We completed Popper's document as a class today but because we had started it yesterday, I just reopened yesterday's blog post and finished Popper's document there. So if you want to see the entire three documents with the class' comments, please look at yesterday's post.
We'll start our pre-prepared Questions and Answers for the documents on Thursday and complete them on Friday, then run seminars on Monday and Tuesday. I'm not here Wednesday, then we'll start Ethics on Thursday and Friday!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
DAY 53 April 27 Seminar 2 Preparation Day
After submitting your good copy along with two peer edited copies of your Matrix projects today, we will start prep for the upcoming seminar for Epistemology.
Here are the readings: Seminar 2 Readings in Epistemology: Locke, Bacon, Popper
As in the first seminar, you are to prepare ahead of time six questions, two based on each of the readings. Your questions should deal with topics the emerge from the readings and that have to do with Epistemology.
Your questions should include a quote from the reading to ensure the connection.
Your answers should include references, direct quotes, use of theories of not only the philosopher that wrote the reading but at least one other, preferably two other philosophers which can lend support to your point of view in answering the question you've posed.
You should also be very clear about connecting the Epistemological ideas with links to society today or through history in order to make the topic relevant to life.
Everyone got that? Direct quotes from more than one philosopher, societal links, use of theories.
Today we'll spend going over the documents as a class so that the language used is understandable and that the main ideas are clear to everyone.
Below are notes on the readings:
Seminar # 2 Readings
Essay Concerning Human Understanding – John Locke [1690 "All ideas come from sensation or reflection".]
Let us suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas; how comes it to be furnished? He's really asking, "Where does our knowledge come from?" Whence (i.e. from what source) has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from experience. Locke is suggesting that our knowledge comes from experience - empiricism, also a posteriori knowledge Our observation, employed either about external sensible objects, or about the internal operations of our minds is that which supplies our understandings with all the materials of thinking. These two are the fountains of knowledge, from which all the ideas we have, or can naturally have, do spring. He's talking about empiricism and then rationalism as the sources of knowledge. In other words, we collected information, data, sensory-supplied etc. and then we think about it.
The object of sensation is one source of ideas. First, our senses do convey into the mind several distinct perceptions of things, according to those various ways wherein those objects do affect them; we collect data/information through our senses and thus we come by those ideas we have of yellow, white, heat, cold, soft, hard, bitter, sweet, and all those which we call sensible qualities. This great source of most of the ideas we have, depending wholly upon our senses, and derived by them to the understanding, I call sensation. Further clarification of what he means by sensory information - he calls it sensation.
The operation of our minds is the other source of them. Secondly, the other fountain, from which experience furnishes the understanding with ideas, is the perception of the operations of our own mind within us, as it is employed about the ideas it has got; Locke is suggesting that a second source of ideas/information is our mind, which thinks about, processes, the sensory data it gets which operations do furnish the understanding with another set of ideas which could not be had from things without; and such are perception, thinking, doubting, believing, reasoning, knowing, willing, and all the different actings of our own minds; which we, being conscious of, and observing in ourselves, do from these receive into our understandings as distinct ideas. I call this reflection, understood to mean that notice which the mind takes of its own operations. Further clarifying what he means by the actions of the mind - he calls it reflection.
All our ideas are of the one or the other of these. Locke's big statement - it's either sensation, reflection or both The understanding seems to me not to have the least glimmering of any ideas which it does not receive from one of these two. Ideas MUST come from experience first, no such thing as a priori knowledge for Locke External objects furnish the mind with the ideas of sensible qualities, which are all those different perceptions they produce in us; and the mind furnishes the understanding with ideas of its own operations.
Observable in children. He that attentively considers that the state of a child at his first coming into the world will have little reason to think him stored with plenty of ideas that are to be the matter of his future knowledge. Locke suggests that we are NOT born with knowledge or innate ideas, in other words, NO a priori knowledge It is by degrees he comes to be furnished with them.
Men are differently furnished with these according to the different objects they converse with. Men then come to be furnished with fewer or more simple ideas from without, according as the objects they converse with afford greater or less variety; and from the operations of their minds within, according as they more or less reflect on them. Knowledge varies according to the different experiences that people have. He suggests that potential for knowledge is generally the same, but environment then plays a role
Novum Organum (The New Method) – Sir Francis Bacon [The New Method, 1620, Book 1. London: Routledge, pp. 259-266]
Where do YOU get your ideas/knowledge today? TV, school, government, parents, Google, media, Internet. What have you been school in in the acquisition of knowledge ? The Scientific Method. You don't believe most things unless there is some substantial proof behind it.
As all the sciences we now have do not help us in finding out new works, so neither does the logic we now have help us in finding out new sciences. The logic now in use serves rather to fix and give stability to the errors what errors? which have their foundations in commonly received notions. if the source of your information is from the list above, notably the church, does it leave room for EMPIRICAL information? No, because most of what was "known" was based on faith So it does more harm than good.
The discoveries which have hitherto (i.e. up to this time) been made in the sciences are such as lie close to vulgar [everyday, commonplace] notions, scarcely beneath the surface. In order to penetrate into the more and further recesses of nature it is necessary to determine a more sure and guarded way; and that a method of intellectual operation be introduced altogether better and more certain. Introduces the need for a "new method" of discovery
It is idle [pointless] to expect any great advancement in science from the engraving of new things upon old. If we base new ideas on old, incorrect ones, it will surely hinder our advancement We must begin anew from the very foundations, unless we would revolve forever in a circle with contemptible [useless] progress. He calls for change, what we now know as the beginning of the Scientific Method
One method of discovery alone remains to us, which is simply this: we must lead men to the particulars themselves by particulars here, he's referring to data/information etc. while men on their side must force themselves for a while to lay their notions aside and begin to familiarize themselves with facts. What facts does he refer to? Something NOT based on faith alone
The idols and false notions which are now in possession of the human understanding, and have taken deep root therein, so beset men’s minds that truth can hardly find entrance. Old ways of thinking and getting information actually prevent us from finding the truth (thus, let's consider the new Scientific Method)
---------------
Science and Falsifiability - Karl Popper [“Science: Conjectures and Refutation.” In British Philosophy in Mid-Century, ed. By C.A. Mace, 1957. London: Routledge, 1963 (3rd ed. 1969), chap 1.]
The problem which troubled me was that I wished to distinguish between science and pseudo-science [“pseudo-science” means “non-science” or “false science” in this context], knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudo-science may happen to stumble on the truth. He's suggesting that both methods can actually arrive at the truth.
I know, of course, the most widely accepted answer to my problem: that science is distinguished from pseudo-science by its empirical method, which is essentially inductive, proceeding from observation or experiment. But this did not satisfy me. I often formulated my problem as one of distinguishing between a genuinely empirical method and a non-empirical or even a pseudo-empirical method – that is to say, a method which although it appeals to observation and experiment, nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards. The latter method may be exemplified by astrology, with its stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation – on horoscopes and on biographies. For fun we checked some horoscopes today and yes, they had lots of truth to them. Clearly we find truth in our horoscopes, but are they a valid method of searching for the truth? In the examples below Popper suggests that we find ways to make the data fit into our preconceived notions/theories - therefore it's not valid to use pseudo-science to search for the truth
I found those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The world was full of verification of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it.
A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their “clinical observations.” It would seem that everywhere they looked they gathered evidence that supported their theories. Is this valid? According to Popper, no, it's not a valid method to search for the truth.
With Einstein’s theory the situation was strikingly different. Take one typical instance – Einstein’s prediction that light must be attracted by heavy bodies. [This was confirmed by Eddington’s expedition which measured the shift in the light coming from a star.]
Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind.
These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows:
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verification, for nearly every theory – if we look for confirmations. As seen in the examples of Freud, Adler, Marx and others, we'll probably always find confirmations if we look for them, thus, not entirely scientific.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions.
3. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. Limit the variables, i.e. discounting as many other possibilities as possible
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it. To falsify something means to prove it incorrect.
E.g. All swans are white.
Is this statement falsifiable? Yes, because all someone has to do is find a swan that's not white. It would help to find every existing swan and check its colour. Swans in Australia are, in fact, black
E.g. Is it possible to DISprove the existence of God? Therefore, the realm of something that is not falsifiable is "faith", or belief.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory. Evidence should only be accepted as evidence if it's been collected considering # 4 & 5 above.
7. The belief that science proceeds from observation to theory is still so widely and so firmly held that my denial of it is often met with incredulity. He's saying that Scientific Method comes first, then we use it to collect information etc. etc.
But in fact the belief that we can start with pure observations alone, without anything in the nature of a theory, is absurd; as many be illustrated by the story of the man who dedicated his life to natural science, wrote down everything he could observe, and bequeathed his priceless collection of observations to the Royal Society to be used as inductive evidence. This story should show us that though beetles may profitably be collected, observations may not.
I tried to bring home the same point to a group of physics students in Vienna by beginning a lecture with the following instructions: “Take pencil and paper, carefully observe, and write down what you have observed!” They asked, of course, what I wanted them to observe. Clearly the instruction, “Observe!” is absurd. Observation is always selective. It needs a chosen object, a definite task, an interest, a point of view, and a problem. An eloquent (simplified) version of his call for Scientific Methods to collect information and draw meaning from it.
Here are the readings: Seminar 2 Readings in Epistemology: Locke, Bacon, Popper
As in the first seminar, you are to prepare ahead of time six questions, two based on each of the readings. Your questions should deal with topics the emerge from the readings and that have to do with Epistemology.
Your questions should include a quote from the reading to ensure the connection.
Your answers should include references, direct quotes, use of theories of not only the philosopher that wrote the reading but at least one other, preferably two other philosophers which can lend support to your point of view in answering the question you've posed.
You should also be very clear about connecting the Epistemological ideas with links to society today or through history in order to make the topic relevant to life.
Everyone got that? Direct quotes from more than one philosopher, societal links, use of theories.
Today we'll spend going over the documents as a class so that the language used is understandable and that the main ideas are clear to everyone.
Below are notes on the readings:
Seminar # 2 Readings
Essay Concerning Human Understanding – John Locke [1690 "All ideas come from sensation or reflection".]
Let us suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas; how comes it to be furnished? He's really asking, "Where does our knowledge come from?" Whence (i.e. from what source) has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from experience. Locke is suggesting that our knowledge comes from experience - empiricism, also a posteriori knowledge Our observation, employed either about external sensible objects, or about the internal operations of our minds is that which supplies our understandings with all the materials of thinking. These two are the fountains of knowledge, from which all the ideas we have, or can naturally have, do spring. He's talking about empiricism and then rationalism as the sources of knowledge. In other words, we collected information, data, sensory-supplied etc. and then we think about it.
The object of sensation is one source of ideas. First, our senses do convey into the mind several distinct perceptions of things, according to those various ways wherein those objects do affect them; we collect data/information through our senses and thus we come by those ideas we have of yellow, white, heat, cold, soft, hard, bitter, sweet, and all those which we call sensible qualities. This great source of most of the ideas we have, depending wholly upon our senses, and derived by them to the understanding, I call sensation. Further clarification of what he means by sensory information - he calls it sensation.
The operation of our minds is the other source of them. Secondly, the other fountain, from which experience furnishes the understanding with ideas, is the perception of the operations of our own mind within us, as it is employed about the ideas it has got; Locke is suggesting that a second source of ideas/information is our mind, which thinks about, processes, the sensory data it gets which operations do furnish the understanding with another set of ideas which could not be had from things without; and such are perception, thinking, doubting, believing, reasoning, knowing, willing, and all the different actings of our own minds; which we, being conscious of, and observing in ourselves, do from these receive into our understandings as distinct ideas. I call this reflection, understood to mean that notice which the mind takes of its own operations. Further clarifying what he means by the actions of the mind - he calls it reflection.
All our ideas are of the one or the other of these. Locke's big statement - it's either sensation, reflection or both The understanding seems to me not to have the least glimmering of any ideas which it does not receive from one of these two. Ideas MUST come from experience first, no such thing as a priori knowledge for Locke External objects furnish the mind with the ideas of sensible qualities, which are all those different perceptions they produce in us; and the mind furnishes the understanding with ideas of its own operations.
Observable in children. He that attentively considers that the state of a child at his first coming into the world will have little reason to think him stored with plenty of ideas that are to be the matter of his future knowledge. Locke suggests that we are NOT born with knowledge or innate ideas, in other words, NO a priori knowledge It is by degrees he comes to be furnished with them.
Men are differently furnished with these according to the different objects they converse with. Men then come to be furnished with fewer or more simple ideas from without, according as the objects they converse with afford greater or less variety; and from the operations of their minds within, according as they more or less reflect on them. Knowledge varies according to the different experiences that people have. He suggests that potential for knowledge is generally the same, but environment then plays a role
Novum Organum (The New Method) – Sir Francis Bacon [The New Method, 1620, Book 1. London: Routledge, pp. 259-266]
Where did people at that time (1620) in Europe get their ideas/knowledge? Church, religion, government, old wives' tales, superstition, other people, family traditions, etc.
As all the sciences we now have do not help us in finding out new works, so neither does the logic we now have help us in finding out new sciences. The logic now in use serves rather to fix and give stability to the errors what errors? which have their foundations in commonly received notions. if the source of your information is from the list above, notably the church, does it leave room for EMPIRICAL information? No, because most of what was "known" was based on faith So it does more harm than good.
The discoveries which have hitherto (i.e. up to this time) been made in the sciences are such as lie close to vulgar [everyday, commonplace] notions, scarcely beneath the surface. In order to penetrate into the more and further recesses of nature it is necessary to determine a more sure and guarded way; and that a method of intellectual operation be introduced altogether better and more certain. Introduces the need for a "new method" of discovery
It is idle [pointless] to expect any great advancement in science from the engraving of new things upon old. If we base new ideas on old, incorrect ones, it will surely hinder our advancement We must begin anew from the very foundations, unless we would revolve forever in a circle with contemptible [useless] progress. He calls for change, what we now know as the beginning of the Scientific Method
One method of discovery alone remains to us, which is simply this: we must lead men to the particulars themselves by particulars here, he's referring to data/information etc. while men on their side must force themselves for a while to lay their notions aside and begin to familiarize themselves with facts. What facts does he refer to? Something NOT based on faith alone
The idols and false notions which are now in possession of the human understanding, and have taken deep root therein, so beset men’s minds that truth can hardly find entrance. Old ways of thinking and getting information actually prevent us from finding the truth (thus, let's consider the new Scientific Method)
---------------
Science and Falsifiability - Karl Popper [“Science: Conjectures and Refutation.” In British Philosophy in Mid-Century, ed. By C.A. Mace, 1957. London: Routledge, 1963 (3rd ed. 1969), chap 1.]
The problem which troubled me was that I wished to distinguish between science and pseudo-science [“pseudo-science” means “non-science” or “false science” in this context], knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudo-science may happen to stumble on the truth. He's suggesting that both methods can actually arrive at the truth.
I know, of course, the most widely accepted answer to my problem: that science is distinguished from pseudo-science by its empirical method, which is essentially inductive, proceeding from observation or experiment. But this did not satisfy me. I often formulated my problem as one of distinguishing between a genuinely empirical method and a non-empirical or even a pseudo-empirical method – that is to say, a method which although it appeals to observation and experiment, nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards. The latter method may be exemplified by astrology, with its stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation – on horoscopes and on biographies. For fun we checked some horoscopes today and yes, they had lots of truth to them. Clearly we find truth in our horoscopes, but are they a valid method of searching for the truth? In the examples below Popper suggests that we find ways to make the data fit into our preconceived notions/theories - therefore it's not valid to use pseudo-science to search for the truth
I found those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The world was full of verification of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it.
A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their “clinical observations.” It would seem that everywhere they looked they gathered evidence that supported their theories. Is this valid? According to Popper, no, it's not a valid method to search for the truth.
With Einstein’s theory the situation was strikingly different. Take one typical instance – Einstein’s prediction that light must be attracted by heavy bodies. [This was confirmed by Eddington’s expedition which measured the shift in the light coming from a star.]
Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind.
These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows:
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verification, for nearly every theory – if we look for confirmations. As seen in the examples of Freud, Adler, Marx and others, we'll probably always find confirmations if we look for them, thus, not entirely scientific.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions.
3. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. Limit the variables, i.e. discounting as many other possibilities as possible
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it. To falsify something means to prove it incorrect.
E.g. All swans are white.
Is this statement falsifiable? Yes, because all someone has to do is find a swan that's not white. It would help to find every existing swan and check its colour. Swans in Australia are, in fact, black
E.g. Is it possible to DISprove the existence of God? Therefore, the realm of something that is not falsifiable is "faith", or belief.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory. Evidence should only be accepted as evidence if it's been collected considering # 4 & 5 above.
7. The belief that science proceeds from observation to theory is still so widely and so firmly held that my denial of it is often met with incredulity. He's saying that Scientific Method comes first, then we use it to collect information etc. etc.
But in fact the belief that we can start with pure observations alone, without anything in the nature of a theory, is absurd; as many be illustrated by the story of the man who dedicated his life to natural science, wrote down everything he could observe, and bequeathed his priceless collection of observations to the Royal Society to be used as inductive evidence. This story should show us that though beetles may profitably be collected, observations may not.
I tried to bring home the same point to a group of physics students in Vienna by beginning a lecture with the following instructions: “Take pencil and paper, carefully observe, and write down what you have observed!” They asked, of course, what I wanted them to observe. Clearly the instruction, “Observe!” is absurd. Observation is always selective. It needs a chosen object, a definite task, an interest, a point of view, and a problem. An eloquent (simplified) version of his call for Scientific Methods to collect information and draw meaning from it.
DAY 52 April 26 The Matrix Peer Edit Day
This is the day for peer editing your Matrix projects. Two copies, peer edited, good copies along with your peer edited copies are due at the beginning of class tomorrow.
Then we'll start prepping for the upcoming seminars.
Then we'll start prepping for the upcoming seminars.
DAY 51 April 23 The Matrix
In my absence today, Mrs. Boychuk will help anyone in need of assistance in working on your Matrix assignments.
A reminder that two copies for peer editing are due Monday, good copy is due Tuesday.
A reminder that two copies for peer editing are due Monday, good copy is due Tuesday.
DAY 50 April 22 The Matrix
We finished the film today and then I had everyone use their green Philosophy Bytes folders to get started on the assignment for the Matrix Film Review. I had everyone go through the first steps of the assignment thus creating a skeleton outline. We of course discussed everyone's thoughts along the way.
I also told everyone that the timeline was too tight so that the due date for two copies for peer editing is moved ahead one day to Monday, and that the submission date for your good copy plus the two peer-edited copies is Tuesday.
I also told everyone that the timeline was too tight so that the due date for two copies for peer editing is moved ahead one day to Monday, and that the submission date for your good copy plus the two peer-edited copies is Tuesday.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
DAY 49 April 21 Matrix some more
Second day for The Matrix - assignment and marking sheet are on yesterday's post.
Just a reminder that your How I Know What I Know assignment is due - if it's not in by now it's late.
Just a reminder that your How I Know What I Know assignment is due - if it's not in by now it's late.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
DAY 48 The Matrix
The Matrix
SYNOPSIS: Neo, a software developer by day and computer hacker by night, is recruited by an underground rebel named Morpheus. Morpheus explains that Neo and everyone else has been living in an illusion generated by a massive computer called the Matrix. The Matrix, in turn, is powered by the biologically-created electricity of millions of humans that are wired to it in a dream-like state. Neo physically breaks free of the Matrix and, now in the real world, attempts to expose the illusion with Morpheus and other rebels. They re-enter the world of the Matrix where Neo successfully battles the Matrix’s law enforcement agents and learns that he himself is a messianic leader.
This assignment is due on Monday, April 26 at the beginning of class.
Rough draft for peer editing is due on Friday, April 23. Two copies of rough work are due for peer editing during class - these are to be submitted with your final work on Monday.
After watching the 1999 movie The Matrix, please write a 1000 word review of the film. In your review address the following:
a. What main epistemological question(s) is dealt with in the movie?
b. What philosophers and their theories could you use in helping to address and explain these questions?
c. In your opinion, what main epistemological issue was raised but not answered?
d. How could you answer this issue?
e. What theorist would you use to help support your response?
The marking scheme for this is as follows:
Evaluation
Knowledge /20
/10 Main epistemological question(s) is/are identified correctly and explained correctly.
/10 You use philosophers' theories correctly, clearly and precisely in answering the question(s) posed.
Thinking /20
/10 You correctly identify and explain a main epistemological question that was raised but not answered.
/10 You respond to that question clearly and effectively using at least one philosopher’s theory.
Communication /20
/10 Maturity in thought, sentence structure and language is evident.
/10 Proper language conventions are followed and there are no errors in grammar, spelling, syntax.
Application /20
/10 You provide a very detailed and balanced evaluation of the philosopher and his/her suggested answer to the main Matrix question(s) including good use of quotes and theories.
/10 Two copies of peer edited rough work are submitted on time with your good copy.
SYNOPSIS: Neo, a software developer by day and computer hacker by night, is recruited by an underground rebel named Morpheus. Morpheus explains that Neo and everyone else has been living in an illusion generated by a massive computer called the Matrix. The Matrix, in turn, is powered by the biologically-created electricity of millions of humans that are wired to it in a dream-like state. Neo physically breaks free of the Matrix and, now in the real world, attempts to expose the illusion with Morpheus and other rebels. They re-enter the world of the Matrix where Neo successfully battles the Matrix’s law enforcement agents and learns that he himself is a messianic leader.
This assignment is due on Monday, April 26 at the beginning of class.
Rough draft for peer editing is due on Friday, April 23. Two copies of rough work are due for peer editing during class - these are to be submitted with your final work on Monday.
After watching the 1999 movie The Matrix, please write a 1000 word review of the film. In your review address the following:
a. What main epistemological question(s) is dealt with in the movie?
b. What philosophers and their theories could you use in helping to address and explain these questions?
c. In your opinion, what main epistemological issue was raised but not answered?
d. How could you answer this issue?
e. What theorist would you use to help support your response?
The marking scheme for this is as follows:
Evaluation
Knowledge /20
/10 Main epistemological question(s) is/are identified correctly and explained correctly.
/10 You use philosophers' theories correctly, clearly and precisely in answering the question(s) posed.
Thinking /20
/10 You correctly identify and explain a main epistemological question that was raised but not answered.
/10 You respond to that question clearly and effectively using at least one philosopher’s theory.
Communication /20
/10 Maturity in thought, sentence structure and language is evident.
/10 Proper language conventions are followed and there are no errors in grammar, spelling, syntax.
Application /20
/10 You provide a very detailed and balanced evaluation of the philosopher and his/her suggested answer to the main Matrix question(s) including good use of quotes and theories.
/10 Two copies of peer edited rough work are submitted on time with your good copy.
Monday, April 19, 2010
DAY 47 April 19 Brain in a Vat
Brain in a Vat
We will now have a look at how we can come to a conclusion that what we think we know is actually reality, a main idea in epistemology. We will be looking at concepts of how we can actually know anything at all:
Skepticism and Rationalism are the main themes in this section.
Please read the thought experiment, "The Brain in the Vat" on p. 201 of the text. Then respond to this question:
How do you know you are not a brain in a vat and how can you know this for certain?"
in your Philosophy Bytes green folder. Be prepared that another person in the class will read your work on this so that they can comment on it.
Tomorrow we will begin our study of The Matrix.
Some of the ideas that the class came up with for The Brain in a Vat include:
1. Circular argument - how could we ever come up with the idea of being a Brain in a Vat?
2. Breakdown of the probability.
3. Scientists could never actually know the inner workings of the mind.
4. The reality and truth experienced by someone as a brain in a vat would still be the truth and reality to that person (i.e. perception).
5. Snowdon reference - some connection here.
6. It's not scientifically possible therefore it's a ridiculous notion - rationalization proves that this can't happen.
7. No evidence can possible disprove that you're not a brain in a vat (???), ahh, but the evidence could be simulated.
8. Not enough knowledge - it's just an idea where there are no other actual events, past or present . . .
DAY 46 April 16 How I Know What I Know
Last work day for How I Know What I Know - 3 Questions Project. I'm looking forward to reading these research projects as they're due Monday, beginning of class.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Day 45 April 15 How I Know What I Know
2nd last day of How I Know What I Know.
Here are the next two parts of this project. Of course the time lines I set out below are guidelines. ALL of your work on this should be done by the end of Day 5.
Day 4:
Complete your ANNOTATED bibliography. Be sure to include your textbook as a source plus a minimum of four other sources. Your annotations must discuss the validity of the sources and what areas you used.
Day 5:
Personal reflection: After having completed your research notes identify ONE important epistemological question he has asked. (eg. What is knowledge?). Explain how he answered the question. Ask yourself what is missing from his response, what appealed to you about his answer and what counter-arguments you might propose to his answer. How is his philosophy used in today’s world? (eg. Law, government, education etc). Write a 300-500 word personal reflection that formulates and defends your own responses to the epistemological question you selected.
Here are the next two parts of this project. Of course the time lines I set out below are guidelines. ALL of your work on this should be done by the end of Day 5.
Day 4:
Complete your ANNOTATED bibliography. Be sure to include your textbook as a source plus a minimum of four other sources. Your annotations must discuss the validity of the sources and what areas you used.
Day 5:
Personal reflection: After having completed your research notes identify ONE important epistemological question he has asked. (eg. What is knowledge?). Explain how he answered the question. Ask yourself what is missing from his response, what appealed to you about his answer and what counter-arguments you might propose to his answer. How is his philosophy used in today’s world? (eg. Law, government, education etc). Write a 300-500 word personal reflection that formulates and defends your own responses to the epistemological question you selected.
DAY 44 April 14 How I Know What I Know
This was the third day of the project, please continue with the work. Tomorrow I'll post the next part of this project.
I returned all of your marked work today and we determined that anything that is outstanding that you can submit by class time on Monday will make it's way onto the report card, otherwise the zeros stand.
I returned all of your marked work today and we determined that anything that is outstanding that you can submit by class time on Monday will make it's way onto the report card, otherwise the zeros stand.
DAY 43 April 13 How I Know What I Know Day 2
Please continue your work on How I Know What I Know (in my absence). Mrs. Boychuk will look after everyone and, of course, you can email me any time.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
DAY 42 April 12 How I Know What I Know . . . 3 Questions Project
How I Know What I Know Project
Answering Key Epistemological Questions
Your study of epistemology requires you to understand the relationships between asking questions, receiving answers, theories of philosophers and your own interpretation of that information.
Check out the handout for How I Know What I Know to get you started.
This is a four day project, entirely done in class, so there is a great deal of pressure on you to perform and get this done in four days. Remember, 12U classes are demanding and this is one of those weeks where I am demanding your BEST ! !
Today you are in the Library - if you have your laptop please use it. Otherwise please use one of the 5 machines along the wall. Tomorrow we'll be in class so please bring your laptop again - we'll accommodate those who cannot bring one.
Answering Key Epistemological Questions
Your study of epistemology requires you to understand the relationships between asking questions, receiving answers, theories of philosophers and your own interpretation of that information.
Check out the handout for How I Know What I Know to get you started.
This is a four day project, entirely done in class, so there is a great deal of pressure on you to perform and get this done in four days. Remember, 12U classes are demanding and this is one of those weeks where I am demanding your BEST ! !
Today you are in the Library - if you have your laptop please use it. Otherwise please use one of the 5 machines along the wall. Tomorrow we'll be in class so please bring your laptop again - we'll accommodate those who cannot bring one.
Friday, April 9, 2010
DAY 41 April 9 More on Philosophers and Knowing
Originally I thought that today would work for starting the How I Know Project but there are many people out of class for sports and/or the Music - Grade 8 Day, so Monday it will be. Please bring a laptop if at all possible for Monday through Thursday next week.
Today's work will focus on getting caught up - i.e notes through Chapters 9 and 10 in preparation for the project next week.
Today's work will focus on getting caught up - i.e notes through Chapters 9 and 10 in preparation for the project next week.
DAY 40 April 8 Philosophers and Knowing
We spent the first part of the class reassembling the desks after the Grade 10 Literacy Test. Then we got to the business of discussing various ways of acquiring knowledge - see the list of seven at the bottom of the handout Philosophers and Knowing. You should then complete the chart and do the questions.
I asked that everyone try to bring a laptop to class so that we could start the How I Know What I Know (3 Questions) project. We'll do this as a blog so that the class can see what others are writing.
I asked that everyone try to bring a laptop to class so that we could start the How I Know What I Know (3 Questions) project. We'll do this as a blog so that the class can see what others are writing.
DAY 39 April 7 More on Acquiring Knowledge
As a following up and review of the work so far in Epistemology we went through some of the postings from earlier in the unit. See the Intro to Epistemology for these postings.
We watched the Bill Nye video on optical illusions and we looked at a couple of other YouTube videos of your choice, one regarding a blind painter and another regarding a woman with synaesthesia. Good discussions followed.
We watched the Bill Nye video on optical illusions and we looked at a couple of other YouTube videos of your choice, one regarding a blind painter and another regarding a woman with synaesthesia. Good discussions followed.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
DAY 38 April 6 A Priori vs A Posteriori
We spent time today going through some of the theories of acquiring knowledge, in particular acquiring knowledge by thinking about information, i.e. before actually experiencing it = " a priori " and then we looked at acquiring knowledge by experiencing something = " a posteriori ".
You then completed the handout on Acquiring Knowledge.
You then completed the handout on Acquiring Knowledge.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
DAY 37 April 1 Seminar 1 Metaphysics
Jessica, Sean, Danny, Jeff, Tia, Kalsey and Carli did their seminar 1 today and again, they did just great!
For the long weekend - well, I realize that this is a holiday and I hope you all treat it as such but if you have fallen behind, and I know some of you have, then take some time out of the weekend to get caught up. You should have completed all of the introductory work, posted earlier, by Tuesday.
For the long weekend - well, I realize that this is a holiday and I hope you all treat it as such but if you have fallen behind, and I know some of you have, then take some time out of the weekend to get caught up. You should have completed all of the introductory work, posted earlier, by Tuesday.
DAY 36 Seminar 1 Metaphysics
Sophie, Emily, Raven, Cara, Sam and Hayley participated in our first seminar and hey, they did just beautifully!
Tomorrow Group 2!
Tomorrow Group 2!
DAY 35 March 30 Epistemology Intro
We continued going through the original Epistemology Introduction material posted earlier and then we spent a bit of time prepping further for the upcoming seminars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)