Philosophy 1010
Class #8 - 7/22/2010
Title:
Introduction to Philosophy
Instructor:
Paul Dickey
E-mail Address:
pdickey2@mccneb.edu
Website:
http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/NCW/dickey.htm
Due Today:
One paragraph statement of your essay topic with a
brief summary of the argument you will give in your
essay. (worth five points if it is turned in at the
beginning of class)
Essay Due – 8/12/2010
Any questions on your essay?
For Thursday, 8/5/2009
Questions on page 396 (11th edition) –
#5 and #10
Reading Assignment:
Chapter Seven -- Ethics
Electronic/Online Course/Instructor
Feedback
10/SS Availability
until
August 9, 2010
Hand out instruction sheets!!!
Group
Activity:
Theists vs. Agnostics
vs. Atheists
Chapter Six:
TRUTH
(with a bit ABOUT
KNOWELDGE TOSSED
IN FOR FREE)
What is Knowledge?
•
Knowledge requires a belief. It would be nonsensical
to say that “I know that my car is in the parking lot,
but I do not believe it.”
•
Of course, we can believe something that we do not
know, but we cannot know something that we do not
believe. Example: “I believe that I am in good health
but I haven’t had a thorough checkup for five years.”
•
Knowledge appears to be more than a simple
belief. It requires evidence or justification. One
would not take seriously a person’s belief for which
there is no evidence – for example, “I know the stock
market will crash this week because I just know it.”
What is Knowledge?
•
That is, a belief must be warranted to count as
knowledge.The criteria for when a statement is
warranted depends on the type of statement.
•
Some beliefs are “a priori” and others are “a
posteriori”, that is, “prior to” experience or “after
experience.” Some beliefs are considered to be
“foundational” and others not.
•
For example, the basis for justification of all the
following beliefs is different –
•
•
•
•
“A rose is a rose.”
“No circle is a square.”
“John loves Sam.”
“John feels embarrassed by what
happened.”
What is Warranted Belief?
•
1. Logical Warrantability.
•
•
2. Semantic Warrantability.
•
•
A circle is not a square.
3. Systemic Warrantability.
•
•
This pencil is either 4” long or it is not.
Two plus two is four.
4. Empirical Warrantability.
•
•
This bird that I am looking at right now is a robin.
John Kennedy was a President of the U.S.
What is Knowledge?
•
But all warranted belief is not true. You only know
what is warranted and “TRUE”. You do not know your
car is in the parking lot even if you believe it is and
your belief is warranted (you parked it there just
before class), but in fact I am looking out the window
here and (I hate to tell you this but) campus security
just towed you car off campus.
•
In the above example, you can only claim to know
that your car is in the parking lot if it is true that it is in
the parking lot.
•
Generally speaking, knowledge is understood
thus to be warranted, true belief.
What is Knowledge?
•
However, is true, warranted belief enough? Consider the
following “thought experiment”:
1) John who is a trustworthy person goes to the store
intending to buy a gallon of low-fat milk.
2) As a joke on his friend Sam or by mistake, he tells
Sam that he is going to buy whole milk.
3) At the store, John mistakenly buys whole milk by
getting distracted by how sexy the store manager is.
•
Now, did Sam know that John was going to buy whole milk?
1) Sam believed John was.
2) Sam’s belief appeared to be warranted. It is
what John said he was going to do & John usually
does what he says.
3) And in fact, it is what John did.
•
Video:
Does Science Give Us Truth?
Break!
Truthiness:
Theories of Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNHqX27hlz8
(just for fun)
What are the Traditional
Theories of Truth?
•
There are three Fundamental Theories of Truth:
1) the correspondence theory of truth says that a
belief is true when it corresponds to what is “out there”
in the real world.
2) the coherence theory argues that a belief is true
when it fits in consistently with our other beliefs and
meanings.
•
3) the pragmatic theory suggests that what is true
depends on what gets us what we want.
The Correspondence Theory of Truth
•
The Correspondence Theory specifies that truth is an
agreement between a proposition and a fact.
•
Thus, the correspondence theory assumes the
existence of an external, material world which is
composed of facts.
•
The view was first proposed by Aristotle and then by
Aquinas. The most formal, systematic presentation of
the view was by the 20th century philosopher, Bertrand
Russell.
•
Russell argues that truth and falsity are properties of
beliefs, but that property depends on the relationship
of the belief to the world of facts.
The Correspondence Theory of Truth
•
The Correspondence Theory may seem to be obviously
right and implied by common sense, but actually it has
serious difficulties.
•
First of all, it assumes there is an external world, i.e. a
particular metaphysical position and seems to beg the
question of “how can we we ever get outside our sensory
experiences to know what the facts are.”
•
Secondly, there is the problem about what a fact is,
anyway. How can a fact even be identified or discussed
without referring to the proposition that it is meant to be the
conditions for it being true? Thus, the very notion of “facts”
appears to be circular.
For example, to what fact does the proposition “The
cat is on the mat” refer? The fact that the cat is on
the mat? But isn’t this circular reasoning?
The Correspondence Theory of Truth
•
Finally, the theory is based on the notion of
“correspondence.” But it is objected by critics, what
does this really mean? What is the nature of
correspondence?
•
Clear examples of correspondence are:
•
1.
resemblance like a paint chip resembles the
color of paint on your wall, or
2.
portrayal like when a picture copies the scene it
copies
But neither of these can be the kind of correspondence
that is being asserted when we say a statement in a
language corresponds to a state of affairs in the world.
The Coherence Theory of Truth
•
The Coherence Theory specifies that a statement is
true based on its consistency with other statements
that considered as a whole we regard as true. This
coherence is the fundamental factor, not coherence of
a single statement with a single state of the world.
•
Geometry is the perfect example of the coherence
theory, but also science understood as general
theories also demonstrate the principle.
•
Brand Blanshard (1892-1987) argued that the
correspondence theory itself presupposes the
coherence theory. He argues that we can verify one
statement only by using other statements.
•
For example, to say that “the chair is red” is
validated only with other statements that give
testimony to the reliability of our sense
perception abilities.
The Coherence Theory of Truth
•
Of course, the Coherence Theory is not also without its
problems.
•
Critics point out that in the past of course, societies
accepted statements that were quite consistent with
the belief systems but were false such as that the sun
revolved around the earth.
•
Critics also ask how a fundamental set of statements
about the world can come to be accepted with a
Coherence Theory when there is no group of
statements to which they could cohere.
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth
•
The Pragmatic Theory says that a belief is true if it
works and is useful.
Looking for truth is looking for beliefs that will
help you get what you want…. Richard Rorty
•
According to the Pragmatists, there are no abolute and
unchanging truths. A statement is true if it is useful to
believe it.
•
The classic Pragmatic view of truth was formulated by
William James.
•
James argued that truth existed in its practical
consequences. True ideas are those that we can
assimilate, validate, corroborate, and verify.
•
An idea is validated if by believing it, we find
experiences that are “progressive, harmonious, and
satisfactory.”
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth
•
James challenged the traditional correspondence view
by asking: What difference does it make in someone’s
life for an idea to be true?” What is the “cash value?”
What different experiences should we be expected to
have?
•
Richard Rorty suggests that it is improper however to
refer to a Pragmatic Theory of Truth. For him, the
Pragmatist position only is a claim about individual
statements that are good and proper to believe it or
not. Pragmatism is not a general theory of Truth (with
a capital T).
•
In Rorty’s view, different truths emerge from different
communities having different procedures of verifying
appropriate statements to use.
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth
•
The primary criticism of the Pragmatic approach is that
it makes truth entirely relative to the potential
mistakable judgments of human communities.
•
Pragmatism equates truth with justified belief of a
community.
•
But surely just because we once believed the earth
was flat, it wasn’t really flat.
•
The pragmatist could reply that what is true is what an
ideal community would be justified in believing if
continuing its investigations indefinitely.
•
But this notion seems to be “metaphysical” in the very
sense that Pragmatism wished to reject.
Does Your Theory of Truth Matter?
•
The theory of truth that you hold may determine
whether a given claim is true or not.
•
Only the Correspondence Theory of Truth holds that
truth is absolute. Both the Coherence Theory and the
Pragmatic Theory hold that truth is relative to the
group who is making the claim.
•
By rejecting an objective theory of truth, the latter two
theories allow for the potentiality of views to be
accepted as true that normally we would consider
aberrant, e.g. racist, sexist, immoral, etc.
•
On the other hand, one might argue for a relativist
theory that it is more tolerant of cultural differences.
One culture does not have a monopoly on truth.
•
Perhaps an example of the coherence theory of truth
occurs on this video. Listen carefully to what Dr. Tom
Osborne says about when he will make a decision
about a new football coaching staff at UNL:
http://www.ketv.com/video/14416674/index.html
(at about 4:00)
•
Consider the statement:
Tom Osborne has made up his mind that a new
coaching staff at Nebraska is needed. Is he
telling us the truth in this interview?
•
Note that which of the two theories of truth we have
discussed that you accept may change your
determination whether a given statement is true.
•
Is Tom Osborne telling the TRUTH? What is the
truth he is telling?
A Reconcilation?
•
Perhaps we should simply understand that all three
views have validity and are suggestive within different
realms of knowledge.
•
In this account, the Correspondence theory is strong
when explaining the empirical world, the Coherence
theory helps us to understand logical and mathematical
truths, and the Pragmatic theory gives us the better
guidance to deal with value judgments.
•
The attempt to find one characterization of truth that
covers every kind of truth, seems doomed to failure.
….Hilary Putnam
•
Ultimately however, such a resolution may be too easy
and not truly satisfying for most philosophers. It seems
to many as not fully answering the paradoxes posed by
the subsequent consequences of each theory.
Does Science Give Us Truth?
The Instrumentalist View
•
There are fundamentally three views which attempt to
allow science to say that a theory is true, roughly
corresponding to the three theories of truth.
•
First of all, the Instrumentalist view argues that a
theory is true if it makes accurate predictions. The view
thus, is closely aligned with the pragmatic theory of
truth.
•
The instrumentalist view does not assert that the
theoretical and unobservable entities that we posit in
our theories in order to explain observable events
actually do exist.
•
In the instrumentalist view, science is not required to
describe the world. To say that the earth revolves
around the sun is a useful framework or schema
simply to calculate the positions of the planets.
Does Science Give Us Truth?
The Realist View
•
A second option is the Realist view which relies on the
correspondence theory of truth. According to this view,
a scientific theory is true or false based on how it
describes reality.
•
Historically, Galileo was condemned for heresy indeed
because he claimed that the Copernican view was
real, not just a mathematical calculation as it had been
assumed Copernicus had thought.
•
The realist view asserts that scientific theories make
accurate predictions because they are true, that is
they “correspond” with things in the world and not the
other way around.
•
For the realist, scientific theory is discovered. For the
instrumentalist, it is invented for the sake of continuing
productive scientific activity.
Does Science Give Us Truth?
The Conceptual Relativist View
•
The third option is the conceptual relativist view which
relies on the coherence theory of truth. According to
this view, a scientific community theory provides a
paradigm consisting of theories, research methods,
programs, and values that a “conceptual framework”
which is true.
•
The leading proponent of this view is Thomas Kuhn.
•
According to this view and in contrast with
instrumentalism and realism, theories cannot be
checked against independently observed reality for all
observation is theory-laden.
•
Scientific paradigms are replaced by “conceptual
“revolutions,” however when that happens one cannot
necessarily say the changes occurred for rational
reasons or that the new paradigm is “more true.”
Break!
Hermeneutics &
Interpretations of Text
•
But science is not the only type of knowledge that relies
on a notion of truth.
•
We talk about the truth of the Bible or other sacred
scriptures, the true meaning of the constitution of the
United States, and even the true interpretation of a
poem. But what is that?
•
Previously we have have talked about “truth” being a
property of a statement in a language. But what about
the notion of the truth or meaning of a written document
or a text?
•
This philosophical study is called hermeneutics, the
study of the interpretation of words and actions. The
term goes back to the Greeks who struggled to interpret
what they believed the gods were saying to them.
Hermeneutics & Interpretations of Text
•
With Judaism and Christianity, there was a clear need
to understand scriptures, which were understood to
be the Word of God. However, it was not always clear
what was the correct or true interpretation.
•
In the Middle Ages, philosophers and theologians
suggested many new interpretations of different
scriptures. This created the problem of how does a
believer know which interpretation to accept.
•
Thomas Aquinas argued that scripture had many
interpretations, all of which could be true. To resolve
the problem about what to believe, Aquinas argued
that it was only the Church that could decide what
interpretations were to be followed and to say what
God actually intended.
•
But this is really no solution to the philosophical
puzzle, for it does not give us understanding on how
the Church was to make such judgments.
Hermeneutics
•
Martin Luther rejected this notion, arguing that there
is only one true interpretation, that is, the literal
meaning.
•
Friedreich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) agreed with
Luther. For him, there is one meaning and that
meaning of the text is a product of the history or
culture of the person who wrote it.
•
Such a position is based on the correspondence
theory.
•
To determine, the true meaning of a text (whether it
be holy scripture, the U. S. constitution or the work
of a human poet), we must unveil what the author(s)
intended.
Hermeneutics
•
William Dilthey (1833-1911) agreed with
Schleiermacher that the true interpretation of a text is
the meaning that the author intended and thus, we
must study the historical context in which he or she
lived.
•
Also consider, Supreme Court Justice – Antonin
Scalia and his approach known as Originalism.
•
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minute
s/main4040290.shtml?source=mostpop_story
(Through 6:40)
Hermeneutics
•
Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) argued that trying to
determine an author’s original intention is often impossible.
•
The reader of any text relies on their own experience and
culture, even their “prejudices.” People living in different
times or in different societies may interpret a text
differently, yet both may be as true as the other.
•
Interpreting a text is to establish a dialogue with the text.
As that discussion proceeds, the meaning of the text
emerges. That meaning will be an assimilation of the
cultural setting of the original text and the views,
perceptions, and beliefs of the current readers.
Hermeneutics & Interpretations of Text
•
Such a position is based on the coherence theory.
•
Watch Justice Ginsburg’s short segment of the CBS
60 minutes video
•
In response, E. D. Hirsch argued that Gadamer’s
view confused “meaning” with “significance” and that
meaning was still “what the author intended.”
Pop
Quiz