intro_question_sheet.docx | |
File Size: | 12 kb |
File Type: | docx |
|
|
What is Philosophical Inquiry
"What do I mean by ‘inquiry’?
By ‘inquiry,’ I mean something like the deliberate project of understanding the world (including ourselves) better. Sometimes this is done in order to accomplish a specific goal like curing polio, or building bridges. And sometime it's not. I take it that building the Large Hadron Collider and looking for the Higgs boson is an example of the latter kind, although there have been highly practical discoveries along the way." - Mikio
Basically, philosophical inquiry and the Scientific Method are pretty tight. Frances Bacon gave us our modern scientific method.
He also gave us much in the way of philosophy. He sought truth not like Plato (understanding meaning of words and content), and Aristotle (emphasizing empirical data). Bacon looked for truth and an understanding of our world through observation and experimentation.
Observation - Hypothesis - Experiment - Results - Conclusion - Further Experiment
Remember that this all began 1000s of years ago, in an effort to understand the natural world. Greeks were looking to explain the world in ways other than through mythology and the gods.
"What do I mean by ‘inquiry’?
By ‘inquiry,’ I mean something like the deliberate project of understanding the world (including ourselves) better. Sometimes this is done in order to accomplish a specific goal like curing polio, or building bridges. And sometime it's not. I take it that building the Large Hadron Collider and looking for the Higgs boson is an example of the latter kind, although there have been highly practical discoveries along the way." - Mikio
Basically, philosophical inquiry and the Scientific Method are pretty tight. Frances Bacon gave us our modern scientific method.
He also gave us much in the way of philosophy. He sought truth not like Plato (understanding meaning of words and content), and Aristotle (emphasizing empirical data). Bacon looked for truth and an understanding of our world through observation and experimentation.
Observation - Hypothesis - Experiment - Results - Conclusion - Further Experiment
Remember that this all began 1000s of years ago, in an effort to understand the natural world. Greeks were looking to explain the world in ways other than through mythology and the gods.
When looking at doing philosophy we must first understand arguments.
I am your teacher.
Premises: I am standing at the front of the class. The room has my name on it. My name is on your schedule.
_________________________________________________
Conclusion: I am your teacher.
(All of the above are propositions)
Proposition: A declarative statement that has a truth value (either true or false).
Premise: A proposition serving as a reason for a conclusion.
Conclusion: A proposition that is supported or entailed by a set of premises.
Argument: A set of propositions where one of which (conclusion) is claimed to derive support or reason to believe from the others (premises).
The “I am the teacher of this class” argument is in normal form—the premises are in a vertical list with the conclusion under them separated by a line. Usually arguments are in English prose (ordinary language), and sometimes in other forms like math proofs. Converting an argument from English prose into normal form allows us to clearly pick out the premises and conclusion.
How can we identify the premises and conclusion of an argument in ordinary language? We are guided by indicator words.
Premise Indicators: since, because, for, in that, as, given that, for the reason that, may be inferred from, owing to, inasmuch as
Conclusion Indicators: therefore, consequently, thus, hence, it follows that, for this reason, we may infer, we may conclude, entails that, implies that
I am your teacher.
Premises: I am standing at the front of the class. The room has my name on it. My name is on your schedule.
_________________________________________________
Conclusion: I am your teacher.
(All of the above are propositions)
Proposition: A declarative statement that has a truth value (either true or false).
Premise: A proposition serving as a reason for a conclusion.
Conclusion: A proposition that is supported or entailed by a set of premises.
Argument: A set of propositions where one of which (conclusion) is claimed to derive support or reason to believe from the others (premises).
The “I am the teacher of this class” argument is in normal form—the premises are in a vertical list with the conclusion under them separated by a line. Usually arguments are in English prose (ordinary language), and sometimes in other forms like math proofs. Converting an argument from English prose into normal form allows us to clearly pick out the premises and conclusion.
How can we identify the premises and conclusion of an argument in ordinary language? We are guided by indicator words.
Premise Indicators: since, because, for, in that, as, given that, for the reason that, may be inferred from, owing to, inasmuch as
Conclusion Indicators: therefore, consequently, thus, hence, it follows that, for this reason, we may infer, we may conclude, entails that, implies that
They were looking for knowledge.
What is knowledge?
A kind of justified, true, belief.
- It has to have a justification, or a reason.
- It has to be true.
- It has to be believed.
If you believe it, that does not mean that you know it.
If you know it, then you must believe.
But is it true? It has to be true, or it is not knowledge... It is a false belief. (Or alternative fact, as Donald Trump would say)
“One of the major thought experiments in epistemology (the field of philosophy that deals with knowledge) is what is known as “The Cow in the Field.” It concerns a farmer who is worried his prize cow has wandered off. When the milkman comes to the farm, he tells the farmer not to worry, because he’s seen that the cow is in a nearby field. Though he’s nearly sure the man is right, the farmer takes a look for himself, sees the familiar black and white shape of his cow, and is satisfied that he knows the cow is there. Later on, the milkman drops by the field to double-check. The cow is indeed there, but it’s hidden in a grove of trees. There is also a large sheet of black and white paper caught in a tree, and it is obvious that the farmer mistook it for his cow."
- Quoted from http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-thought-experiments.php
Peter Thiel - "What doe people agrre merely by convention, and what is truth?" There is a consensus of things that people believe to be true. Maybe the conventions are right, and maybe they're not. And we never want to let a convention be a shortcut for truth. We always need to ask: Is this true?
Did the Farmer know the cow was in the field?
What is the difference between philosophical inquiry and scientific inquiry?
"A fundamental difference between philosophy and science is that philosophy does not constrain itself to the world we live in. In science, we come up with models, we derive their consequences, and then we check them against experiment. This last part is key: a model can be beautiful and consistent, but if it doesn’t match observation, it’s not a model of our world.
Philosophy is a bit like math: it tries to define the words it uses rigorously, and then derives consequences based on these definitions. However, before we test these consequences against experiment, there is no way to tell whether the original definitions were right or not. This is a very important point that many armchair philosophers fail to grasp.
Since I compared philosophy to math, I would also add that the level of rigor in philosophy is not quite as high as in math — that’s the price that needs to be paid for approaching a much broader class of problems. (While philosophy can at least try to answer questions like “is there objective beauty?”, no one knows how to even pose such questions mathematically. Of course, the flip side is that it’s harder to tell whether the answers philosophy gives us are correct or not.)"
- Tiberiu Tesileanu, physicist working in neuroscience
Written Aug 25, 2017
To follow up from Tesileanu's statement above. We must understand philosophical inquiry began thousands of years ago with a group of people called the pre-Socratics. We will look at many of these through the year. But most importantly, we must begin with Socrates, and the concept of Socratic Method.
"The unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates
"Socrates believed that in order for a person to be wise, that individual must be able to understand himself. To Socrates, an individual's actions were directly related to ins intelligence and ignorance. He believed that people should develop [themselves], rather than concentrate on material objects. He sought to understand the difference between acting good and being good."
-Philosophy 101, page 13
Now let's talk about Socratic Method.
The art of asking questions for the sake of understanding.
SOCRATIC METHOD:
Socrates and his students would have discussions about issues and he would question them; and through this questioning, Socrates was attempting to discover the driving force behind how that individual's beliefs were shaped, and through that, get closer to the truth. Basically, by asking people questions, Socrates was looking to find absolute truths.
By asking questions, he was able to expose contradictions in the ways people thought., which allowed him to come to solid conclusions.
Socrates used elunchus, which is a method to disprove someone else's claims.
1. Ask a question, like "What is courage?"
2. Allow the person to explain. "Endurance of the soul."
3. Think of example where the answer given is not true. "Courage is an excellent thing, right? Ignorant endurance, like racist beliefs are not a fine thing are they?"
4. And then his student would refine his answer.
5. Socrates would refute it again, and so on.
We use this method all the time, only we call it, Devil's Advocate.
Back to questions and truth. Philosophy seeks to define words and ideas to find truth. So let's define the word "heap" (or pile). How big is a heap?
Is one hundred grains of sand a heap (or pile)? What about 99? 98? 97?And so on. Removing one grain of sand at a time will leave is with one grain of sand which is a "heap." The problem is that a series of apparently logically water-tight steps lead us to a conclusion that is obviously false. But the logic and the observations seem flawless.
How about this question: Am I fat? I weight 178 lbs.
Would I be fat if I weighed one tenth of a pound more? 178.1? Or what about 178.2? A fraction of a pound, or ounce, or gram can never make the difference between being fat or thin. So working up from my weight, 178.3, 178.4, 178.5, 178.6, 178.7, 178.8, 178.9, 180.0, 180.1... 185.1, 191.3, and so on. You'll still be claiming that a fraction of a gram, or ounce, or pound can't make the difference between fat and thin when we have counted up to 200 or more.
The purpose of these questions is to investigate truth, to find knowledge, through proof.
SO... How do we know what is true and how can we find out? That is the process of philosophical inquiry.
Rene Descartes suggests we doubt everything and proceed from there. This is called radical doubt. Doubt everything and then proceed to find truth from there. What he was left with was this statement. "I think, therefore I am."
But can you trust what you see? What if you are just a brain in a jar, being fed electrical impulses? (The Matrix) Yet, Hilary Putnam rejects this idea. To paraphrase, "the words a person uses inside a virtual world refer to the... elements of that world, not to the things in a [supposed] outside world. Therefore, whether I am sitting under a tree, depends on the state of affairs that exist in the particular world that I inhabit (virtual, or otherwise).
What is knowledge?
A kind of justified, true, belief.
- It has to have a justification, or a reason.
- It has to be true.
- It has to be believed.
If you believe it, that does not mean that you know it.
If you know it, then you must believe.
But is it true? It has to be true, or it is not knowledge... It is a false belief. (Or alternative fact, as Donald Trump would say)
“One of the major thought experiments in epistemology (the field of philosophy that deals with knowledge) is what is known as “The Cow in the Field.” It concerns a farmer who is worried his prize cow has wandered off. When the milkman comes to the farm, he tells the farmer not to worry, because he’s seen that the cow is in a nearby field. Though he’s nearly sure the man is right, the farmer takes a look for himself, sees the familiar black and white shape of his cow, and is satisfied that he knows the cow is there. Later on, the milkman drops by the field to double-check. The cow is indeed there, but it’s hidden in a grove of trees. There is also a large sheet of black and white paper caught in a tree, and it is obvious that the farmer mistook it for his cow."
- Quoted from http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-thought-experiments.php
Peter Thiel - "What doe people agrre merely by convention, and what is truth?" There is a consensus of things that people believe to be true. Maybe the conventions are right, and maybe they're not. And we never want to let a convention be a shortcut for truth. We always need to ask: Is this true?
Did the Farmer know the cow was in the field?
What is the difference between philosophical inquiry and scientific inquiry?
"A fundamental difference between philosophy and science is that philosophy does not constrain itself to the world we live in. In science, we come up with models, we derive their consequences, and then we check them against experiment. This last part is key: a model can be beautiful and consistent, but if it doesn’t match observation, it’s not a model of our world.
Philosophy is a bit like math: it tries to define the words it uses rigorously, and then derives consequences based on these definitions. However, before we test these consequences against experiment, there is no way to tell whether the original definitions were right or not. This is a very important point that many armchair philosophers fail to grasp.
Since I compared philosophy to math, I would also add that the level of rigor in philosophy is not quite as high as in math — that’s the price that needs to be paid for approaching a much broader class of problems. (While philosophy can at least try to answer questions like “is there objective beauty?”, no one knows how to even pose such questions mathematically. Of course, the flip side is that it’s harder to tell whether the answers philosophy gives us are correct or not.)"
- Tiberiu Tesileanu, physicist working in neuroscience
Written Aug 25, 2017
To follow up from Tesileanu's statement above. We must understand philosophical inquiry began thousands of years ago with a group of people called the pre-Socratics. We will look at many of these through the year. But most importantly, we must begin with Socrates, and the concept of Socratic Method.
"The unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates
"Socrates believed that in order for a person to be wise, that individual must be able to understand himself. To Socrates, an individual's actions were directly related to ins intelligence and ignorance. He believed that people should develop [themselves], rather than concentrate on material objects. He sought to understand the difference between acting good and being good."
-Philosophy 101, page 13
Now let's talk about Socratic Method.
The art of asking questions for the sake of understanding.
SOCRATIC METHOD:
Socrates and his students would have discussions about issues and he would question them; and through this questioning, Socrates was attempting to discover the driving force behind how that individual's beliefs were shaped, and through that, get closer to the truth. Basically, by asking people questions, Socrates was looking to find absolute truths.
By asking questions, he was able to expose contradictions in the ways people thought., which allowed him to come to solid conclusions.
Socrates used elunchus, which is a method to disprove someone else's claims.
1. Ask a question, like "What is courage?"
2. Allow the person to explain. "Endurance of the soul."
3. Think of example where the answer given is not true. "Courage is an excellent thing, right? Ignorant endurance, like racist beliefs are not a fine thing are they?"
4. And then his student would refine his answer.
5. Socrates would refute it again, and so on.
We use this method all the time, only we call it, Devil's Advocate.
Back to questions and truth. Philosophy seeks to define words and ideas to find truth. So let's define the word "heap" (or pile). How big is a heap?
Is one hundred grains of sand a heap (or pile)? What about 99? 98? 97?And so on. Removing one grain of sand at a time will leave is with one grain of sand which is a "heap." The problem is that a series of apparently logically water-tight steps lead us to a conclusion that is obviously false. But the logic and the observations seem flawless.
How about this question: Am I fat? I weight 178 lbs.
Would I be fat if I weighed one tenth of a pound more? 178.1? Or what about 178.2? A fraction of a pound, or ounce, or gram can never make the difference between being fat or thin. So working up from my weight, 178.3, 178.4, 178.5, 178.6, 178.7, 178.8, 178.9, 180.0, 180.1... 185.1, 191.3, and so on. You'll still be claiming that a fraction of a gram, or ounce, or pound can't make the difference between fat and thin when we have counted up to 200 or more.
The purpose of these questions is to investigate truth, to find knowledge, through proof.
SO... How do we know what is true and how can we find out? That is the process of philosophical inquiry.
Rene Descartes suggests we doubt everything and proceed from there. This is called radical doubt. Doubt everything and then proceed to find truth from there. What he was left with was this statement. "I think, therefore I am."
But can you trust what you see? What if you are just a brain in a jar, being fed electrical impulses? (The Matrix) Yet, Hilary Putnam rejects this idea. To paraphrase, "the words a person uses inside a virtual world refer to the... elements of that world, not to the things in a [supposed] outside world. Therefore, whether I am sitting under a tree, depends on the state of affairs that exist in the particular world that I inhabit (virtual, or otherwise).