FIRST QUIZ MIDTERM PERIOD (INDUCTIVE REASONING)
I. Enumerate:
1-2: The two basic thinking skills: critical and creative thinking
3-4: These constitute the common core across the different conceptions on critical thinking: clarity and rationality.
5-6: The global knowledge economy is driven by these two elements.
7-9: These are the components of critical thinking.
10-11: The two ways to internalize theoretical principles and apply them to daily life:
II. True or False:
1.Critical thinking is a meta-thinking skill.
2.Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal is a well-known psychological test of critical thinking ability. The authors of this test define critical thinking as :... a composite of attitudes, knowledge and skills.
3. Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.
4.Good critical thinking involves the mastery of a set of thinking skill.
5.Being able to think clearly is the central component of critical thinking.
6.Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally.
7. Good communication skills involve being able to convey messages with the right meaning, and being able to understand the meaning of what has been said, or left unsaid.
8.Traditionally, critical thinking is usually associated with general education or philosophy in various educational institutions.
9.To be good at critical thinking skills it is necessary to internalize the theoretical principles so that we can actually apply them in daily life.
10.Critical thinking includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Midterm Notes No. 1
Main modules
• C. About critical thinking
• M. Meaning analysis
• A. Argument analysis
• L. Basic logic
• SL. Sentential logic
• Q. Predicate logic
• V. Venn diagrams
• S. Scientific reasoning
• T. Basic statistics
• G. Strategic thinking
• U. Values and morality
• F. Fallacies & biases
• R. Creativity
MODULE: About critical thinking
There are two basic thinking skills - critical and creative thinking. Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. Creativity is a matter of coming up with new and useful possibilities. They are both crucial for solving problems and discovering new knowledge. For a more detailed explanation of critical thinking, and resources related to the study and teaching of critical thinking, please visit the links below.
Tutorials
• [C01] What is critical thinking and why is it important?
TUTORIAL C01: What is critical thinking and why is it important?
C01.1 Introduction
Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following :
• understand the logical connections between ideas
• identify, construct and evaluate arguments
• detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning
• solve problems systematically
• identify the relevance and importance of ideas
• reflect on the justification of one's own beliefs and values
Other definitions of critical thinking have been proposed. See bottom of this page for explanations of critical thinking from other sources. It can be seen that clarity and rationality constitute the common core across the different conceptions on critical thinking.
Critical thinking is not a matter of accumulating information. A person with a good memory and who knows a lot of facts is not necessarily good at critical thinking. A critical thinker is able to deduce consequences from what he knows, and he knows how to make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant sources of information to inform himself.
Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of other people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning, critical thinking can also play an important tole in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks. Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge, improve our theories, and strengthen arguments. We can use critical thinking to enhance work processes and improve social institutions.
Good critical thinking might be seen as the foundation of science and a liberal democratic society. Science requires the critical use of reason in experimentation and theory confirmation. The proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice.
C01.2 Why study critical thinking?
Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill. The ability to think clearly and rationally is important whatever we choose to do. If you work in education, research, finance, management or the legal profession, then critical thinking is obviously important. But critical thinking skills are not restricted to a particular subject area. Being able to think well and solve problems systematically is an asset for any career.
Critical thinking is very important in the new knowledge economy. The global knowledge economy is driven by information and technology. One has to be able to deal with changes quickly and effectively. The new economy places increasing demands on flexible intellectual skills, and the ability to analyse information and integrate diverse sources of knowledge in solving problems. Good critical thinking promotes such thinking skills, and is very important in the fast-changing workplace.
Critical thinking enhances language and presentation skills. Thinking clearly and systematically can improve the way we express our ideas. In learning how to analyse the logical structure of texts, critical thinking also improves comprehension abilities.
Critical thinking promotes creativity. To come up with a creative solution to a problem involves not just having new ideas. It must also be the case that the new ideas being generated are useful and relevant to the task at hand. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in evaluating new ideas, selecting the best ones and modifying them if necessary.
Critical thinking is crucial for self-reflection. In order to live a meaningful life and to structure our lives accordingly, we need to justify and reflect on our values and decisions. Critical thinking provides the tools for this process of self-evaluation.
Although most people would agree that critical thinking is an important thinking skill, most people also do not know how to improve their own thinking. This is because critical thinking is a meta-thinking skill. It requires careful reflection on the good principles of reasoning and making a conscious effort to internalize them and apply them in daily life. This is notoriously hard to do and often requires a long period of training.
C01.3 Other definitions of critical thinking
The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal is a well-known psychological test of critical thinking ability. The authors of this test define critical thinking as :
... a composite of attitudes, knowledge and skills. This composite includes: (1) attitudes of inquiry that involve an ability to recognize the existence of problems and an acceptance of the general need for evidence in support of what is asserted to be true; (2) knowledge of the nature of valid inferences, abstractions, and generalizations in which the weight or accuracy of different kinds of evidence are logically determined; and (3) skills in employing and applying the above attitudes and knowledge.
The following excerpt comes from Dr. Peter A. Facione (1990) "Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction", a report for the American Philosophical Association.
"We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one's personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fairminded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society."
The last excerpt comes from a statement written by Michael Scriven and Richard Paul, National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, an organization promoting critical thinking in the US.
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference.
• [C02] How to improve critical thinking
TUTORIAL C02: How to improve critical thinking
Good critical thinking involves the mastery of a set of thinking skill. Like the acquisition of many other skills, there are three components: theory, practice, and attitude.
C02.1 Theory
If we want to think correctly, we need to follow the correct rules of reasoning. Knowledge of theory includes knowledge of these rules. These are the basic principles of critical thinking, such as the laws of logic, and the methods of scientific reasoning, etc.
Also, it would be useful to know something about what not to do if we want to reason correctly. This means we should have some basic knowledge of the mistakes that people make. First, this requires some knowledge of typical fallacies. Second, psychologists have discovered persistent biases and limitations in human reasoning. An awareness of these empirical findings will alert us to potential problems.
C02.2 Practice
However, merely knowing the principles that distinguish good and bad reasoning is not enough. We might study in the classroom about how to swim, and learn about the basic theory, such as the fact that one should not breathe under water. But unless we can apply such theoretical knowledge through constant practice, we might not actually be able to swim.
Similarly, to be good at critical thinking skills it is necessary to internalize the theoretical principles so that we can actually apply them in daily life. There are at least two ways.
• One is to do lots of good-quality exercises. Exercises include not just exercises in classrooms and tutorials. They also include exercises in the form of discussion and debates with other people in our daily life.
• The other method is to think more deeply about the principles that we have acquired. In the human mind, memory and understanding are acquired through making connections between ideas.
C02.3 Attitudes
Good critical thinking skills require not just knowledge and practice. Persistent practice can bring about improvements only if one has the right kind of motivation and attitude. The following attitudes are not uncommon, but they will not help you improve your thinking :
• I prefer being given the correct answers rather than figuring them out myself.
• I don't like to think a lot about my decisions as I rely only on gut feelings.
• I don't usually review the mistakes I have made.
• I don't like to be criticized.
To improve one's thinking one must recognize that the importance of reflecting on the reasons for belief and action. One must also be willing to engage in debate, to make mistakes, to break old habits, and to deal with linguistic complexities and abstract concepts.
C02.4 Further discussion
Traditionally, critical thinking is usually associated with general education or philosophy in various educational institutions. However, the best way to teach and and improve critical thinking ultimately is a matter for the investigation of psychology and cognitive science. The design of a sutiable curriculum should take into account empirical findings on cognitive development and learning.
MODULE: Meaning analysis
Being able to think clearly is the central component of critical thinking. In order to answer a question or evaluate a claim, we have to know what the question or the claim means. In order to communicate precisely and to avoid misunderstanding, we need to watch out for vagueness or ambiguity. Of course, there are plenty of contexts where clarity and precision are unnecessary, or even undesirable. Many jokes and poems, for example, exploit the ambiguity of language. Sometimes we might also offer vague promises in order to give ourselves flexibility. But there are many situations where it is particularly important to be able to think clearly and to analyse meaning :
• In dealing with many abstract issues, often the first task is to clarify the relevant key terms or concepts. For example, to find out whether Asian values are incompatible with human rights, we have to explain what exactly is meant by "Asian values" and "human rights".
• The development of science involves the introduction of new scientific theories and concepts. We need to give these concepts adequate definitions in order to know how they can be used in scientific explanations and predictions.
• Society requires rules and regulations for the coordination of behavior. A good set of rules should be formulated clearly to avoid and resolve disputes, and so that people know what is expected of them.
• Good communication skills involve being able to convey messages with the right meaning, and being able to understand the meaning of what has been said, or left unsaid.
Tutorials
• [M01] Understanding literal meaning
• [M02] Using and evaluating definitions
• [M03] Verbal disputes
• [M04] Necessary and sufficient conditions
• [M05] Linguistic pitfalls - Obscurity
• [M06] Linguistic pitfalls - Distortion
• [M07] Linguistic pitfalls - Empty content
• C. About critical thinking
• M. Meaning analysis
• A. Argument analysis
• L. Basic logic
• SL. Sentential logic
• Q. Predicate logic
• V. Venn diagrams
• S. Scientific reasoning
• T. Basic statistics
• G. Strategic thinking
• U. Values and morality
• F. Fallacies & biases
• R. Creativity
MODULE: About critical thinking
There are two basic thinking skills - critical and creative thinking. Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. Creativity is a matter of coming up with new and useful possibilities. They are both crucial for solving problems and discovering new knowledge. For a more detailed explanation of critical thinking, and resources related to the study and teaching of critical thinking, please visit the links below.
Tutorials
• [C01] What is critical thinking and why is it important?
TUTORIAL C01: What is critical thinking and why is it important?
C01.1 Introduction
Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following :
• understand the logical connections between ideas
• identify, construct and evaluate arguments
• detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning
• solve problems systematically
• identify the relevance and importance of ideas
• reflect on the justification of one's own beliefs and values
Other definitions of critical thinking have been proposed. See bottom of this page for explanations of critical thinking from other sources. It can be seen that clarity and rationality constitute the common core across the different conceptions on critical thinking.
Critical thinking is not a matter of accumulating information. A person with a good memory and who knows a lot of facts is not necessarily good at critical thinking. A critical thinker is able to deduce consequences from what he knows, and he knows how to make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant sources of information to inform himself.
Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of other people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning, critical thinking can also play an important tole in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks. Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge, improve our theories, and strengthen arguments. We can use critical thinking to enhance work processes and improve social institutions.
Good critical thinking might be seen as the foundation of science and a liberal democratic society. Science requires the critical use of reason in experimentation and theory confirmation. The proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice.
C01.2 Why study critical thinking?
Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill. The ability to think clearly and rationally is important whatever we choose to do. If you work in education, research, finance, management or the legal profession, then critical thinking is obviously important. But critical thinking skills are not restricted to a particular subject area. Being able to think well and solve problems systematically is an asset for any career.
Critical thinking is very important in the new knowledge economy. The global knowledge economy is driven by information and technology. One has to be able to deal with changes quickly and effectively. The new economy places increasing demands on flexible intellectual skills, and the ability to analyse information and integrate diverse sources of knowledge in solving problems. Good critical thinking promotes such thinking skills, and is very important in the fast-changing workplace.
Critical thinking enhances language and presentation skills. Thinking clearly and systematically can improve the way we express our ideas. In learning how to analyse the logical structure of texts, critical thinking also improves comprehension abilities.
Critical thinking promotes creativity. To come up with a creative solution to a problem involves not just having new ideas. It must also be the case that the new ideas being generated are useful and relevant to the task at hand. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in evaluating new ideas, selecting the best ones and modifying them if necessary.
Critical thinking is crucial for self-reflection. In order to live a meaningful life and to structure our lives accordingly, we need to justify and reflect on our values and decisions. Critical thinking provides the tools for this process of self-evaluation.
Although most people would agree that critical thinking is an important thinking skill, most people also do not know how to improve their own thinking. This is because critical thinking is a meta-thinking skill. It requires careful reflection on the good principles of reasoning and making a conscious effort to internalize them and apply them in daily life. This is notoriously hard to do and often requires a long period of training.
C01.3 Other definitions of critical thinking
The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal is a well-known psychological test of critical thinking ability. The authors of this test define critical thinking as :
... a composite of attitudes, knowledge and skills. This composite includes: (1) attitudes of inquiry that involve an ability to recognize the existence of problems and an acceptance of the general need for evidence in support of what is asserted to be true; (2) knowledge of the nature of valid inferences, abstractions, and generalizations in which the weight or accuracy of different kinds of evidence are logically determined; and (3) skills in employing and applying the above attitudes and knowledge.
The following excerpt comes from Dr. Peter A. Facione (1990) "Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction", a report for the American Philosophical Association.
"We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one's personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fairminded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society."
The last excerpt comes from a statement written by Michael Scriven and Richard Paul, National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, an organization promoting critical thinking in the US.
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference.
• [C02] How to improve critical thinking
TUTORIAL C02: How to improve critical thinking
Good critical thinking involves the mastery of a set of thinking skill. Like the acquisition of many other skills, there are three components: theory, practice, and attitude.
C02.1 Theory
If we want to think correctly, we need to follow the correct rules of reasoning. Knowledge of theory includes knowledge of these rules. These are the basic principles of critical thinking, such as the laws of logic, and the methods of scientific reasoning, etc.
Also, it would be useful to know something about what not to do if we want to reason correctly. This means we should have some basic knowledge of the mistakes that people make. First, this requires some knowledge of typical fallacies. Second, psychologists have discovered persistent biases and limitations in human reasoning. An awareness of these empirical findings will alert us to potential problems.
C02.2 Practice
However, merely knowing the principles that distinguish good and bad reasoning is not enough. We might study in the classroom about how to swim, and learn about the basic theory, such as the fact that one should not breathe under water. But unless we can apply such theoretical knowledge through constant practice, we might not actually be able to swim.
Similarly, to be good at critical thinking skills it is necessary to internalize the theoretical principles so that we can actually apply them in daily life. There are at least two ways.
• One is to do lots of good-quality exercises. Exercises include not just exercises in classrooms and tutorials. They also include exercises in the form of discussion and debates with other people in our daily life.
• The other method is to think more deeply about the principles that we have acquired. In the human mind, memory and understanding are acquired through making connections between ideas.
C02.3 Attitudes
Good critical thinking skills require not just knowledge and practice. Persistent practice can bring about improvements only if one has the right kind of motivation and attitude. The following attitudes are not uncommon, but they will not help you improve your thinking :
• I prefer being given the correct answers rather than figuring them out myself.
• I don't like to think a lot about my decisions as I rely only on gut feelings.
• I don't usually review the mistakes I have made.
• I don't like to be criticized.
To improve one's thinking one must recognize that the importance of reflecting on the reasons for belief and action. One must also be willing to engage in debate, to make mistakes, to break old habits, and to deal with linguistic complexities and abstract concepts.
C02.4 Further discussion
Traditionally, critical thinking is usually associated with general education or philosophy in various educational institutions. However, the best way to teach and and improve critical thinking ultimately is a matter for the investigation of psychology and cognitive science. The design of a sutiable curriculum should take into account empirical findings on cognitive development and learning.
MODULE: Meaning analysis
Being able to think clearly is the central component of critical thinking. In order to answer a question or evaluate a claim, we have to know what the question or the claim means. In order to communicate precisely and to avoid misunderstanding, we need to watch out for vagueness or ambiguity. Of course, there are plenty of contexts where clarity and precision are unnecessary, or even undesirable. Many jokes and poems, for example, exploit the ambiguity of language. Sometimes we might also offer vague promises in order to give ourselves flexibility. But there are many situations where it is particularly important to be able to think clearly and to analyse meaning :
• In dealing with many abstract issues, often the first task is to clarify the relevant key terms or concepts. For example, to find out whether Asian values are incompatible with human rights, we have to explain what exactly is meant by "Asian values" and "human rights".
• The development of science involves the introduction of new scientific theories and concepts. We need to give these concepts adequate definitions in order to know how they can be used in scientific explanations and predictions.
• Society requires rules and regulations for the coordination of behavior. A good set of rules should be formulated clearly to avoid and resolve disputes, and so that people know what is expected of them.
• Good communication skills involve being able to convey messages with the right meaning, and being able to understand the meaning of what has been said, or left unsaid.
Tutorials
• [M01] Understanding literal meaning
• [M02] Using and evaluating definitions
• [M03] Verbal disputes
• [M04] Necessary and sufficient conditions
• [M05] Linguistic pitfalls - Obscurity
• [M06] Linguistic pitfalls - Distortion
• [M07] Linguistic pitfalls - Empty content
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Reviewer for prelim
_________________1. This early Greek philosopher view knowledge as merely an awareness of absolute, universal Ideas or Forms.
_________________2. This early Greek philosopher puts more emphasis on logical and empirical methods for gathering knowledge.
_________________3. It is the "top-down" approach of reasoning.
_________________4. It is called the "bottom up" approach of reasoning.
_________________5. It is a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances.
_________________6.It is sometimes framed as reasoning about the future from the past.
_________________7. A form of reasoning which formulates laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns.
_________________8. It draws a conclusion about a future individual from a past sample.
_________________9. It is a property (feature, characteristic, attribute) of argument forms.
_________________10. The agreement of the mind with outside reality.
_________________11. This is the key to knowledge because we value truth.
_________________12. The Greek philosopher who popularized the notion that knowledge is essential to the good life.
_________________13. The descriptive title of Philosophy three subject.
_________________14. According to theory, knowledge results from a kind of mapping or reflection of external objects, through our sensory organs, possibly aided by different observation instruments, to our brain or mind.
_________________15. This theory of knowledge sees knowledge as the product of sensory perception.
_________________16. This theory of knowledge sees knowledge as the product of rational reflection.
_________________17. According to this modern philosopher, knowledge results from the organization of perceptual data on the basis of inborn cognitive structures, which he calls "categories".
_________________18. This is the kind of thing the bartender says to customers when he's trying to close for the night but this is not inductive reasoning but sounds like it.
_________________19. This reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning.
_________________20. This reasoning is more narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses.
_________________2. This early Greek philosopher puts more emphasis on logical and empirical methods for gathering knowledge.
_________________3. It is the "top-down" approach of reasoning.
_________________4. It is called the "bottom up" approach of reasoning.
_________________5. It is a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances.
_________________6.It is sometimes framed as reasoning about the future from the past.
_________________7. A form of reasoning which formulates laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns.
_________________8. It draws a conclusion about a future individual from a past sample.
_________________9. It is a property (feature, characteristic, attribute) of argument forms.
_________________10. The agreement of the mind with outside reality.
_________________11. This is the key to knowledge because we value truth.
_________________12. The Greek philosopher who popularized the notion that knowledge is essential to the good life.
_________________13. The descriptive title of Philosophy three subject.
_________________14. According to theory, knowledge results from a kind of mapping or reflection of external objects, through our sensory organs, possibly aided by different observation instruments, to our brain or mind.
_________________15. This theory of knowledge sees knowledge as the product of sensory perception.
_________________16. This theory of knowledge sees knowledge as the product of rational reflection.
_________________17. According to this modern philosopher, knowledge results from the organization of perceptual data on the basis of inborn cognitive structures, which he calls "categories".
_________________18. This is the kind of thing the bartender says to customers when he's trying to close for the night but this is not inductive reasoning but sounds like it.
_________________19. This reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning.
_________________20. This reasoning is more narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Notes no. 4: Epistemology (this is part of the exam on thursday July 17,2008 at 11:30-1:30 in S35
Epistemology, introduction
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge? Practically, this questions translates into issues of scientific methodology: how can one develop theories or models that are better than competing theories? It also forms one of the pillars of the new sciences of cognition, which developed from the information processing approach to psychology, and from artificial intelligence, as an attempt to develop computer programs that mimic a human's capacity to use knowledge in an intelligent way.
When we look at the history of epistemology, we can discern a clear trend, in spite of the confusion of many seemingly contradictory positions. The first theories of knowledge stressed its absolute, permanent character, whereas the later theories put the emphasis on its relativity or situation-dependence, its continuous development or evolution, and its active interference with the world and its subjects and objects. The whole trend moves from a static, passive view of knowledge towards a more and more adaptive and active one.
Let us start with the Greek philosophers. In Plato's view knowledge is merely an awareness of absolute, universal Ideas or Forms, existing independent of any subject trying to apprehend to them. Though Aristotle puts more emphasis on logical and empirical methods for gathering knowledge, he still accepts the view that such knowledge is an apprehension of necessary and universal principles. Following the Renaissance, two main epistemological positions dominated philosophy: empiricism, which sees knowledge as the product of sensory perception, and rationalism which sees it as the product of rational reflection.
The implementation of empiricism in the newly developed experimental sciences led to a view of knowledge which is still explicitly or implicity held by many people nowadays: the reflection-correspondence theory. According to this view knowledge results from a kind of mapping or reflection of external objects, through our sensory organs, possibly aided by different observation instruments, to our brain or mind. Though knowledge has no a priori existence, like in Plato's conception, but has to be developed by observation, it is still absolute, in the sense that any piece of proposed knowledge is supposed to either truly correspond to a part of external reality, or not. In that view, we may in practice never reach complete or absolute knowledge, but such knowledge is somehow conceivable as a limit of ever more precise reflections of reality.
The following important theory developed in that period is the Kantian synthesis of rationalism and empiricism. According to Kant, knowledge results from the organization of perceptual data on the basis of inborn cognitive structures, which he calls "categories". Categories include space, time, objects and causality. This epistemology does accept the subjectivity of basic concepts, like space and time, and the impossibility to reach purely objective representations of things-in-themselves. Yet the a priori categories are still static or given.
The next stage of development of epistemology may be called pragmatic. Parts of it can be found in early twentieth century approaches, such as logical positivism, conventionalism, and the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics. This philosophy still dominates most present work in cognitive science and artificial intelligence. According to pragmatic epistemology, knowledge consists of models that attempt to represent the environment in such a way as to maximally simplify problem-solving. It is assumed that no model can ever hope to capture all relevant information, and even if such a complete model would exist, it would be too complicated to use in any practical way. Therefore we must accept the parallel existence of different models, even though they may seem contradictory. The model which is to be chosen depends on the problems that are to be solved. The basic criterion is that the model should produce correct (or approximate) predictions (which may be tested) or problem-solutions, and be as simple as possible. Further questions about the "Ding an Sich" or ultimate reality behind the model are meaningless.
The pragmatic epistemology does not give a clear answer to the question where knowledge or models come from. There is an implicit assumption that models are built from parts of other models and empirical data on the basis of trial-and-error complemented with some heuristics or intuition. A more radical point of departure is offered by constructivism. It assumes that all knowledge is built up from scratch by the subject of knowledge. There are no 'givens', neither objective empirical data or facts, nor inborn categories or cognitive structures. The idea of a correspondence or reflection of external reality is rejected. Because of this lacking connection between models and the things they represent, the danger with constructivism is that it may lead to relativism, to the idea that any model constructed by a subject is as good as any other and that there is no way to distinguish adequate or 'true' knowledge from inadequate or 'false' knowledge.
We can distinguish two approaches trying to avoid such an 'absolute relativism'. The first may be called individual constructivism. It assumes that an individual attempts to reach coherence among the different pieces of knowledge. Constructions that are inconsistent with the bulk of other knowledge that the individual has will tend to be rejected. Constructions that succeed in integrating previously incoherent pieces of knowledge will be maintained. The second, to be called social constructivism, sees consensus between different subjects as the ultimate criterion to judge knowledge. 'Truth' or 'reality' will be accorded only to those constructions on which most people of a social group agree.
In these philosophies, knowledge is seen as largely independent of a hypothetical 'external reality' or environment. As the 'radical' constructivists Maturana and Varela argue, the nervous system of an organism cannot in any absolute way distinguish between a perception (caused by an external phenomenon) and a hallucination (a purely internal event). The only basic criterion is that different mental entities or processes within or between individuals should reach some kind of equilibrium.
Though these constructivistic approaches put much more emphasis on the changing and relative character of knowledge, they are still absolutist in the primacy they give to either social consensus or internal coherence, and their description of construction processes is quite vague and incomplete. A more broad or synthetic outlook is offered by different forms or evolutionary epistemology. Here it is assumed that knowledge is constructed by the subject or group of subjects in order to adapt to their environment in the broad sense. That construction is an on-going process at different levels, biological as well as psychological or social. Construction happens through blind variation of existing pieces of knowledge, and the selective retention of those new combinations that somehow contribute most to the survival and reproduction of the subject(s) within their given environment. Hence we see that the 'external world' again enters the picture, although no objective reflection or correspondence is assumed, only an equilibrium between the products of internal variation and different (internal or external) selection criteria. Any form of absolutism or permanence has disappeared in this approach, but knowledge is basically still a passive instrument developed by organisms in order to help them in their quest for survival.
A most recent, and perhaps most radical approach, extends this evolutionary view in order to make knowledge actively pursue goals of its own. This approach, which as yet has not had the time to develop a proper epistemology, may be called memetics. It notes that knowledge can be transmitted from one subject to another, and thereby loses its dependence on any single individual. A piece of knowledge that can be transmitted or replicated in such a way is called a 'meme'. The death of an individual carrying a certain meme now no longer implies the elimination of that piece of knowledge, as evolutionary epistemology would assume. As long as a meme spreads more quickly to new carriers, than that its carriers die, the meme will proliferate, even though the knowledge it induces in any individual carrier may be wholly inadequate and even dangerous to survival. In this view a piece of knowledge may be succesful (in the sense that it is common or has many carriers) even though its predictions may be totally wrong, as long as it is sufficiently 'convincing' to new carriers. Here we see a picture where even the subject of knowledge has lost his primacy, and knowledge becomes a force of its own with proper goals and ways of developing itself. That this is realistic can be illustrated by the many superstitions, fads, and irrational beliefs that have spread over the globe, sometimes with a frightening speed.
Like social constructivism, memetics attracts the attention to communication and social processes in the development of knowledge, but instead of seeing knowledge as constructed by the social system, it rather sees social systems as constructed by knowledge processes. Indeed, a social group can be defined by the fact that all its members share the same meme (Heylighen, 1992). Even the concept of 'self', that which distinguishes a person as a individual, can be considered as a piece of knowledge, constructed through social processes (HarrŽ, 19), and hence a result of memetic evolution. From a constructivist approach, where knowledge is constructed by individuals or society, we have moved to a memetic approach, which sees society and even individuality as byproducts constructed by an ongoing evolution of independent fragments of knowledge competing for domination.
We have come very far indeed from Plato's immutable and absolute Ideas, residing in an abstract realm far from concrete objects or subjects, or from the naive realism of the reflection-correspondence theory, where knowledge is merely an image of external objects and their relations. At this stage, the temptation would be strong to lapse into a purely anarchistic or relativistic attitude, stating that 'anything goes', and that it would be impossible to formulate any reliable and general criteria to distinguish 'good' or adequate pieces of knowledge from bad or inadequate ones. Yet in most practical situations, our intuition does help us to distinguish perceptions from dreams or hallucinations, and unreliable predictions ('I am going to win the lottery') from reliable ones ('The sun will come up tomorrow morning'). And an evolutionary theory still assumes a natural selection which can be understood to a certain degree. Hence we may assume that it is possible to identify selection criteria, but one of the lessons of this historical overview will be that we should avoid to quickly formulate one absolute criterion. Neither correspondence, nor coherence or consensus, and not even survivability, are sufficient to ground a theory of knowledge. At this stage we can only hope to find multiple, independent, and sometimes contradictory criteria, whose judgment may quickly become obsolete. Yet if we would succeed to formulate these criteria clearly, within a simple and general conceptual framework, we would have an epistemology that synthesizes and extends al of the traditional and less traditional philosophies above.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge? Practically, this questions translates into issues of scientific methodology: how can one develop theories or models that are better than competing theories? It also forms one of the pillars of the new sciences of cognition, which developed from the information processing approach to psychology, and from artificial intelligence, as an attempt to develop computer programs that mimic a human's capacity to use knowledge in an intelligent way.
When we look at the history of epistemology, we can discern a clear trend, in spite of the confusion of many seemingly contradictory positions. The first theories of knowledge stressed its absolute, permanent character, whereas the later theories put the emphasis on its relativity or situation-dependence, its continuous development or evolution, and its active interference with the world and its subjects and objects. The whole trend moves from a static, passive view of knowledge towards a more and more adaptive and active one.
Let us start with the Greek philosophers. In Plato's view knowledge is merely an awareness of absolute, universal Ideas or Forms, existing independent of any subject trying to apprehend to them. Though Aristotle puts more emphasis on logical and empirical methods for gathering knowledge, he still accepts the view that such knowledge is an apprehension of necessary and universal principles. Following the Renaissance, two main epistemological positions dominated philosophy: empiricism, which sees knowledge as the product of sensory perception, and rationalism which sees it as the product of rational reflection.
The implementation of empiricism in the newly developed experimental sciences led to a view of knowledge which is still explicitly or implicity held by many people nowadays: the reflection-correspondence theory. According to this view knowledge results from a kind of mapping or reflection of external objects, through our sensory organs, possibly aided by different observation instruments, to our brain or mind. Though knowledge has no a priori existence, like in Plato's conception, but has to be developed by observation, it is still absolute, in the sense that any piece of proposed knowledge is supposed to either truly correspond to a part of external reality, or not. In that view, we may in practice never reach complete or absolute knowledge, but such knowledge is somehow conceivable as a limit of ever more precise reflections of reality.
The following important theory developed in that period is the Kantian synthesis of rationalism and empiricism. According to Kant, knowledge results from the organization of perceptual data on the basis of inborn cognitive structures, which he calls "categories". Categories include space, time, objects and causality. This epistemology does accept the subjectivity of basic concepts, like space and time, and the impossibility to reach purely objective representations of things-in-themselves. Yet the a priori categories are still static or given.
The next stage of development of epistemology may be called pragmatic. Parts of it can be found in early twentieth century approaches, such as logical positivism, conventionalism, and the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics. This philosophy still dominates most present work in cognitive science and artificial intelligence. According to pragmatic epistemology, knowledge consists of models that attempt to represent the environment in such a way as to maximally simplify problem-solving. It is assumed that no model can ever hope to capture all relevant information, and even if such a complete model would exist, it would be too complicated to use in any practical way. Therefore we must accept the parallel existence of different models, even though they may seem contradictory. The model which is to be chosen depends on the problems that are to be solved. The basic criterion is that the model should produce correct (or approximate) predictions (which may be tested) or problem-solutions, and be as simple as possible. Further questions about the "Ding an Sich" or ultimate reality behind the model are meaningless.
The pragmatic epistemology does not give a clear answer to the question where knowledge or models come from. There is an implicit assumption that models are built from parts of other models and empirical data on the basis of trial-and-error complemented with some heuristics or intuition. A more radical point of departure is offered by constructivism. It assumes that all knowledge is built up from scratch by the subject of knowledge. There are no 'givens', neither objective empirical data or facts, nor inborn categories or cognitive structures. The idea of a correspondence or reflection of external reality is rejected. Because of this lacking connection between models and the things they represent, the danger with constructivism is that it may lead to relativism, to the idea that any model constructed by a subject is as good as any other and that there is no way to distinguish adequate or 'true' knowledge from inadequate or 'false' knowledge.
We can distinguish two approaches trying to avoid such an 'absolute relativism'. The first may be called individual constructivism. It assumes that an individual attempts to reach coherence among the different pieces of knowledge. Constructions that are inconsistent with the bulk of other knowledge that the individual has will tend to be rejected. Constructions that succeed in integrating previously incoherent pieces of knowledge will be maintained. The second, to be called social constructivism, sees consensus between different subjects as the ultimate criterion to judge knowledge. 'Truth' or 'reality' will be accorded only to those constructions on which most people of a social group agree.
In these philosophies, knowledge is seen as largely independent of a hypothetical 'external reality' or environment. As the 'radical' constructivists Maturana and Varela argue, the nervous system of an organism cannot in any absolute way distinguish between a perception (caused by an external phenomenon) and a hallucination (a purely internal event). The only basic criterion is that different mental entities or processes within or between individuals should reach some kind of equilibrium.
Though these constructivistic approaches put much more emphasis on the changing and relative character of knowledge, they are still absolutist in the primacy they give to either social consensus or internal coherence, and their description of construction processes is quite vague and incomplete. A more broad or synthetic outlook is offered by different forms or evolutionary epistemology. Here it is assumed that knowledge is constructed by the subject or group of subjects in order to adapt to their environment in the broad sense. That construction is an on-going process at different levels, biological as well as psychological or social. Construction happens through blind variation of existing pieces of knowledge, and the selective retention of those new combinations that somehow contribute most to the survival and reproduction of the subject(s) within their given environment. Hence we see that the 'external world' again enters the picture, although no objective reflection or correspondence is assumed, only an equilibrium between the products of internal variation and different (internal or external) selection criteria. Any form of absolutism or permanence has disappeared in this approach, but knowledge is basically still a passive instrument developed by organisms in order to help them in their quest for survival.
A most recent, and perhaps most radical approach, extends this evolutionary view in order to make knowledge actively pursue goals of its own. This approach, which as yet has not had the time to develop a proper epistemology, may be called memetics. It notes that knowledge can be transmitted from one subject to another, and thereby loses its dependence on any single individual. A piece of knowledge that can be transmitted or replicated in such a way is called a 'meme'. The death of an individual carrying a certain meme now no longer implies the elimination of that piece of knowledge, as evolutionary epistemology would assume. As long as a meme spreads more quickly to new carriers, than that its carriers die, the meme will proliferate, even though the knowledge it induces in any individual carrier may be wholly inadequate and even dangerous to survival. In this view a piece of knowledge may be succesful (in the sense that it is common or has many carriers) even though its predictions may be totally wrong, as long as it is sufficiently 'convincing' to new carriers. Here we see a picture where even the subject of knowledge has lost his primacy, and knowledge becomes a force of its own with proper goals and ways of developing itself. That this is realistic can be illustrated by the many superstitions, fads, and irrational beliefs that have spread over the globe, sometimes with a frightening speed.
Like social constructivism, memetics attracts the attention to communication and social processes in the development of knowledge, but instead of seeing knowledge as constructed by the social system, it rather sees social systems as constructed by knowledge processes. Indeed, a social group can be defined by the fact that all its members share the same meme (Heylighen, 1992). Even the concept of 'self', that which distinguishes a person as a individual, can be considered as a piece of knowledge, constructed through social processes (HarrŽ, 19), and hence a result of memetic evolution. From a constructivist approach, where knowledge is constructed by individuals or society, we have moved to a memetic approach, which sees society and even individuality as byproducts constructed by an ongoing evolution of independent fragments of knowledge competing for domination.
We have come very far indeed from Plato's immutable and absolute Ideas, residing in an abstract realm far from concrete objects or subjects, or from the naive realism of the reflection-correspondence theory, where knowledge is merely an image of external objects and their relations. At this stage, the temptation would be strong to lapse into a purely anarchistic or relativistic attitude, stating that 'anything goes', and that it would be impossible to formulate any reliable and general criteria to distinguish 'good' or adequate pieces of knowledge from bad or inadequate ones. Yet in most practical situations, our intuition does help us to distinguish perceptions from dreams or hallucinations, and unreliable predictions ('I am going to win the lottery') from reliable ones ('The sun will come up tomorrow morning'). And an evolutionary theory still assumes a natural selection which can be understood to a certain degree. Hence we may assume that it is possible to identify selection criteria, but one of the lessons of this historical overview will be that we should avoid to quickly formulate one absolute criterion. Neither correspondence, nor coherence or consensus, and not even survivability, are sufficient to ground a theory of knowledge. At this stage we can only hope to find multiple, independent, and sometimes contradictory criteria, whose judgment may quickly become obsolete. Yet if we would succeed to formulate these criteria clearly, within a simple and general conceptual framework, we would have an epistemology that synthesizes and extends al of the traditional and less traditional philosophies above.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Philo3 5:30-6:30 Class List
Clcode Description Units
PH3_G Inductive Reasoning 3
Days Time Venue
MWF 0530p - 0630p MM 31
# Lastname Firstname M.I. Idnumb Course.Yr.Section date Reserved
1. ALAGBAN AIRO GENE G 0621167 BSCS1B 2008-06-06 09:03:10
2. AMANTE JANRY C 0722421 BSCS2C 2008-05-31 10:58:23
3. ARTUS JELLIE B 0720853 BSCS2A 2008-06-06 15:47:12
4. BAGUIORO GREG PAUL T 0622639 BSBI2A 2008-06-12 10:51:00
5. BAUTISTA GEORGE MICHAEL D 0822363 ABID2A 2008-06-06 15:16:12
6. CABALANG JORGE JR. E 0421062 ABID3B 2008-06-12 16:42:05
7. CAUNTOY JIM CARLO M 0721066 BSCS2B 2008-05-30 11:07:57
8. CHUA CHRISTIAAN T 0721928 BSCS2B 2008-05-30 11:07:22
9. DEROCA ANGELIE JOY V 0622485 BSCS4B 2008-06-06 08:44:57
10. EBON GLEN MARK D 0720029 BSCS2B 2008-06-02 14:09:28
11. EDAR SARIAN LYN S 0721765 BSCS2B 2008-06-06 16:15:57
12. ENRIQUEZ JLOU M 0421957 BSCS3B 2008-06-06 09:04:49
13. ESMALLA DUBHE JOY F 0622506 ABID3A 2008-06-07 14:28:45
14. FERNANDEZ JEREMY PAUL D 0421128 ABID3A 2008-06-07 15:23:50
15. FERNANDO JANEL D 0420869 BSCS4A 2008-06-07 10:10:27
16. GABALES MABEL M 0211809 BSCS2 2008-06-06 16:50:53
17. GARCIA JAMES CARLO S 0720927 BSCS2B 2008-05-30 20:07:18
18. GUANCO JOHN FRANCIS M 0621399 BSCS3B 2008-06-06 11:26:56
19. HERMAN ROBERT JAN C 0100301 ABID4A 2008-06-11 17:42:44
20. LIM ALEXIS R 0620127 BSBI3A 2008-06-06 08:29:18
21. LINDAYA JONATHAN LORENZO M 0421141 ABID4A 2008-06-13 17:00:32
22. PANTIN DANIEL RHINE S 0721355 ABID2 2008-06-11 15:55:35
23. PEÑOL ANDRO D 0421315 ABID3 2008-06-18 14:07:36
24. RULLAN JERICO M 0721440 BSCS2B 2008-05-30 11:33:11
25. SANSON ALPHONSE JOEBEL A 0822761 BSCS1 2008-06-12 14:45:47
26. SANTILLAN REX E 0722169 BSCS2A 2008-06-06 10:17:32
27. SIROY LEILANI T 0522493 ABID3A 2008-06-19 13:48:02
28. SONON SHEILA MAE G 0621147 BSBI1A 2008-06-17 17:31:01
29. SUAREZ FROILAN M 0722728 ABID2A 2008-06-13 15:50:20
30. SUYO JOHN PATRICK V 0721055 BSCS2A 2008-05-31 09:34:35
31. TAGO HAROLD JAMES D 0622464 BSCS2A 2008-06-04 09:42:52
32. TOQUE ANDY C 0721818 BSCS2B 2008-05-30 11:07:25
33. TORRES MC JHON JHONSON D 0620815 BSCS3I 2008-06-06 15:12:33
PH3_G Inductive Reasoning 3
Days Time Venue
MWF 0530p - 0630p MM 31
# Lastname Firstname M.I. Idnumb Course.Yr.Section date Reserved
1. ALAGBAN AIRO GENE G 0621167 BSCS1B 2008-06-06 09:03:10
2. AMANTE JANRY C 0722421 BSCS2C 2008-05-31 10:58:23
3. ARTUS JELLIE B 0720853 BSCS2A 2008-06-06 15:47:12
4. BAGUIORO GREG PAUL T 0622639 BSBI2A 2008-06-12 10:51:00
5. BAUTISTA GEORGE MICHAEL D 0822363 ABID2A 2008-06-06 15:16:12
6. CABALANG JORGE JR. E 0421062 ABID3B 2008-06-12 16:42:05
7. CAUNTOY JIM CARLO M 0721066 BSCS2B 2008-05-30 11:07:57
8. CHUA CHRISTIAAN T 0721928 BSCS2B 2008-05-30 11:07:22
9. DEROCA ANGELIE JOY V 0622485 BSCS4B 2008-06-06 08:44:57
10. EBON GLEN MARK D 0720029 BSCS2B 2008-06-02 14:09:28
11. EDAR SARIAN LYN S 0721765 BSCS2B 2008-06-06 16:15:57
12. ENRIQUEZ JLOU M 0421957 BSCS3B 2008-06-06 09:04:49
13. ESMALLA DUBHE JOY F 0622506 ABID3A 2008-06-07 14:28:45
14. FERNANDEZ JEREMY PAUL D 0421128 ABID3A 2008-06-07 15:23:50
15. FERNANDO JANEL D 0420869 BSCS4A 2008-06-07 10:10:27
16. GABALES MABEL M 0211809 BSCS2 2008-06-06 16:50:53
17. GARCIA JAMES CARLO S 0720927 BSCS2B 2008-05-30 20:07:18
18. GUANCO JOHN FRANCIS M 0621399 BSCS3B 2008-06-06 11:26:56
19. HERMAN ROBERT JAN C 0100301 ABID4A 2008-06-11 17:42:44
20. LIM ALEXIS R 0620127 BSBI3A 2008-06-06 08:29:18
21. LINDAYA JONATHAN LORENZO M 0421141 ABID4A 2008-06-13 17:00:32
22. PANTIN DANIEL RHINE S 0721355 ABID2 2008-06-11 15:55:35
23. PEÑOL ANDRO D 0421315 ABID3 2008-06-18 14:07:36
24. RULLAN JERICO M 0721440 BSCS2B 2008-05-30 11:33:11
25. SANSON ALPHONSE JOEBEL A 0822761 BSCS1 2008-06-12 14:45:47
26. SANTILLAN REX E 0722169 BSCS2A 2008-06-06 10:17:32
27. SIROY LEILANI T 0522493 ABID3A 2008-06-19 13:48:02
28. SONON SHEILA MAE G 0621147 BSBI1A 2008-06-17 17:31:01
29. SUAREZ FROILAN M 0722728 ABID2A 2008-06-13 15:50:20
30. SUYO JOHN PATRICK V 0721055 BSCS2A 2008-05-31 09:34:35
31. TAGO HAROLD JAMES D 0622464 BSCS2A 2008-06-04 09:42:52
32. TOQUE ANDY C 0721818 BSCS2B 2008-05-30 11:07:25
33. TORRES MC JHON JHONSON D 0620815 BSCS3I 2008-06-06 15:12:33
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
