(1. Overview: In your own words, explain what you understand about epistemology. If someone asked you what you studied in this chapter, what could you tell that person? What is still confusing to you? Do you see a distinction between epistemology and metaphysics?) Epistemology is the macrocosm of understanding. It is not simply trying to come to conclusions and make predictable guesses, it is the source of it. It is the “why” to asking questions about the world and about the self, more important. Some forms of ‘understanding’ can feel vague and impersonal, such as the hard sciences. There is very little to relate to when trying to fathom physics and biology, no human aspect of it that we can appreciate. That is where epistemology comes in – because it is an extremely personal approach to an overarching idea of knowledge. Not only questioning that around us but questioning why we find it valid. It is in that distinction that epistemology differs from metaphysics. Whereas metaphysics questions how and why something may or may not exist, epistemology asks us how we know our conclusions to be true. (2. Vocabulary: List and define at least 10 terms that you did not know or fully understand before reading this chapter and reviewing the content? Which of those are still unclear to you? Bullet points or a numbered list is fine for this section.) I. A priori knowledge -Knowledge that is justified independently, or prior to, experience. II. A posterior knowledge -Knowledge based on, or after, experience. III. Synthetic a posteriori knowledge -Knowledge based on experience and that adds new information to the subject IV. Synthetic a priori knowledge -Knowledge that is acquired through reason, independently of experience, that is universal and necessary, and provides information about the world. V. Noumena -In Kant’s theory, the things-in-themselves that exist outside of our experience. VI. Paradigm -A consensus within the community of scientists concerning what fundamental laws and theoretical assumptions are to be embraced, what problems need solving, how they should be conceptualized, and what phenomena are relevant to their solution. VII. Scientific Anti-Realism -The claim that scientific theories do not give us a literally true account of the world, but that they provide us with fruitful models useful fictions, and ways to systematize our experience. VIII. Law of noncontradiction -A logical principle that states that it impossible for something to be A, and not-A at the same time. IX. Principle of induction -The assumption that the future will be like the past. X. Correspondence theory of truth -A theory that states (1) reality has a determinant, objective character, and (2) a belief or statement is true or false to the degree to which it corresponds to the objective features of reality. Bolded are those which I did not fully understand. As the book explained for Noumena, it is outside of our realm of experiences, and therefore out of conception. What I don’t particularly understand is the need to label such a concept. Having a blanket term for things that which we have no way of understanding and applying it when a result doesn’t match what we think it should, feels a bit
…show more content…
When in reality it means quite the opposite, that each person’s individual wants or needs for validation are as real as any others but that there is only different takes upon it. Making it real to that individual but not ‘real’ objectively.
(4. Reflection: Is there anything you read or learned this week that has made you rethink your ideas or views on an issue? Did you have conversations about the material with friends or family members?) I’ve gradually started to cease mentioning the material discussed in class with certain family members – due to it getting slightly uncomfortable when bringing up different philosophical stances. In an amusing turn, my own beliefs are very much subjectivist which irritates those who consider themselves to be ‘right’ on a different level than I consider them ‘right’. To me, their opinions are valid because they are a product of their own personal wants making those beliefs real to them. To them, their opinions are valid because that is what is true and feeling as though others need to be convinced of their flavor of truth. Additionally, a majority of my family consider it uninteresting and don’t wish to spend time discussing
When in reality it means quite the opposite, that each person’s individual wants or needs for validation are as real as any others but that there is only different takes upon it. Making it real to that individual but not ‘real’ objectively.
(4. Reflection: Is there anything you read or learned this week that has made you rethink your ideas or views on an issue? Did you have conversations about the material with friends or family members?) I’ve gradually started to cease mentioning the material discussed in class with certain family members – due to it getting slightly uncomfortable when bringing up different philosophical stances. In an amusing turn, my own beliefs are very much subjectivist which irritates those who consider themselves to be ‘right’ on a different level than I consider them ‘right’. To me, their opinions are valid because they are a product of their own personal wants making those beliefs real to them. To them, their opinions are valid because that is what is true and feeling as though others need to be convinced of their flavor of truth. Additionally, a majority of my family consider it uninteresting and don’t wish to spend time discussing