Class: Please discuss the merits of incorporating scientific findings into theories of knowledge. Why would someone object to incorporating science into epistemology?
I see science as a tool that can help you know something or add to what you already know, so incorporating it as such, and not as the knowledge itself is appropriate. A person has to know something about what they are performing the sciences on to determine what experiments and processes to use to acquire the information from the test subjects. This information is then added to the knowledge the knower already has, to for a more complete idea of what the knower already has as knowledge of the subject.
Incorporating scientific findings into theories of knowledge can be helpful when supporting your theory. By using scientific findings you are able to use evidence that will make your theory have a stronger foundation. For instance, you could incorporate an experiment into your theory to make it stronger. Using science in epistemology can only make your theory stronger; however, your scientific findings have to relate to your stated theories in order for your theory to be believed by others. Some could argue that incorporating science into epistemology would be a mistake because the findings you are incorporating into your theory is not appropriate because they might see it as making your position on the subject weaker instead of stronger.
"The history of scientific theories would teach us that the primary theory of they day, even that advanced by Newton, turned out to be false, and, by reasoning, we should conclude that the theory of our day will also turn out to be false." This is the opinion put forth by Keith Lehrer, the author of Chapter 9, Rationality in our text. However, it is a bit rash to say science is a fallacy and should be regarded as such. In direct contradiction, science that is backed with multiple lines of strong evidence is a positive asset to epistemological theory.
I feel like science can be the most useful tool to forming theories of knowledge. We can use our findings to broaden our horizons of options for an idea, and having hard scientific proof will give the extra back up to show your theory is true. Science can quickly be seen as a way to find true knowledge and though some people may oppose to it, epistemology can benefit from the technical advances. Using these tools will further knowledge, and those opposing to the blend with science may feel that they are two separate categories, when in reality they can both benefit each other.
I think its very important to support your theories of knowledge with science. However, I don't think we need to abandon epistemology for science. In the SEP entry "naturalized epistemology", cooperative naturalism is evaluating questions to pursue, empirical results from psychology concerning how we actually think and reason are essential or useful for making progress in addressing evaluative questions. I really enjoy this view of epistemology. I think it's a good balance between epistemology and psychology. In addition, I think science is very useful in epistemology and can benefit it by having the ability to find something as True and the evidence to back it up.
I believe that science and epistemology can go together and that you don't have to pick one over the other. science can help with epistemology and knowledge. through science and its findings, knowledge people say they have could be proven.science is a good way to back up the knowledge someone claims to have. science can offer a type of justified evidence that someone may not be able to find in epistemology alone. people may be hesitant to go along with both if they can not see the important parts that connect science and epistemology.
There needs to be an idea before someone can act upon that idea. Epistemological ideas can lead to scientific research and testing. Then science can prove the epistemologist correct or incorrect in their assumptions. Scientific theories can support epistemological views and ideas. One would object incorporating science into epistemology because it would move from an a priori viewpoint to a scientific epistemology viewpoint. Relying on knowledge and justified true belief is the basis for epistemology, not relying on empirical knowledge.
The merits of incorporating scientific findings into theories of knowledge become apparent when the actual discoveries made through empirical means has implications for our ability to do epistemology and philosophy. Some argue that epistemologists must make use of results from the sciences that study human reasoning in pursuing epistemological questions because it is in asking and exploring philosophical questions that we must make use of human reason. If, for example, the sciences of mind find strong empirical evidence that we must necessarily use cognitive and neural mechanisms and that most thought is unconscious, it would seem that as epistemologists we would have to take this into account, which my mean that a priori philosophizing provides no privileged direct access to knowledge of our own mind, or any form of purely objective or transcendent reasoning.
Lakoff and Johnson, in their book Philosophy in the Flesh, seek to go farther than most naturalized epistemologists in constructing what they call an "Empirically Responsible Philosophy":"Cognitive science-the empirical study of the mind-calls upon us to create a new, empirically responsible philosophy consistent with empirical discoveries about the nature of mind. This is not just old-fashioned philosophy "naturalized"-making minor adjustments, but basically keeping the old philosophical super structure. A serious appreciation of cognitive science requires us to rethink philosophy from the begging, in a way that would put it more in touch with the reality of how we think. It would be based on a detailed understanding of the cognitive unconscious, the hidden hand that shapes conscious thought, our moral values, our plans, our actions."
I believe that science needs to be incorporated into epistemology, at least a little bit. Scientists work long and hard to prove theories by justifying evidence with repetative experiments. I believe that epistemology is very similar. An epistemologist can come up with a theory they believe is correct but they have to provide evidence to justify it. Merging the two together seems very practical and smart. One could use a provend scientific fact as evidence as their justified true belief when trying to express knowledge on a topic.
Science is such an important concept in today's society that I don't see how it can't be incorporated somehow with knowledge. Science gives you another way to obtain knowledge and epistemology has changed with it. By using science in epistemology, it gives you a strong base for your points, and gives you the ability to prove you point with something concrete to back it up. By having this, you're opinion/point is justifed by an experiment, which allows you to be right majority of the time.
I think that scientific findings have to be incorporated into theories of knowledge in some way. Science is very important in today’s society and has been proven to be factual, and therefore should be taken into account when viewing knowledge of certain things in specific ways. Science is so subjective and many people will argue that epistemology is contextual. I believe that science gives evidence that may allow someone to develop better evidence to argue for a theory of knowledge, but I don’t think it should be regarded as the only way have find or have knowledge.
I agree with Nick that science has to be incorporated into theories of knowledge. Science is like a tool in finding knowledge. Its like building something, you are going to use different tools for different jobs to get to an end result. With science it works on factual knowledge so it is just another tool to finding knowledge. In today's world our science is becoming more and more evolved so our tools for gaining knowledge are only getting better and better. Science just gives us another way to gain knowledge so I don't think it should be excluded or do I feel it should be our only tool in gaining the knowledge that we seek.
It is clear that science is a tool in finding knowledge. Scientist use other scientist work in order to futher the knowledge of a subject. In astronomy it is clear that we will never be able to atain knowledge of the universe because we do not have the technology, but in 50 years that might not be the case. People thought it was impossible to go to the moon, yet this feat was accompished 40 years ago.
I also believe that science is a great tool to be used in philosophy and agree with Nick and Wewe that it should be incorporated into philosophy. It is very important in viewing knowlede and can make philosophy more factual, by giving evidence, which is ver important.
Why would someone object to incorporating science into epistemology? From the perspective of traditional armchair epistemology, the use of science would undermine one's ability to reason. Sometimes philosophers just want to know what knowledge can be attained simply by thinking about things.
I think it's a good idea to incorporate science with epistemology. Science can be a means for providing support and evidence to ones theory. Having evidence to support a theory allows for a better argument of ones knowledge.
I see science as a tool that can help you know something or add to what you already know, so incorporating it as such, and not as the knowledge itself is appropriate. A person has to know something about what they are performing the sciences on to determine what experiments and processes to use to acquire the information from the test subjects. This information is then added to the knowledge the knower already has, to for a more complete idea of what the knower already has as knowledge of the subject.
ReplyDeleteIncorporating scientific findings into theories of knowledge can be helpful when supporting your theory. By using scientific findings you are able to use evidence that will make your theory have a stronger foundation. For instance, you could incorporate an experiment into your theory to make it stronger. Using science in epistemology can only make your theory stronger; however, your scientific findings have to relate to your stated theories in order for your theory to be believed by others. Some could argue that incorporating science into epistemology would be a mistake because the findings you are incorporating into your theory is not appropriate because they might see it as making your position on the subject weaker instead of stronger.
ReplyDelete"The history of scientific theories would teach us that the primary theory of they day, even that advanced by Newton, turned out to be false, and, by reasoning, we should conclude that the theory of our day will also turn out to be false." This is the opinion put forth by Keith Lehrer, the author of Chapter 9, Rationality in our text. However, it is a bit rash to say science is a fallacy and should be regarded as such. In direct contradiction, science that is backed with multiple lines of strong evidence is a positive asset to epistemological theory.
ReplyDeleteI feel like science can be the most useful tool to forming theories of knowledge. We can use our findings to broaden our horizons of options for an idea, and having hard scientific proof will give the extra back up to show your theory is true. Science can quickly be seen as a way to find true knowledge and though some people may oppose to it, epistemology can benefit from the technical advances. Using these tools will further knowledge, and those opposing to the blend with science may feel that they are two separate categories, when in reality they can both benefit each other.
ReplyDeleteI think its very important to support your theories of knowledge with science. However, I don't think we need to abandon epistemology for science. In the SEP entry "naturalized epistemology", cooperative naturalism is evaluating questions to pursue, empirical results from psychology concerning how we actually think and reason are essential or useful for making progress in addressing evaluative questions. I really enjoy this view of epistemology. I think it's a good balance between epistemology and psychology. In addition, I think science is very useful in epistemology and can benefit it by having the ability to find something as True and the evidence to back it up.
ReplyDeleteI believe that science and epistemology can go together and that you don't have to pick one over the other. science can help with epistemology and knowledge. through science and its findings, knowledge people say they have could be proven.science is a good way to back up the knowledge someone claims to have. science can offer a type of justified evidence that someone may not be able to find in epistemology alone. people may be hesitant to go along with both if they can not see the important parts that connect science and epistemology.
ReplyDeleteThere needs to be an idea before someone can act upon that idea. Epistemological ideas can lead to scientific research and testing. Then science can prove the epistemologist correct or incorrect in their assumptions. Scientific theories can support epistemological views and ideas.
ReplyDeleteOne would object incorporating science into epistemology because it would move from an a priori viewpoint to a scientific epistemology viewpoint. Relying on knowledge and justified true belief is the basis for epistemology, not relying on empirical knowledge.
The merits of incorporating scientific findings into theories of knowledge become apparent when the actual discoveries made through empirical means has implications for our ability to do epistemology and philosophy. Some argue that epistemologists must make use of results from the sciences that study human reasoning in pursuing epistemological questions because it is in asking and exploring philosophical questions that we must make use of human reason. If, for example, the sciences of mind find strong empirical evidence that we must necessarily use cognitive and neural mechanisms and that most thought is unconscious, it would seem that as epistemologists we would have to take this into account, which my mean that a priori philosophizing provides no privileged direct access to knowledge of our own mind, or any form of purely objective or transcendent reasoning.
ReplyDeleteLakoff and Johnson, in their book Philosophy in the Flesh, seek to go farther than most naturalized epistemologists in constructing what they call an "Empirically Responsible Philosophy":"Cognitive science-the empirical study of the mind-calls upon us to create a new, empirically responsible philosophy consistent with empirical discoveries about the nature of mind. This is not just old-fashioned philosophy "naturalized"-making minor adjustments, but basically keeping the old philosophical super structure.
ReplyDeleteA serious appreciation of cognitive science requires us to rethink philosophy from the begging, in a way that would put it more in touch with the reality of how we think. It would be based on a detailed understanding of the cognitive unconscious, the hidden hand that shapes conscious thought, our moral values, our plans, our actions."
I believe that science needs to be incorporated into epistemology, at least a little bit. Scientists work long and hard to prove theories by justifying evidence with repetative experiments. I believe that epistemology is very similar. An epistemologist can come up with a theory they believe is correct but they have to provide evidence to justify it. Merging the two together seems very practical and smart. One could use a provend scientific fact as evidence as their justified true belief when trying to express knowledge on a topic.
ReplyDeleteScience is such an important concept in today's society that I don't see how it can't be incorporated somehow with knowledge. Science gives you another way to obtain knowledge and epistemology has changed with it. By using science in epistemology, it gives you a strong base for your points, and gives you the ability to prove you point with something concrete to back it up. By having this, you're opinion/point is justifed by an experiment, which allows you to be right majority of the time.
ReplyDeleteI think that scientific findings have to be incorporated into theories of knowledge in some way. Science is very important in today’s society and has been proven to be factual, and therefore should be taken into account when viewing knowledge of certain things in specific ways. Science is so subjective and many people will argue that epistemology is contextual. I believe that science gives evidence that may allow someone to develop better evidence to argue for a theory of knowledge, but I don’t think it should be regarded as the only way have find or have knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick that science has to be incorporated into theories of knowledge. Science is like a tool in finding knowledge. Its like building something, you are going to use different tools for different jobs to get to an end result. With science it works on factual knowledge so it is just another tool to finding knowledge. In today's world our science is becoming more and more evolved so our tools for gaining knowledge are only getting better and better. Science just gives us another way to gain knowledge so I don't think it should be excluded or do I feel it should be our only tool in gaining the knowledge that we seek.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that science is a tool in finding knowledge. Scientist use other scientist work in order to futher the knowledge of a subject. In astronomy it is clear that we will never be able to atain knowledge of the universe because we do not have the technology, but in 50 years that might not be the case. People thought it was impossible to go to the moon, yet this feat was accompished 40 years ago.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that science is a great tool to be used in philosophy and agree with Nick and Wewe that it should be incorporated into philosophy. It is very important in viewing knowlede and can make philosophy more factual, by giving evidence, which is ver important.
ReplyDeleteWhy would someone object to incorporating science into epistemology? From the perspective of traditional armchair epistemology, the use of science would undermine one's ability to reason. Sometimes philosophers just want to know what knowledge can be attained simply by thinking about things.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a good idea to incorporate science with epistemology. Science can be a means for providing support and evidence to ones theory. Having evidence to support a theory allows for a better argument of ones knowledge.
ReplyDelete