The Nature and Operation of the World - Essay Example

? Kathryn Schulz has thrown down a challenge to anyone considering themselves a know-it-all. Her argument is quite simple and is based on inductive reasoning. Throughout history humans have developed theories to explain the nature and operation of the world around them. for a time these hypotheses are considered insightful, often even the “last word” on a topic. Then some future investigator discovers, lo and behold, that the theorem has fatal errors and must be discarded. This being the case, how can we have confidence that we actually “know” anything? Descartes would respond to this challenge by saying that there is one thing we can know for sure, and that is that there is a “we,” or at least an “I.” This is certain beyond anyone possible doubt, because doubt necessitates it. If I doubt that I exist, then there must be an “I” to have the experience of doubt. So from doubt emerges certainty. This process is entirely mental and depends not at all on what the senses tell us is actually out there. That is good, because our senses may be lying to us. Descartes’ evil genius or demon could have our brains floating in a vat or our bodies hooked up to a bio-chamber like the ones on The Matrix. This being the case, how can I know that the street I see from my window is actually there? How can I be sure that the flowers I smell are there? A sadistic entity might deceive me into thinking that I am taking a whiff of a bed of roses when in actuality I’m smelling a pile of horse dung. In the same way, my sandwich might be a plate of sand and the music I listen to the screeching of fingernails on a chalkboard. All of this could have been set up for the amusement of the demonic genius who controls me. But there is one thing that said villain cannot do. He cannot trick me into believing that I exist if I don’t. Thus I can be certain of myself, and, according to Descartes, from that foundation I may proceed to establish true statements about the things around me. In accomplishing this I have the assistance of logic and mathematics, which teach me truths that the demon cannot deceive me about. Two and two must equal four, just as all bachelors must be single and every rainy day must be a rainy day. These facts are known rationally, that is, within the mind, independent of sense impressions. Thus it is my rational mind, using the tools of science, that will get at the truth, separating fact from fiction in what my senses say. Nonsense, says David Hume. People can have ideas, even complex sets of ideas, that all fit together and sound good yet are totally fallacious. Aristotle developed a system of physics that fit this description perfectly. I can develop a theory that a young lady loves me, based on such rational notions as, “After all, I’m a fine young man, and don’t young ladies tend to fall in love with fine young men?” But when I test the theory out and ask her for a date she might say no. My ideas of what he feelings must be had no correlation with the outside world at all. So, for Hume, all we can know is what our senses tell us. But he carries this a step further, saying that f all we can know is what our senses tell us, then deductions made on the basis of observations can never be trusted. An example can be seen in a game of billiards. The stick hits a ball that hits another ball, and all are in motion one after the other. We conclude from this that there is some sort of force that one object passes to the other and develop theories about inertia and momentum. But, did we see this actual force? No. We saw a stick make contact with a ball, which set out in motion and struck another ball, which in turn launched into motion. But, for all we know, one did not cause the other. The balls may have some sort of internal property that sets them off, and it is sheer coincidence that this principle kicked in at the moment each was struck by the other. This being the case, what can we ever really know? Well, we can know that stuff happens. How or why it occurs, on the other hand, is forever beyond us. Kant took a different approach to the question. His answer to the question of whether or not we can have knowledge is, “Define the term first.” For Kant, there is a world out there filled with “noumenon,” and there is a world inside our heads as well. The one in our skulls can perceive elements of the noumenal world, but there’s a catch. Those elements must conform to the categories by which we perceive reality. Kant believed we were all born with twelve categories of understanding, which are templates that our minds use to structure the sensory input from outside of therm. Take the example of the pool game from before. In response to Hume, Kant would say that we see cause and effect because we were designed to do so. Thus, in our brains we experience a representation of the external game in which ball a causes ball B to roll down the table. We see it that way because we have no choice but to do so. A helpful analogy is to imagine someone wearing blue tinted glasses that cannot be removed. Everything they see will have a bluish tint to it, because the lenses impose that on the data entering the eyes. In a similar way, our minds take what enters them from sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell and arranges it to fit the twelve categories of understanding. What about the world outside of us? Can we know for sure that cause and effect occurs out there? According to Kant, no. There may or may not be a correspondence between the category in our brain and external reality. In that sense he agrees with Hume. Unlike Hume, though, he sees no problem with attributing unseen factors to our sensory data. since all we can know is the world our minds create, then for all intents and purposes that is the only “world” we need to concern ourselves with. To sum up, Descartes says, “Yes, we can know true facts about the world outside of us.” Hume says, “No, we can’t.” Kant replies, “No, we can’t, but it doesn’t matter. For us the only reality is the internal one we create, and it conforms to rules that we were born to use and understand.” I see none of these approaches as fully dealing with the problem of knowledge. Descartes appears to be correct in his assertion that I can know I exist, simply because I cannot imagine any way in which that could possibly be false. But there are many things that seem to make rational sense that observation tells us aren’t true. Both Einstein’s theories as well as quantum mechanics tell us this. If rationality alone taught us truth about the world then there would have been no need for science, with its observations of the things around us. Hume is right if and only if past experience teaches us nothing, but this is obviously not true. If every time I strike a pool ball it moves, I can either believe that it is caused by pure coincidence or that there is actual cause and effect going on. Regarding “seeing” the causal relationship, I do so when I witness the game itself. He tries to draw a distinction between what I see and what I conclude, but that distinction it was is truly illusory. Seeing the actions of the balls is seeing cause and effect. Kant has more of merit to say than the others. We do appear to have templates built into our mind. If I see a friend eat a wild mushroom then immediately turn pale and fall over dead, I’m going to conclude that eating the mushroom killed him. I don’t think any of these truly address Schulz’s challenge. My response to her would be to look at the results of our theories, such as airplanes, penicillin, and computers. The fact that we are gaining ever greater knowledge about the world is proven by our growing mastery over it. On the other hand, inaccurate theories are disproven when methods based on them, such as bleeding people with leeches, fail to work. Utility value is thus the best standard we have for gauging if what we think we know is actually true. Read More