forms. But value does appear in forms other than money. For example, the balance sheet of a capitalist firm estimates the value of goods in process ...
In comparison with certainty knowledge seems too easy to be obtained. However, if we assume that knowledge should be absolutely authentic, knowledge seems precious. Then we risk becoming skeptic, thinking that we know nothing and scientists know everything and everything that they know is dogmas. But the real meaning of the knowledge can be understood only on the way to it. There are many methods of knowledge acquiring: perception, inference, testimony of others etc. We are to define the best and explain why it is the best. The theory and practice of knowledge are very much alike, because the question how we can acquire the knowledge is identical to the question what knowledge is.
Of course, we cant read all the material, devoted to this question, because epistemology is very developed science and hundreds of authors wrote essays about it. That is why I chose essays by Robert Audi he composed in his book Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, because I consider his point of view to be the most correct. The epistemological project that Robert Audi presents in his writing is different from the project of other epistemologists. As against other philosophers he devoted his book mostly to the source of knowledge. Audis style of writing is a bit difficult to read but still the book is full of useful information supported by examples. The text of the book is divided into three parts: – “Sources of knowledge, justification, and truth,” Audi devotes this chapter to perception, memory, consciousness, reason, and testimony.
The Essay on Zoo is a source of fond memories
For many people, the zoo is a source of fond memories and funny childhood story’s like the swinging monkey, growling tigers and the others animals. Sometimes when we watch the animals in a captivity jumping through a flaming hoop or stand on its hind legs, it becomes easy to forget about all the abuse that the animals have been through. The animals may not like to do these things that we human ...
– “The structure and growth of justification and knowledge,” In this part Audi discussed the nature of inference. – “The nature and scope of justification and knowledge,” Here Audi studies the specific nature of scientific, moral, and religious knowledge. Robert Audi is a representative of fallibilism and he argues that some or even all claims to knowledge can be mistaken. Audi defines two different kinds of beliefs: perceptual and inferential. An example of the perceptual is I hear chirping outside the window. An example of an inferential belief is, Birds are outside the window because I hear chirping.
These beliefs are called inferential because they take perceptual beliefs and by means of logic use other believe. Epistemology wants to determine in knowing what justifies these beliefs. Audi argue there could be infinite or circular beliefs chains, they could not be sources of knowledge or justification.(Audi 205) In his writing Robert Audi acquaints us with the methods or more precisely with different sources from which we can get the knowledge or the definition. He defines “four standard basic sources” which are the perception, memory, consciousness, and reason. All these sources are separate and do not depend on each other. According to Robert Audi each of them except for the memory can be considered as basic. (Memory cant be the basic source of obtaining the knowledge because it plays a different role a role of preservation rather than generation).
The first source of knowledge is perception. Audi defines it as a believe known through the senses.
For example, I understand through my senses that a sound is coming from outside the window. It is essential that Audis analysis of perception differs from the analysis of other philosophies. Audi distinguishes three forms of “seeing:” (a) simple seeing, (b) seeing that, and (c) seeing to be. In the traditional analysis supported by other philosophies, it is: (a) simple seeing, (b) seeing as, and (c) seeing that. The second source of knowledge is consciousness that means for example I am thinking about something. The third basic source of knowledge or justified belief is reflection. Robert Audi, a, describes this source as a following: if person A is older than B and B is older than C, then A is older than C (Audi 205).
The Term Paper on Knowledge, Belief and Truth
“What is Truth? Said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.” Of Truth, Essays or Counsels Civil and Moral, Francis Bacon. • Definitions of Truth – In the gospel of John in the New Testament (18:28-40), Jesus is brought up before Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of the region. Pilate, a practical and worldly man, is bemused as to why Jesus has been brought before him: what has he done? ...
The last type of knowledge is memory.
An example of a belief based on memory is, I recall that five minutes ago I heard chirping outside the window. Robert Audi distinguishes main sources from the minor according to the testimony. First Audi defines the relationship of the source of knowledge and the reliability. Then he analyses the source from the point of view of its individuality, autonomy and vulnerability to be disproved. Audi also studies the relations of the knowledge and justification and their coherence. Audi says about psychological coherentism, that he has “encountered more than once” the objection “that partial sustaining relations are not irreflexive” . He imagines a “self-sustaining” structure of poles of a tepee which hold each other up. The critics object that each of these poles is self-sustaining.
Audi answers that the forces on the poles are different, even opossite. The tepee needs a strong stable ground and the relaitons between the poles are “transitive and irreflexive. Audi has one general conception of justification. He states that it is of “well-groundedness”, and of knowledge, “appropriately grounded true belief”, where in both cases the grounding needs “some kind of causal sustenance” (p. 14).
He defends the opinion that first-person mental state beliefs are not incorrigible, infallible, or indubitable, though normally they are non-inferentially justified (Chapter 5).
In “The Causal Structure of Indirect Justification: he states that if one believe is based upon others it must have a sustaining relation.
In “Justification, Truth, and Reliability”, Audi distinguishes the “two quite different strands in the concept of justification, its normative character and its connection with truth” (p. 299).
As justification itself does not mean the truth, Audi holds, the process of justification is linked teleologically with truth. We can know a priori epistemic principles that “are partly constitutive of epistemically permissible attempts to show truth” (p. 320).
Audi created a unique theory of epistemic chains. He defines an epistemic chain as simply a chain of beliefs, with at least the first constituting knowledge, and each belief linked to the previous one by being based on it.(Audi 206), and provides four types of epistemic chains: Infinite Circular Justified beliefs/knowledge can come from epistemic chains that are not based on direct perceptual beliefs.
The Essay on Humes Miracls
In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume emphasizes his belief that all knowledge is based upon our own experience. The foundation of Christianity is based on the testimony of the Apostles, who supposedly witnessed the miracles of the Savior, Jesus. Through these miracles the Savior proved his divine mission and thus, the backbone for Christianity was formed. The testimony of the ...
Justified beliefs/knowledge must come from epistemic chains that are based on direct perceptual beliefs. Here I would like to mention that other philosophies reject epistemic chain but consider the fourth to be valid. In order to make some conclusions and to understand better the Robert Audis view it would be essential to compare the Audis point of view with the point of view of other philosophies. I chose David Hume because he is considered to be a philosopher who made a great contribution to the development of the epistemology. Humes philosophy has a great impact on his days philosophers and still attracts the attention of our contemporary scientists. The most important philosophical questions are associated with his name: the analysis of causality, the problem of personal identity, and the problem of induction.
In contrast to Audi Hume is a representative of another branch skepticism. The term skepticism springs from the Greek word skeptein, which means “to reflect or consider”. It is used to any idea which stresses on doubt and questioning. According to skepticism, unless we can know something absolutely and with perfect certainty, then we cannot know anything at all. Hume rejected the possibility of certain knowledge, found in the mind nothing but a series of sensations, and held that cause-and-effect in the natural world originate just from the conjunction of two impressions. We can learn much about Hume’s reading in his writings on religion, in which he didnt recognize any rational or natural theology. His main work is A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40), but he also wrote Political Discourses (1752), The Natural History of Religion (1755), and a History of England (1754-62).
Hume states that every judgment needs to have evidences for and against it.
And we usually have very few of evidences which can really support our believes and can make them matters of fact. So we cant investigate things in the external world because we actually have only our own inside word, psychology and our reactions of what we go through. What we used to understand as knowledge can rather be called custom or demonstration. Our world and reality can hardly be based on what we can rationally prove. So he was sure that the scepticism and even the extreme form of it is the only possible position. Humes view on testimony is nicely described in his work Of Miracles (Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding).
The Essay on Creating Activities Based on Learning Theories
Behavioral teaching and learning tends to focus on skills that are acquired by an individual but are likely to be applied at a later stage in life. For instance, an individual may learn computational skills only to apply them when he gets a job. Behavioral theories support a number of approaches to teaching. All of them fall under the category of direct or teacher centered instruction. Operant ...
In the work Of Miracles. He assumed that simple laws of nature can disprove every alleged miracle. Hume defined four factors that can disprove the miracles testimony: the witnesses lack integrity; we have a propensity to sensationalize; miracle testimonies abound in barbarous nations; and miracles support rival religious systems. He considers the laws of nature to be consistent and states that they can disprove any miracle testimony, even if it is very plausible and cant be weakened by the four abovementioned factors. Hume states that it is not right to make miracles as a foundation for the religion. He was against the religion suggesting that it is based on faith, not on miracle testimony, notwithstanding that it requires belief in miracles.
Hume unfavourably criticised all the attempts to prove the existence of God and natural theology. He rejected all the religious believes and wrote a critic where stated that miracles even never occurred, disproving the justifications of their occurrence. Hume states that we have to choose: either someone really did see the laws of nature suspended, or they are somehow mistaken. The latter is always more likely than the former, so we are never justified in rationally believing the former. Hume also applied his sceptical critic of knowledge to the morality. He stated that our set moral principles have no grounds and spring from human desires. We cant support our moral principles by the objective facts.
Hume wrote: The vice entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You can never find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this actions… David Hume created a great theory of skepticism that helped his followers to find the new methods and theories. For XVIII century when people only tried to understand things which seem for us very easy his theory helped to explain a lot. But as for me, I support something different form his points of view and Ill try to explain why. Of course everybody has his own choice what theory to support and what views on the world to have.
The Dissertation on Theory of Knowledge – 1
Theory of Knowledge In today’s society, science is regarded as being the most trusted form of knowledge, leading to many claiming it to be the supreme form of knowledge. To investigate whether or not this is justified we must compare science to other forms/areas of knowledge and consider what they each contribute. The strongest argument science has to claim this title, is the objectivity and ...
As for me I like and support Robert Audis point of view. I dont like skepticism because it sounds like we have no hope to get knowledge and have only feelings without brain. I think it is not true. If we deny everything except our own needs and feelings what we will live for? Our world is based on the theories, dogmas and rules, which were created for us to learn in order to be educated and understand more than our own feelings. Feeling should be always supported by thinking and if not, we risk becoming subject to degradation. We can learn history and argue on it but we still must know it to be able to argue.
Robert Audi states the same. Fallibilism differs from skepticism in that the fallibilist does not also argue that we should suspend belief because of our lack of certainty. Audi considers feeling to be one of the basic sources of knowledge but he didnt deny the other plausible sources. He built the theory of the basic sources of knowledge and studied the reliability of each of them according to their testimony. Audi recognized that knowledge can be different and it depends on the source we get it from. Having modern views he created a modern theory that can be successfully applied by our contemporary for their further studies. Bibliography Thomas D. Paxson, The Structure of Justification. – book reviews, New York, 1995 Locke, Berkeley, Hume: Central Themes (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), p.
70. Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge (Second Edition, Routledge, 2003).
