Plato's concepts of epistemology and metaphysics are very closely connected and are directly related to how we come to know things. What separates these two ideas is how each aspect deals with knowledge. There is an important difference between the knower and the known. The knowing aspect is a central focus of epistemology, while the objects that can be known are central to Plato's metaphysics. The divided line allows us to clearly distinguish between the two different disciplines. Plato's dualistic
Philosophy covers a wide range of fundamental problems where it branches out to areas such as language, ethics, political philosophy, metaphysics, logic, or epistemology – the theory of knowledge. For years, philosophers have analyzed and questions what knowledge is, its value, sources, structure, and whether we know anything at all. Epistemology questions what knowledge is and how we as humans can acquire it – which involves much debate. Though our understanding of knowledge is ambiguous, we do know
The philosopher, Linda Zagzebski, offers a virtue based definition of knowledge. She arrives at this definition by presenting numerous accounts of knowledge definitions that fail, explore why they fail, then shows how her theory satisfies knowledge criteria. Zagzebski defines knowledge by expressing the relationship between the subject and the truth proposition. A truth claim becomes knowledge when your state of belief makes cognitive contact with reality. What it is to know that you understand
One of the most remarkable things about human existence is that there is a subject, an “I”, that experiences intellectual cognition of external things and is able to reflect on these experiences as a cognitive act in itself. How do things that exist outside of my mind come to exist inside of my mind so as to enable me to understand them? The goal of any theory of mind should be to answer questions such as this and, in evaluating the Gettier Problem as objectively as possible, we shall attempt to
Kant argues, “ the very concept of a cause so manifestly contains a necessity of connection with an effect and of the strict universality of the rule, that the concept would be altogether lost if we attempted to derive it.” (Kant 44) That is, the concept of cause and effect are inseparable under all possible circumstances, yet the other proposition does not possess universality and necessity
The purpose of this paper is to show that Goldman's causal theory of knowledge does not solve the Gettier problem. First, I will reiterate the Gettier problem. Second, I will show how Goldman's theory attempts to solve the Gettier problem. Next, I will show how over determination points out a major flaw for Goldman's theory. Finally, I will demonstrate that Goldman's theory does not work if the world we live in is not one of absolute truth and void of deception. First, when looking at the
logically possible and hence not contradictory." Synthetic a-priori propositions include such statements as: 'Every event has a cause' and '7 + 5 = 12.' Although it is not part of the concept of an event that it be a cause, it is universally true and necessary that every event has a cause. And, because 12 is a different concept from seven, five, and plus, it does not include any of them singly or jointly as a part of it. Finally, synthetic a-posteriori propositions include such statements as: 'The cat is
Consequently, this promotes the concept of regress argument where the philosophers are on the quest to understand how a belief is justified. Coherentist attempts to solve the regress problem by suggesting a system of beliefs where the justification is done by referring to other beliefs within the relevant system. In this essay, I will be focused on two of the main objections to coherentism: isolation and alternative objection. While at the same time examines the concept of coherentism to determine
Epistemology is he study of our right to the beliefs we have. In a broader sense, we start from what we call our cognitive stances, and ask whether we are justified to have these stances. When discussing cognitive stances, we must include both our beliefs as well as what we take to be our knowing. At an even deeper level we examine our attitudes towards the various strategies and methods we use to get new beliefs and filter out old ones. Epistemology is concerned then with whether we have acted responsibly
What are ontology and epistemology and why are they important in social science research Introduction The study of any particular science involves embracing particular and specific ontology, epistemology and methodologies that are different from each other. Ontology is the concept that defines and explains the essential types of truth (Blaikie 2009). Every field of science constitutes its own ontology and in most cases two types of ontology exists: formal ontology and domain ontology (Blaikie 2009)
The concept of logical positivism, also known as logical empiricism or simply positivism, is a vital one in the realm of the social sciences, having a profusion of influence. Virtually beginning in the 1920s, logical positivism reached a peak around the time of the 1950s and 1960s. The notion revolves around the idea that scientific knowledge is the only form of valid and factual knowledge and focuses on the importance of one’s own phenomena experiences (Stiles, 2017). Although influential, there
What is Virtue Epistemology? This paper functions as a brief introduction to virtue epistemology, a topic that has enjoyed a recent gain in popularity among analytic philosophers. Here I maintain that the defining feature of virtue epistemology is its focus on the intellectual virtues and vices rather than the evaluation of belief. What constitutes such a focus? And, what are the intellectual virtues? In the first section, I enumerate five different ways in which virtue epistemologists might focus
(Novotny 1). Epistemology, on the other hand, seeks to answer questions about the validity and limits of knowledge, in other words, it seeks to determine the difference between opinion and justified truth (Furlong and Marsh). In ‘A skin not a sweater’, the two have been portrayed to being related since every theory about the existence of nature begs the question on how a person has knowledge on the subject. We cannot, therefore, address ontology without bringing up the concept of epistemology. Furlong
what we do. In archaeological research, epistemology and ontological seem to be our core philosophies for understanding, but both have caused problems in the way of their usage. Without a clear understanding of these two philosophies, the reason for what we do falls apart and effect how we study archeology as a whole. We as student must understand these philosophies in order to better see how to perceive and understand our fields. To put it simply, Epistemology is the study and understanding of the
The concept of truth has been a major topic for discussions and discourses, there are multiple theories based on truth. In the works of G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell truth is defined as facts, and corresponds to the way things actually are. Moore defines it as “[there is no] difference between truth and the reality to which it is supposed to correspond” (Glanzberg, 2016). Another concept of truth is called the “absolute truth”, many philosophers argue that there is no absolute truth. The reason
Research, is a process of building up a new concept or testing an existing theory (Cohen et al, 2000). Sikes (2003) adds that research is a method of investigating something intensively, carefully, closely and critically in order to discover a new theory or to confirm or reject previous assumptions. According to Kumar (2008), research increases our knowledge and understanding about social and physical aspects. It is conducted to establish facts and reach new conclusions. Alzheimer Europe (2009
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much of the debate in epistemology centers on four areas: the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification, various problems of skepticism, the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and the criteria for knowledge and justification. Epistemology
Epistemology means the study of knowledge. The term comes from the Greek word “episteme”, meaning “knowledge”, and “logos”, meaning, roughly, “study, or science of.” Logos is the root of all terms ending in “ology” such as psychology or anthropology. It examines the idea of information and how it identifies with comparable ideas, for example, truth, conviction and support. It likewise manages the methods for generation of learning, and also incredulity about various information claims. It is essentially
progression, starting with his initial definition of cause, to his final conclusion in his doctrine on causality. As a result, it proves how Hume’s argument on causality follows the same path as his epistemology, with the two ideas complimenting each other so that it is rationally impossible to accept the epistemology and not accept his argument on causality. Hume starts by explaining definitions of causes and characteristics that make up the popular definition of cause. Contiguity is the idea that things
Reformed epistemology argues for the belief in things, including God, without sufficient evidence. The basis of this argument is that, as humans, we believe and accept many things without evidence. Under classical foundationalism, things such as our memory, our perception, and testimonies would be insufficient basis for beliefs because they are dubitable, and therefore not self-evident or incorrigible. However, reformed epistemology reminds us that we do trust and belle