The chapter starts off with an interesting statement about making statements and ways that you can make them as part of a theory. First thing we begin to look at is value judgments. The main difference between making a valid value judgment and creating false assumptions is the difference between what ought to be happening instead of making a false accusation about what actually is happening upon which you have no factual proof or evidence to back up your statement. I can really get into this sort of topic since I’m a science major and more times than not we are taught that anything we do or say, especially in regarding scientific theories, not only need to be factually correct but have to be proven multiple times. Not only that but you need to be sure to cover all of your bases as well when making concrete statements. One thing I recently learned in Psychology that has really helped when reading this chapter is that correlations prove nothing! If it has been proven that “X” increases when “Y” increases you cannot accurately make the statement that “X” causes “Y”. For example, A study has shown that in situations/cases where people own or have lighters on their person, then lung cancer is also increased in those cases. You can not accurately say that lighters caused the lung cancer, why? Simply because your not covering all your bases nor are you being specific. Owning a lighter may mean that you like to light candles in your house often or you may be a chronic smoker. One situation causes cancer, the other does not. Since you don’t specifically know the circumstances under which the individual has the lighter, you have no proof to link it with lung cancer. Same goes for Theories, in biology a theory is an educated estimate or guess which over several experiments is proven to be true or false. The experiments themselves usually have various different variables included just so the scientist can be sure that he or she covered every possible deciding factor that could influence your results. When discussing human nature this is especially tricky. When dealing with analytic statements it’s a different story. Chapter 7 states that you can correctly say that all humans are animals because “it is “analytic,” i.e., its truth depends merely on analysis of the meaning of its terms.” This becomes confusing especially in scientific theories because a lot of the time scientists like to use new terms or old words in a new way without any forewarning. Analytical statements can have its uses but it’s more important not to get that mixed up with synthetic statements that make factual claims. Now when making scientific theories it’s possible to make statements based on what you observe, what philosophers call empirical statements. Empirical statements are useful in science but if you’re like me and you love microbiology then empirical statements based off of observations just don’t cut it. So you better be able to test it over and over again to come up with a valid statement. Now the last thing I read was about metaphysical statements which don’t fit in any of the latter categories. Statements that can’t necessarily be backed up by concrete evidence or observations are usually considered metaphysical statements, like those of the existence of god. This chapter is especially helpful since I’m a biology major and almost always have to make hypotheses while in lab. Just last week I was asked gram stain and observe several bacteria and hypothesize what genus they belonged to based on their shape and color of stain. Staph bacteria stains purple and has a rod shaped structure. Therefore it is technically called staphylococcus bacteria and its gram positive. Also it gives me a leg up on analyzing other scientific theories like that of evolution! Just goes to show that philosophy and science can go hand in hand.
I'm not sure if this story relates to Kant's fundamental presuppositions that every event has a cause even if not proven by observation, but...Several years ago I competed in a kareoke contest and was entered into the finals. My mother and step-father supported me at the finals. All night a man hurrassed me. and finally my step-dad decided it was time to leave. Before we got to the car, the man jumped my step-dad from behind. I remember crying with my mom as we waited for the ambulance to arrive. We questioned God and why he allowed this to happen after such an great night? At the hospital my dad recieved a Cat-Scan and soon after the Dr discovered a mass. (My dad had progressing issues months before the accident but with unknown cause.) My dad was informed to follow up soon with his Dr and to keep an eye on the tumor. In that short time at his follow up appointment more tests were taken proving the mass had grown. The mass was removed weeks later during an emergency surgery. I remember bursting into tears and my mom comforting me. I cried, "This was why...", "This was why he was jumped..." If it wasn't for the accident that night my dad probably would have never found out about his tumor. Because of events like this, even if something upsetting or terrible happens, I try to remind myself of that day and know that it is happening for a reason. That the event has a cause even if it can't be proven.
In general, the Kant to me was very complex and abstract and I often found myself having to reread a passage multiple times in order to get a sense of what was being argued or elucidated. There are however some notable points that I gleaned from the text.
- One of the most interesting claims of Kant introduced in the chapter is his descriptions of the three kinds of knowledge, which I find as both reasonable and founded: empirical (a posteriori),analytic, and synthetic a priori, the definitions of each of which are outlined in the text. I know that this topic was somewhat eschewed in class, but I am very curious about which box language and communication would fall into. To speak a language would require audiovisual experience of the words being spoken, the sounds made, etc., suggesting that learning to talk is an empirical form of knowledge. Nevertheless, could communication rightfully be called a priori rather than a posteriori? How did language develop amongst the very first humans (if they might rightfully be called that at this point in history) who communicated with each other? It certainly could not have been derived from a posteriori knowledge, because no one else around them is communicating, which then would seem to indicate that language is an a priori form of knowledge. Personally, I agree with the latter for the very reason described: People are innately endowed with the faculties to express themselves and communicate with others. A recent study I read about examined deaf children going to school in a third world country and how they independently were able to develop a kind of sign language so that they might communicate with each other (completely a priori!). Languages were able to develop, because humans have a priori knowledge of how to communicate and express ideas.
- Another aspect of the Kant that resonated with me is his prescription for morality and religion, specifically with regard to his tenet that "our motive for doing our duty should not be to reap benefit thereby" (159). Therefore, to allow for some kind of postmortem punishment or reward system that would adequately unite the concepts of virtue and happiness together would show inconsistency, because people would then simply strive to be good solely for the sake of acheiving that benefit or eschewing that punishment after death. Instead, we should strive to be virtuous simply for the sake of being virtuous, hoping that it might ultimately be rewarded but not aiming directly for such. To me, what Kant is expressing is that "warm, fuzzy feeling", that feeling of virtuousity coupled with happiness that comes after helping someone else solely for the sake of doing good; the experience is difficult to express with words but it is something I sure everyone has felt. This might be an inexact or even unfounded approximation, but I hope that it is similar to what Kant was attempting to describe.
From Emily Knight
ReplyDeleteThe chapter starts off with an interesting statement about making statements and ways that you can make them as part of a theory. First thing we begin to look at is value judgments. The main difference between making a valid value judgment and creating false assumptions is the difference between what ought to be happening instead of making a false accusation about what actually is happening upon which you have no factual proof or evidence to back up your statement. I can really get into this sort of topic since I’m a science major and more times than not we are taught that anything we do or say, especially in regarding scientific theories, not only need to be factually correct but have to be proven multiple times. Not only that but you need to be sure to cover all of your bases as well when making concrete statements. One thing I recently learned in Psychology that has really helped when reading this chapter is that correlations prove nothing! If it has been proven that “X” increases when “Y” increases you cannot accurately make the statement that “X” causes “Y”. For example, A study has shown that in situations/cases where people own or have lighters on their person, then lung cancer is also increased in those cases. You can not accurately say that lighters caused the lung cancer, why? Simply because your not covering all your bases nor are you being specific. Owning a lighter may mean that you like to light candles in your house often or you may be a chronic smoker. One situation causes cancer, the other does not. Since you don’t specifically know the circumstances under which the individual has the lighter, you have no proof to link it with lung cancer. Same goes for Theories, in biology a theory is an educated estimate or guess which over several experiments is proven to be true or false. The experiments themselves usually have various different variables included just so the scientist can be sure that he or she covered every possible deciding factor that could influence your results. When discussing human nature this is especially tricky. When dealing with analytic statements it’s a different story. Chapter 7 states that you can correctly say that all humans are animals because “it is “analytic,” i.e., its truth depends merely on analysis of the meaning of its terms.” This becomes confusing especially in scientific theories because a lot of the time scientists like to use new terms or old words in a new way without any forewarning. Analytical statements can have its uses but it’s more important not to get that mixed up with synthetic statements that make factual claims. Now when making scientific theories it’s possible to make statements based on what you observe, what philosophers call empirical statements. Empirical statements are useful in science but if you’re like me and you love microbiology then empirical statements based off of observations just don’t cut it. So you better be able to test it over and over again to come up with a valid statement. Now the last thing I read was about metaphysical statements which don’t fit in any of the latter categories. Statements that can’t necessarily be backed up by concrete evidence or observations are usually considered metaphysical statements, like those of the existence of god. This chapter is especially helpful since I’m a biology major and almost always have to make hypotheses while in lab. Just last week I was asked gram stain and observe several bacteria and hypothesize what genus they belonged to based on their shape and color of stain. Staph bacteria stains purple and has a rod shaped structure. Therefore it is technically called staphylococcus bacteria and its gram positive. Also it gives me a leg up on analyzing other scientific theories like that of evolution! Just goes to show that philosophy and science can go hand in hand.
I'm not sure if this story relates to Kant's fundamental presuppositions that every event has a cause even if not proven by observation, but...Several years ago I competed in a kareoke contest and was entered into the finals. My mother and step-father supported me at the finals. All night a man hurrassed me. and finally my step-dad decided it was time to leave. Before we got to the car, the man jumped my step-dad from behind. I remember crying with my mom as we waited for the ambulance to arrive. We questioned God and why he allowed this to happen after such an great night? At the hospital my dad recieved a Cat-Scan and soon after the Dr discovered a mass. (My dad had progressing issues months before the accident but with unknown cause.) My dad was informed to follow up soon with his Dr and to keep an eye on the tumor. In that short time at his follow up appointment more tests were taken proving the mass had grown. The mass was removed weeks later during an emergency surgery. I remember bursting into tears and my mom comforting me. I cried, "This was why...", "This was why he was jumped..." If it wasn't for the accident that night my dad probably would have never found out about his tumor. Because of events like this, even if something upsetting or terrible happens, I try to remind myself of that day and know that it is happening for a reason. That the event has a cause even if it can't be proven.
ReplyDeleteIn general, the Kant to me was very complex and abstract and I often found myself having to reread a passage multiple times in order to get a sense of what was being argued or elucidated. There are however some notable points that I gleaned from the text.
ReplyDelete- One of the most interesting claims of Kant introduced in the chapter is his descriptions of the three kinds of knowledge, which I find as both reasonable and founded: empirical (a posteriori),analytic, and synthetic a priori, the definitions of each of which are outlined in the text. I know that this topic was somewhat eschewed in class, but I am very curious about which box language and communication would fall into. To speak a language would require audiovisual experience of the words being spoken, the sounds made, etc., suggesting that learning to talk is an empirical form of knowledge. Nevertheless, could communication rightfully be called a priori rather than a posteriori? How did language develop amongst the very first humans (if they might rightfully be called that at this point in history) who communicated with each other? It certainly could not have been derived from a posteriori knowledge, because no one else around them is communicating, which then would seem to indicate that language is an a priori form of knowledge. Personally, I agree with the latter for the very reason described: People are innately endowed with the faculties to express themselves and communicate with others. A recent study I read about examined deaf children going to school in a third world country and how they independently were able to develop a kind of sign language so that they might communicate with each other (completely a priori!). Languages were able to develop, because humans have a priori knowledge of how to communicate and express ideas.
- Another aspect of the Kant that resonated with me is his prescription for morality and religion, specifically with regard to his tenet that "our motive for doing our duty should not be to reap benefit thereby" (159). Therefore, to allow for some kind of postmortem punishment or reward system that would adequately unite the concepts of virtue and happiness together would show inconsistency, because people would then simply strive to be good solely for the sake of acheiving that benefit or eschewing that punishment after death. Instead, we should strive to be virtuous simply for the sake of being virtuous, hoping that it might ultimately be rewarded but not aiming directly for such. To me, what Kant is expressing is that "warm, fuzzy feeling", that feeling of virtuousity coupled with happiness that comes after helping someone else solely for the sake of doing good; the experience is difficult to express with words but it is something I sure everyone has felt. This might be an inexact or even unfounded approximation, but I hope that it is similar to what Kant was attempting to describe.