For Darryl and Nicholas ...

and also those interested in areas in the philosophy of mind, this provides a good write-up:

http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pom/pom_introduction.htm

Recap

Please use this to recap term 1's topics:
http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/tokhome.htm

Problem of the Criterion

Hi, this is Bo Dong.


Thought it would be appropriate to get the discussion going by introducing everyone to the problem of the criterion.

***

Understanding the Problem

Roderick Chrisholm outlines the problem through the following two questions.

(1) What can we know?

(2) What are the criteria of knowledge?

Question (2) should not look unfamilar. It's the same question that we've been trying to answer all through Term 1 (and up to now), i.e. what qualifies as knowledge?

***

In trying to develop a criterion for knowledge,

a. one is likely to identify instances in which people know (e.g. the weatherman who knows that it will rain tomorrow).

b. From these numerous instances, he will then identify a consistent thread or pattern linking all these instances of people knowing.

c. That very pattern will then constitute his criterion for knowledge.

***

Now, if you've recognized that (a) actually commits the fallacy of begging the question, then you're on the right track. Allow me to explain. How does one identify instances in which people know, if he does not already possess a ready, functional and working criterion for knowledge? But clearly one lacks the criterion for knowledge, for that was the very reason we decided to identify the instances of knowledge in the first place!

***

Going back to two questions raised by Chrisholm, we realise that

The answer to (1) requires the answer to (2) whereas,

the answer to (2) requires the answer to (1).

One cannot identify a criterion for knowledge if he could not identify the instances in which knowledge is found. Similarly, one cannot identify the instances in which knowledge is found if he did not possess a criterion for knowledge. This is the Problem of the Criterion.

***

There exist 3 main schools of thought on the issue:

(1) Methodism (Criterion --> Instances). Answer Question (2) first, then Question (1)

(2) Particularism (Instances --> Criterion). Answer Question (1) first, then Question (2)

(3) Skepticism. If one is unable to find a suitable solution to the problem of the criterion, one is likely to find oneself in the position of having to concede to global skepticism - i.e., that we can never know.

***

Miscellanous:

- Is there a different way of looking at the Problem of the Criterion? Might a criterion for knowledge be obtained some other way? (hint: a priori, introspection, doctrine of recollection etcetera)

- Is particularism less convincing than methodism for the fact that it presupposes that there were instances of knowledge to begin with?

- Does knowledge constructed suffer from the Problem of the Criterion?

- How does the Gettier problem come into the picture?

- If (according to the Problem of the Criterion), humans can never know, then how is it that justified true belief remains such a popular account of what knowledge truly is? How did we come to the understanding that knowledge is justified true belief?

Bibliography:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chisholm/#EpiIIOthEpiDoc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_criterion
Pritchard D. (Ed.). (2006). What is this thing called knowledge? Routledge.

Of Souls and Minds

Welcome, all KI students.

This is a blog for you to verify/clarify concepts and positions we covered in class, or deepen a discussion you were passionate about but lack the time (or interested parties) to develop, or to generate new areas of interest.

What's in it for you:

1. Engage deeper into the topics, clarify and strengthen your opinions!

2. Find like-minded 'thinkers' out there (esp from the other classes)

3. Gain membership in a cool online philospher-cafe where only brains matters

4. Meet the requirements for elearning

What's in it for us:

Teachers are very much behaviourists. A blog is a platform to display your ideas, emotions, and inner mental experience. Therefore, a blog for elearning ...(you go figure out the Ps and C in syllogistic forms). But of course, beneath this rationalist enterprise, we are foundationalists too. As firm believers of the elenchus, this is perhaps the best way to keep your minds squeezed while you await hungrily for the next dose of mental pain and sweet anguish in class and lectures. And for some, placing your mental activities in the open proves or gives meaning to your existence and ease your discomfort with solipsism. So, this is a justified method that serves our pedagogical beliefs. You will make it true.

So

What do we do? What do we do?

(ain't all the best philosophy essays those that ask more questions than they provide answers?)

Fyodor Dostoevsky once said, 'If God didn't exist, everything would be possible."But we also know better that "as with everything in life, there are rules."

Hence, the rules:

1. Tutors will start the ball rolling (of course, you can start off too) with any topics. Students will respond/comment on them (intelligently and intelligibly).

2. Respect for opinions. Cat fights only take place in cages.

3. You can pose any interesting articles/readings/ideas to generate your own discussion. But make sure you should show why it is KI-related. Remember: any presentation of information is considered construction itself.

4. You need to save the topic you are responding to and 3 of your most 'impressive' entries as a microsoft word document. They are to be submitted to your tutors for evaluation by the end of every term.

Questions?

I will get the ball rolling tomorrow. And talking about rolling balls (or boulders in my case), do check out The Myth of Sisyhus by Albert Camus, one of the existential novelists.