Man is the Measure by Reuben Abel (1976)
Chapter 2: The Basis of Knowledge
1. How does Bertrand Russell differentiate between “knowledge by acquaintance” and “knowledge by description”? (check out the footnote at bottom of p. 19)
"Acquaintance is direct and immediate; it consists of 'raw feel.'... But acquaintance is knowledge only in a preliminary or inarticulate sense. Organized scientific and philosophic knowledge, by contrast, is knowing that such and such is the case: it is descriptive of fact; it is couched in propositions."(19) Knowledge by description can be described and formally stated/proposed, whereas acquaintance cannot due to its being more of a feeling, not fully explicable to other humans or machines (i.e. computers).
2. How does Abel distinguish between “knowing how” and “knowing that”?
"Knowing how" is basically knowledge by description - it can be articulated in propositions, whereas "knowing how" cannot fully be explained or described. Abel says "One may know how to swim, for example, or how to tie a bowtie, without being able to describe exactly how one does these things" whereas "Knowing how to play tic-tac-toe can be articulated precisely in propositions, and formulated as a computer program."(19).
3. What does he mean when he asks: “can knowing how theoretically always be reduced to knowing that?" What is Abel’s answer? What do you think?
I think he means: Can things you know HOW to do, personally, always (in theory) be broken down and explained in pieces of information like facts? Is any knowledge truly indescribable, just a feeling...?
Abel's answer to this is "knowing HOW to do these things perhaps cannot be fully specified in propositional knowing THAT."(20). In other words, no not really; some things you know HOW to do can't be effectively broken down into "I know THAT..."s. I agree with him. I know HOW to breathe, I know HOW it feels to be hungry, but as hard as I try, I cannot fully describe these things or explain them into I know THATs.
4. How does language become a problem of knowledge?
"It is apparently not possible to state fully the rules for some ordinary English usages which we all know how to employ, such as the order of adjectives." (20). Things make sense to our brains because we have become acquainted with and familiarized with their usage, and we recognize certain patterns but cannot fully put them into words that can be comprehended by another person. Some rules and patterns of language are like this; we cannot really state them as a clear fact, a "knowing that.." Thus it makes it hard to communicate how to speak a language to other people; foreign people make mistakes all the time because they are not used to these odd things we native speakers know but cannot explain.
5. What do you think William James means when he says: “Life defies our phrases?” He means that life is too big, too full of feelings, emotions, experiences, and things that we don't even have words for, to be smushed into our vocabulary. There are so many things we cannot even begin to describe accurately and fully... If we try to explain all of life with our words, it will defy us with its complexity, mock us with its indescribable richness.
6. What, according to Abel, is the difference between “experience” and “propositional knowledge”?
On page 21 Abel says, "Experience is a very wide philosophical term: it includes everything we do and everything that happens to us; it encompasses sensations and emotions and pains and aesthic experiences and mystical transports." He describes the function of propositional knowledge as being not to duplicate experience or reproduce what occurs, but to describe and explain it. In other words, experience is all the feelings we get going through life, and knowledge is how we explain it; they are not the same thing and "Not every encounter with the world results in knowledge."
7. What are Abel’s Four Conditions for propositional knowledge? Where have we seen this before? Why does he add a Fourth Condition?
Propositional knowledge has to a true, justified belief that does not have any evidence which might undermine your belief. We saw the first 3 conditions in class, when discussing Plato's conditions for knowledge (Platonic knowledge must be a true, justified belief). Abel adds a fourth condition because even if we have evidence to justify out belief and make it true, if we also have evidence that says the opposite, how can we be sure of what we know? The opposing evidence undermines and renders useless the evidence we were using to justify our claim.
8. What are Abel’s Nine Good Reasons or Evidence which serve as the Basis of Knowledge? Please give an example for each that is not in the book!
His 9 Good Reasons are: sense perception, logic, intuition, self-awareness, memory, authority, consensus gentium, revelation, and faith. An example of sense perception is "I know that fire is hot, because I fet it." An example of logic is "I know that gravity exists because I can prove it. When I drop this pen, it falls." An example of intuition is "I know it is wrong to kill or harm others because it feels bad." An example of self-awareness is "I know that I am sad, because I feel it inside." One of memory is "I know she said that because I remember her saying that." An example of knowing things through authority could be "I know the meeting is at 2 because Mr. Heiser said so, and he is in charge of it." An example of consensus gentium is "I know that it is cool to wear jeans, because everybody does it." A revelation could be "I know that I shouldn't worry about my life because God revealed this to me." An example of faith is "I know I am going to Heaven because I ahve faith in God's promises." But Abel really doesn't consider faith an accurate basis for knowledge at all...
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Class Notes 9/22/08
1.1 "A Sure Way of Knowing"
Plato: 'knowledge' - had to be able to be described and communicated. CERTAINTY.
-has to be reasonable and convincing -> "Flying pig" example is NOT knowledge
"Platonic knowledge"/"knowledge by description"/"propositional knowledge"/"knowing that..." -> formal statement of convincing knowledge.
Academic Knowledge! ex: The world is round. Hitler came to power in 1933.
Platonic Knowledge must must pass 3 tests (conditions):
1. Belief -> this is necessary for knowledge, but not sufficient
2. Truth
A) Public - dog has to be friendly to ALL
B) Independent - separate from belief
C) Must be true NOW & FOREVER ("In the Moment")
3. Justified - Empiricism, Rationalism, Memory, Authority
*EMPIRICISM/experimental learning
-senses: see, smell, taste, hear, touch, feel -> Induction
ex: "I saw my watch say 7:30. The bus arrived. -> The bus arrives at 7:30."
*RATIONALISM/academic knowledge
-instructed using Apriori knowledge ("knowledge that came before")
*Deduction: Go from general theory down to specific
Plato: 'knowledge' - had to be able to be described and communicated. CERTAINTY.
-has to be reasonable and convincing -> "Flying pig" example is NOT knowledge
"Platonic knowledge"/"knowledge by description"/"propositional knowledge"/"knowing that..." -> formal statement of convincing knowledge.
Academic Knowledge! ex: The world is round. Hitler came to power in 1933.
Platonic Knowledge must must pass 3 tests (conditions):
1. Belief -> this is necessary for knowledge, but not sufficient
2. Truth
A) Public - dog has to be friendly to ALL
B) Independent - separate from belief
C) Must be true NOW & FOREVER ("In the Moment")
3. Justified - Empiricism, Rationalism, Memory, Authority
*EMPIRICISM/experimental learning
-senses: see, smell, taste, hear, touch, feel -> Induction
ex: "I saw my watch say 7:30. The bus arrived. -> The bus arrives at 7:30."
*RATIONALISM/academic knowledge
-instructed using Apriori knowledge ("knowledge that came before")
*Deduction: Go from general theory down to specific
The Trouble With Fries - Gladwell
How would Gladwell respond to the responsibility question from September 15?
Gladwell would say it is definitely McDonald's and the other fast food places' responsibility to make healthier fries and foods which are not such a risk to us human consumers. We are obviously not going to make our own fries (most of us I don't think would really be capable), so we are going to buy theirs. And not only are they cooking these things in horrible transfat-containing oils, but they aren't warning us very clearly about it (there aren't big WARNINGs on fries or anything). McDonald's is choosing the cheaper, easier way out, at the expense of the health of its consumers. Gladwell says "it is clear that fast food needs a second revolution."
In his view, McDonald's and such are making the choice to use these harmful ingredients and cooking techniques, when they COULD be making them much more healthy. It is THEIR fault for our health problems (the ones related to eating fastfood at least). Gladwell says in his article, "Ray Kroc's French fries are killing us. Can fast food be fixed?"
"McDonald's and Burger King and Wendy's have switched to a product, without disclosing its risks, that may cost human lives. What is the difference between this and the kind of thing over which consumers sue companies every day?"
According to Gladwell, it is their responsibility to "fix" the fries, but perhaps it is our responsibility to force them to make that change.
Gladwell would say it is definitely McDonald's and the other fast food places' responsibility to make healthier fries and foods which are not such a risk to us human consumers. We are obviously not going to make our own fries (most of us I don't think would really be capable), so we are going to buy theirs. And not only are they cooking these things in horrible transfat-containing oils, but they aren't warning us very clearly about it (there aren't big WARNINGs on fries or anything). McDonald's is choosing the cheaper, easier way out, at the expense of the health of its consumers. Gladwell says "it is clear that fast food needs a second revolution."
In his view, McDonald's and such are making the choice to use these harmful ingredients and cooking techniques, when they COULD be making them much more healthy. It is THEIR fault for our health problems (the ones related to eating fastfood at least). Gladwell says in his article, "Ray Kroc's French fries are killing us. Can fast food be fixed?"
"McDonald's and Burger King and Wendy's have switched to a product, without disclosing its risks, that may cost human lives. What is the difference between this and the kind of thing over which consumers sue companies every day?"
According to Gladwell, it is their responsibility to "fix" the fries, but perhaps it is our responsibility to force them to make that change.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Omnivore's Dimemna
~Did any information in the book come as a surprise to you? If so, why do you think that specific piece of knowledge was kept from you? Does the producer of this knowledge have any responsibility? What is your responsibility as a knower?~
It kind of surprised me to hear that "there are other countries, such as Italy and France, that decide their dinner questions on the basis of such quaint and unscientific criteria as pleasure and tradition, eat all manner of 'unhealthy' foods, and, lo and behold, wind up actually healthier and happier in their eating than we are" because I've always thought of the foreigners who feast upon large amounts of foods we consider fattening, to be... I'm not sure, but not healthier than we are.
I think this knowledge might have been "kept from me" either because of America's tendency to be prideful and not accurately acknowledge other nations' superiorty, or simply because this piece of information was not considered necessary to my general education by my life educators, and I am not one to do research of this type on my own.
I was also really surprised to hear that "There are some forty-five thousand items in the average American supermarket and more than a quarter of them now contain corn." I had no idea there were that many items IN supermarkets, let alone that contain corn... I guess I don't shop much. And I rarely read the ingredients of things because I simply don't think of it, don't specifically care about something, or am too blind to read the typically tiny font in which the ingredients are listed and pretty much hidden.
This information may have been kept from me (and most Americans I would imagine) by supermarkets and by society because they want consumers to keep on buying products despite their unknown ingredients, and make lots of money off using corn as a cheap substitute or general part of foods.
Also, due to my extensive education and many years of research in the field of genetics etc (obviously kidding here), I had no clue that scientists could actually do studies and figure out that "The higher the ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12 in a person’s flesh, the more corn has been in his diet—or in the diet of the animals he or she ate." Real things like this (assuming this book is correct and so are the scientists performing the mentioned studies) make this whole corn arguement have a little more weight with me...
I don't really feel this information was KEPT from me; just, due to its slight randomness when not conversinmg this specific topic, it was not revealed to me by my parents, teachers, the media, etc. (at least not that I remember).
Pollan, the producer of all this knowledge, or at least the person who revealed it, has some responsibility, yes. He could be considered to be slightly respnsible if, because of reading his book, people started buying more organic/local foods and thinking, shopping and eating differently, and the business of supermarkets and the food business in general, were shifted from its current industrialized, preprocessed state.
My responsibility as a knower is to A) admit that I know (not play Miss Ignorance and turn a blind eye to my own problems or those of the world around me) and B) to, if i care enough about it, do something with the knowlegde I have aquired. If I am worried about my own health I should reasearch more ingredients etc in the foods I buy and choose carefully and knowingly what I put into my body. If I wish the current food situation in supermarkets etc to be changed, I should perhaps buy what I want the demand to be so that they will switch to making THAT the supply (buy more organic foods so they will produce more for growing demand).
It kind of surprised me to hear that "there are other countries, such as Italy and France, that decide their dinner questions on the basis of such quaint and unscientific criteria as pleasure and tradition, eat all manner of 'unhealthy' foods, and, lo and behold, wind up actually healthier and happier in their eating than we are" because I've always thought of the foreigners who feast upon large amounts of foods we consider fattening, to be... I'm not sure, but not healthier than we are.
I think this knowledge might have been "kept from me" either because of America's tendency to be prideful and not accurately acknowledge other nations' superiorty, or simply because this piece of information was not considered necessary to my general education by my life educators, and I am not one to do research of this type on my own.
I was also really surprised to hear that "There are some forty-five thousand items in the average American supermarket and more than a quarter of them now contain corn." I had no idea there were that many items IN supermarkets, let alone that contain corn... I guess I don't shop much. And I rarely read the ingredients of things because I simply don't think of it, don't specifically care about something, or am too blind to read the typically tiny font in which the ingredients are listed and pretty much hidden.
This information may have been kept from me (and most Americans I would imagine) by supermarkets and by society because they want consumers to keep on buying products despite their unknown ingredients, and make lots of money off using corn as a cheap substitute or general part of foods.
Also, due to my extensive education and many years of research in the field of genetics etc (obviously kidding here), I had no clue that scientists could actually do studies and figure out that "The higher the ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12 in a person’s flesh, the more corn has been in his diet—or in the diet of the animals he or she ate." Real things like this (assuming this book is correct and so are the scientists performing the mentioned studies) make this whole corn arguement have a little more weight with me...
I don't really feel this information was KEPT from me; just, due to its slight randomness when not conversinmg this specific topic, it was not revealed to me by my parents, teachers, the media, etc. (at least not that I remember).
Pollan, the producer of all this knowledge, or at least the person who revealed it, has some responsibility, yes. He could be considered to be slightly respnsible if, because of reading his book, people started buying more organic/local foods and thinking, shopping and eating differently, and the business of supermarkets and the food business in general, were shifted from its current industrialized, preprocessed state.
My responsibility as a knower is to A) admit that I know (not play Miss Ignorance and turn a blind eye to my own problems or those of the world around me) and B) to, if i care enough about it, do something with the knowlegde I have aquired. If I am worried about my own health I should reasearch more ingredients etc in the foods I buy and choose carefully and knowingly what I put into my body. If I wish the current food situation in supermarkets etc to be changed, I should perhaps buy what I want the demand to be so that they will switch to making THAT the supply (buy more organic foods so they will produce more for growing demand).
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
How do we know what we know? What evidence do you have to support your claim?
We know what we know from what we are taught and what we learn from our personal experiences in life. Growing up, we are taught much by our parents - through watching their behaviors, interacting with them, hearing their "words of wisdom", etc. We are also taught by our teachers and peers, as well as random people in the community. We learn facts and general knowledge, cause and effect, patterns of life, and more from peoples' verbal instruction, the media... I have the evidence of my personal life as well as my friends' and my parents, and pretty much everyone I know. It's impossible to go through life without learning from other people and thus knowing the things you learn. For example, I was taught by both parents and teachers that 2+2=4. Now I know that, no question about it.
Personal experiences are much the same. We find out things for ourselves in life, and then, we know them. When I spilled hot coffee all down myself as a 6 yr old, it really hurt, and I learned that thats not a safe, good idea and to be more careful.
If you are asking the question how are we sure that we KNOW something, rather than how did we come to know things (learning) , I would say that knowledge is something you can remember over and over again, something you can use in life and something that will affect how you think and act. If you don't actually KNOW something, you obviously won't talk about it, use it to make decisions... And when life's various tests arise to test our knowledge, it will be obvious what we do and don't know. With my 2+2=4 example, if I am given a math test and I can't answer that problem, it is obvious that I don't know it. Or if I don't know that when a person gives you a hug, they usually want some sort of return action- a respnse, and giving back of affection- and someone hugs me and I just stand there, it is quite obviously I am unaware of that social behavior rule.
Personal experiences are much the same. We find out things for ourselves in life, and then, we know them. When I spilled hot coffee all down myself as a 6 yr old, it really hurt, and I learned that thats not a safe, good idea and to be more careful.
If you are asking the question how are we sure that we KNOW something, rather than how did we come to know things (learning) , I would say that knowledge is something you can remember over and over again, something you can use in life and something that will affect how you think and act. If you don't actually KNOW something, you obviously won't talk about it, use it to make decisions... And when life's various tests arise to test our knowledge, it will be obvious what we do and don't know. With my 2+2=4 example, if I am given a math test and I can't answer that problem, it is obvious that I don't know it. Or if I don't know that when a person gives you a hug, they usually want some sort of return action- a respnse, and giving back of affection- and someone hugs me and I just stand there, it is quite obviously I am unaware of that social behavior rule.
Do Parents matter?
I was not able to get onto the blog (due to safari failing me each time) and refresh my memory of the exact question, but I read the the article about Judith Harris and her theory that parents don't so much matter in the development of a child, but that their peers matter much more. To the first question asked in TOK, I think she (Harris) would agree that we are our family to some extent because even she admits that our parents pass down genes we cannot escape. However, she feels that we are much more our community, especially the community our age. She would feel that we our much more shaped by our friends and people our age than by our nationality, etc.
I agree somewhat with her, because from personal experience, I can say that for many things, I am much more likely to follow my peers' examples than my parents'. After all, like Harris said, our peers are the new upcoming age; our parents are outdated. However, I do feel that parents are due a BIT more credit for the development of their children than she is giving them. My parents have raised me believing certain things and made me think about certain things. I really believe they have had a big impact on my life and my personality, even if I do not always follow what they wnat, etc.
I agree somewhat with her, because from personal experience, I can say that for many things, I am much more likely to follow my peers' examples than my parents'. After all, like Harris said, our peers are the new upcoming age; our parents are outdated. However, I do feel that parents are due a BIT more credit for the development of their children than she is giving them. My parents have raised me believing certain things and made me think about certain things. I really believe they have had a big impact on my life and my personality, even if I do not always follow what they wnat, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)