...Skepticism, Rationalism, Empiricism, and Realism Skepticism well known as skepticism involves generally facts on the questions that articulate attitude, facts, beliefs, as well as opinions generated from claims granted elsewhere. Skeptical is a philosophical term and the anticipation of it is supposed to be supported by evidence. Many philosophers around the world, believes that skepticism is a pyrrhonist that refrains and position itself through claiming and making truth. Through various researches, skepticism is believed does not claim truth terming it as an impossible perception however, recommending suspension as belief. On the other hand, empiricism is closely related but not identical as far as academic skepticism is concerned. Through the study, we find that skepticism is comprised of two pragmatic type involving philosophical skepticism and nomothetic science, which is also known as radical empiricism (Greco, 2011). Meanwhile, rationalism is commonly an epistemology discipline that attests knowledge at large. This is a role as well as a source of knowledge that works and articulates justification. However, rationalism is defined as a theory based on the criterion of truth that lacks sensory not but with intellectual deductive. Reality plays a bigger role in refraining rationalism in that it asserts intrinsic and logic structure hence claiming that truth exist and through this intellect can directly grasp these truths at hand. Basing on this fact, as far as the...
Words: 614 - Pages: 3
...The source of knowledge comes from innate ideas and deduction, there is no posteriori knowledge. On the contrary, empiricism regards experience is the primary source of knowledge. Descartes’ universal skepticism and rationalism The key of Descartes’ epistemology is ‘universal skepticism’, unlike tradition skepticism, universal skepticism aims to find a first principle, which in Descartes’ epistemology is ‘The Cogito’. In order to look for a solid ground for knowledge, Descartes has to eliminate any unreliable knowledge, or source of knowledge, which the first will be sensory representations. In the first of the Meditations, Descartes questioned the reliability on delivery of senses: What I have so far accepted as true par excellence, I have got either from the senses or by means of the senses. Now I have sometime caught the senses deceiving me; and a wise man never entirely trusts those who have once cheated him. (AT VII.19; CSMK II.13) Sense experience are open to doubt as they can deceive us. If senses are not true, we cannot different ourselves from dreaming, as what we are perceiving cannot be...
Words: 1125 - Pages: 5
...Philosophers sometimes view the idea of human freedom of action as the real problem of free will, but this classification is one of the main misunderstandings in both subject matters. The misunderstanding between freedom and free will may have begun as early as the time when Thomas Hobbes and David Hume, argued their cases to support the theory of the modern concept of compatibilism. From both Hobbes’ and Hume’s perspective, to be free to act on one's will is basically to be free of external restrictions, limitations, constraints, and controls. From their perspective, the absence any external constraint gives makes the agent freedom to do as he or she wills, even if the person’s will itself is determined (or predetermined) by causal laws of nature. Factors That Affect Personal Development Take a moment to consider all of the genetic and environmental factors that have shaped who you are today, and you will quickly become overwhelmed. From gender, race, and socioeconomic background—to family dynamics, education, and genetics—there are millions of factors that have converged to make you who you are. Most people believe that humans are responsible for their own actions and that they all have the opportunity to make the right choices. But when you consider how large a role race, gender, wealth, and family upbringing all play in shaping an individual, can you truly believe that everyone has the same opportunities? Furthermore, are there some conditions under which people cannot...
Words: 1945 - Pages: 8
...The theory of knowledge, or Epistemology, is an important area in philosophy. Many great philosophical debates have developed because of the different views and principle issues dealing with epistemology. Although there are several principle issues in epistemology, my areas of focus are, empiricism, rationalism, Skepticism, and Justification. Empiricism is the theory that experience is the main focus in giving us knowledge of the world. Empiricists believe that knowledge without personal experience is impossible. Some empiricist believe that a new born baby come into the world knowing nothing and everything that they learn is only by experience. The mind is furnished with information from experience. The concept that all knowledge is arrived from the senses, leads me to believe that empiricist think that it is unreasonable to talk about things we have not experienced. Most radical empiricists believe that religions have no concrete evidence and consequently religious beliefs are insignificant. In essence, empiricism requires solid physical evidence to be considered knowledge. In contrast to empiricism, rationalism is the belief that reasoning is the most important aspect of acquiring knowledge. Rationalists believe that we have some instinctive knowledge. Certain things we just know with having personal experience directly disputes the theory that empiricists believe about newborn babies. Rationalists also believe that some truths can be worked out without having...
Words: 559 - Pages: 3
...generalized meaning of the thing & centered on the sharing of experience about the social world in which people’s perspective differs from one another. The various approaches analyze the social research on the basis of three grounds: Thematic analysis, meta-narratives and mini-narratives and lastly, cause-effect analysis. The changing pattern of the philosophical foundations continuously enriches itself with new dimensions and views about social world. Approaches of philosophy of science in social research There are certain approaches of philosophy of science in social research- * Realism * Empiricism * Positivism * Post positivism * Idealism * Rationalism * Functionalism * Structuralism * Utilitarianism * Instrumentalism * Feminism * Materialism * Skepticism * Nomothetic and Ideographic * Solipsism * Atomism * Holism * Perspectivism * Relativism These are described below- * Realism: Realism is a perspective of social research which represents itself as a dominant indicator on International politics. Context makes the situation. * Ontology: Social reality is stratified into three domains: * the empirical observations are made up of experiences and events through observations; * the real events whether observed or not and the reality consists of the existing processes, powers * Power and causal mechanism that generate events * Epistemology Social reality can be viewed as...
Words: 1443 - Pages: 6
...Believe stating your opinion is proper mode of expression * View others opinion as “judgmental” and disrespectful * Expect professor to support his/her opinion * No right/wrong answers 3. Commitment * Make decisions on the basis of reason and best evidence * Not all thinking is valid Characteristics of a Good Critical Thinker * Analytical thinker—important to recognizing + evaluate others argument * Effective communication—listening, speaking, writing skills (own c. style) * Research + Inquiry skills—to understand + resolving issues * Flexibility + Tolerance for Ambiguity—to adapt any changes * Open-minded skepticism—take view from others perspective * Creative problem solving—uses imagination * Method of doubt—put aside our ideas and believes, begin from a position of skepticism * Method of belief—suspend or doubt + bias, remain open to what people with opposing view are saying * Attentive, Mindful + Curiosity *...
Words: 822 - Pages: 4
...Study Guide for Test 2 Sophie’s World: p. 105 “Philosopher and Scientist” – p. 116 1. Know the order of students from Socrates to Aristotle. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle (Oldest to Youngest). 2. Know the difference between Plato’s forms and the world. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Know how Aristotle thought of forms. “Form” is each things specific characteristics. Example: A chicken’s form is fluttering, crackling and laying eggs. (What is does). But if the chicken dies, the form no longer exists. Aristotle believed there was purpose in everything that happened in nature. 4. Know how Aristotle comes to “know” something. Logic. 5. Know what Aristotle meant by “substance”. “Substance” is what things are made of. When the chicken dies, the only thing remaining is that it’s substance. 6. Know what Aristotle meant by “causes” and know the different kinds of cause. “Cause” is how something came to happen, and Aristotle cared about purpose as well. Material Cause, Efficient Cause and Final Cause. 7. Know the difference between sufficient and necessary causes. If you have (A) is sufficient for (B) it means that every time you have (A) you will have (B), without exception. If you have (A) is necessary for (B) it means that every time you have (B) you will have (A), without exception. 8. Know how Aristotle viewed happiness. “Man can only achieve happiness by using all his abilities and capabilities...
Words: 858 - Pages: 4
...Hypothesizing, is predicting the outcomes of the study involving the potential relationship between at least two variables (Jackson, 2012). Experimenting is the actual research that allows the researcher to establish the information of the study and to finally be able to draw conclusions about the main problem or reason for the experimentation. Scientific Method in Seeking Knowledge and Truth When using the scientific method in seeking knowledge and truth, researchers set the stage for their experiments. Usually, their research is founded from past experiments or studies, and past findings. The findings are based on subjective and objective material. According to Jackson, 2012, the scientific method involves invoking an attitude of skepticism; this is a person who questions validity, authenticity, or truth of something purporting to be factual. With the scientific method, the experimentation offers clear-cut data that either proves or disproves the research problem. According to Clarke, 1999, there has long been a widespread impression that science and the scientific method has always been at odds with the biblical worldview. One of the biggest conflicts between the scientific method and the...
Words: 1246 - Pages: 5
...production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. The question is what does people Know? The core of this questions and area of study is Skepticism, in which there have been many approaches involved in trying to disprove a particular form of this school. This paper will discuss the Epistemology school of Skepticism, the contributors whom created the school; the evolution of how the school grew out of it’s the original field of Epistemology, and a few examples of real-life applications pertaining to the school. Epistemology arisen either in defense of or in opposition to certain forms of skepticism. Skepticism is an attitude of doubt and uncertainty as expressed in everyday language and an identifiable school of thought in history ideas. It’s most general sense refers to doubt, disbelief, uncertainty, suspension of judgment, and rejection of knowledge. It is the doctrine that true knowledge in a particular area is uncertain and argues that beliefs in something does not justify that an assertion of knowledge on the particular subject. It also is characterized by its opposition to dogmatism in which claims to know reality and truth. The school is best understood as the product of two movements in ancient Greek philosophy. Skepticism can be attributed to Socrates and to Plato’s successors at The Academy in Athens (5th to 2nd century BC). Pyrrhonism can be traced back to Pyrrho of Ellis(365-275 BC). Skepticism can be found in many other schools...
Words: 1088 - Pages: 5
...Mind, Meaning, and Metaphysics DALILE, Boushra Rationalism vs. Empiricism: A Deficient Distinction Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It explores how knowledge can be acquired and considers its limits and validity. Rationalism and empiricism are distinct epistemological schools of thought. Among others, they differ significantly regarding the source of concepts and ideas. Prominent rationalists, including Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, argue that one must rely on reason as a purely deductive process to attain justified truths about reality (Cottingham 1988). In contrast, empiricists, including Locke, Berkeley and Hume, argue that knowledge is derived from the role of experience and sense data to formulate ideas. The question of what is the ideal foundation of knowledge is still debatable to date. I will argue that the rationalist vs. empiricist distinction is not exhaustive, and that carefully considering the approach-discipline relationship is crucial. In order to support this claim, this essay will discuss differences between rationalism and empiricism. Next, it will closely examine the advantages of each, drawing on the works of René Descartes and David Hume. Finally, this essay will identify problems with both theories and argue that reason and experience can together generate factual knowledge with respect to the subject matter. The major difference between rationalism and empiricism concerns their knowledge basis....
Words: 1768 - Pages: 8
...matter, not allowing any space for discussion. He, in basic terms, states that the relationship between cause and effect does not exist. On the other hand, Kant is more flexible, stating that, in some way, Hume is right, but in many ways, he is not. Second is the fact that, in his argument, Hume uses his understanding of empiricism and solely that to form a conclusion, while Kant uses traces of both empiricism and rationalism to explain his theory. Lastly, it is clear that Hume limits the mind. He gives no importance to the tool that is responsible for the progress of humanity, by solely talking about the importance of experience and the senses. Kant, again, is not biased, and uses both experience and reason as a basis to his argument, thus giving both these elements strength. These are three of the reasons why Immanuel Kant´s ideas on the relationship between cause and effect are more acceptable than that on David Hume. Kant is less skeptical, has a broader range and variety of arguments, and does not limit his understanding to one aspect of...
Words: 1882 - Pages: 8
...the spread of Hellenistic culture. There various type of changes that occurred during Hellenistic age. It brought about new political and philosophical concepts. Epicureanism held that people could achieve happiness only by withdrawing from public life and, through the exercise of reason, freeing themselves from all sources of anxiety, including a belief in gods. Epicureanism also opened philosophical activity to all despite gender or social condition. Stoicism did so as well through its idea of a world society bound by a shared search for harmony with the Logos. Everyone could achieve this harmony by their passions through reason. Stoicism also encouraged participation in public life to foster harmony throughout world society. Skepticism denied that there is one true path to happiness. In its most sophisticated form, it insisted on the limits of reason, encouraging adherents to base morality not on fixed principle but on practical experience. The most radical of Hellenistic philosophies, Cynicism tried to free people to follow their own natures by denying all forms of authority and promoting ascetic self-discipline. By emphasizing personal fulfillment, Hellenistic philosophy did some of the work of religion, thus preparing the way for Christianity....
Words: 723 - Pages: 3
...Glossary for Philosophy 101 Logic – the study of argument, the study of inference. Statement/proposition – something that is true or false. Argument – a set of statements, some of which are premises and one of which is the conclusion. The conclusion is said to follow from the premises. Premise – a proposition in an argument from which the conclusion follows. Conclusion – a proposition in an argument which follows from the premise(s). Valid argument – an argument whose structure is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. (Alternative “negative” definition: an argument whose structure is such that it is impossible for its conclusion to be false when its premises are true.) Invalid argument – an argument whose structure is such that it is possible for its conclusion to be false when its premises are true. Sound argument – a valid argument with true premises. Tautology – a proposition which is always true, due to its logical structure. (Self-)Contradiction – a proposition which is always false, due to its logical structure. Contingent proposition – a proposition which can be either true or false, due to its logical structure. reductio ad absurdum – (“reduction to the absurd”), proof by contradiction – a form of argument in which we attempt to reach a contradiction, which is then used to deny the supposition that led to the contradiction. Necessary and sufficient conditions A condition is said to be necessary for something when that condition...
Words: 445 - Pages: 2
...'Cartesian doctrine' - that human reason was a valid means of searching for certain knowledge or 'truth'. "Most ancient civilizations knew what we have forgotten: that knowledge is a fearful thing. To know the name of something is to hold power over it. In ancient myths and legends, eating from the tree of knowledge meant banishment from one garden or another. In the modern world, this Janus-like quality of knowledge has been forgotten. Descartes, for example, reached the conclusion that 'the more I sought to inform myself, the more I realized how ignorant I was.' Instead of taking this as a proper conclusion of a good education, Descartes thought ignorance was a solvable problem and set forth to find certain truth through a process of radical skepticism." (Miller et al. The Renewal of Meaning in Education: Responses to the Cultural and Ecological Crisis of our Times Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press, 1993 27) Cartesian belief in the certainty of scientific knowledge or 'truth': Descartes was a brilliant mathematician who was greatly affected by the new physics and astronomy of his time. He did not accept the traditional knowledge of Aristotle...
Words: 3190 - Pages: 13
...WRITTEN REPORT ON PHILIOPHY OF TEACHING SCIENCE By: Mr. Irjo M. Goopio Introduction: What makes a scientist different from a philosopher? A Scientist observes what happens. He manipulates variables whenever possible in order to observe what happens under controlled circumstances. He is able to discover and explain the laws of nature which lead them to formulate theories. A Philosopher does none of the above-mentioned activities. Instead he asks himself questions like: “what is the law of nature?” “What is a scientific theory?” He explains the role of deduction in science. Philosophy is unlike science, pure verbal, analytical, and reflective. Then how can a scientist be a philosopher? Discussion: * What is philosophy? * Remote from the usual human interest and quite beyond normal comprehension. * Extremely complex intellectual activity. * A form of Inquiry – a process of analysis, criticism, interpretation and speculation. (Singer – 1990) * The search for the ultimate, conducted by reason, in order to satisfy man’s curiosity about himself and the universe. * Why study philosophy? * Makes a man think – think about the basic foundations of: * His beliefs * Outlook in life * His knowledge * It is from our human needs and immediate concerns * What is philosophy of science? * Set forth principles more basic and comprehensive than the conclusions of individual sciences. *...
Words: 1804 - Pages: 8
