Dependability of Science Based on Empiricism - Essay Example

From antiquity to contemporary times, Rene Descartes has been popularly considered as the father of modern philosophy; among other things, the French philosopher was the pre-eminent figure in the development of rationalism. This school of thought stressed on the use of reason as the true means through which knowledge can be attained, rationalism became one of the dominant knowledge theories along with empiricism and it served as a major pillar for the enlightenment movement in Europe. One of the most notable and controversial assertions and the subject of this paper was his claiming that one cannot entirely depend on their senses to provide true information about their surroundings. This naturally elicited many criticisms especially from empiricists who held that the primary source of true knowledge was sensory experience. Essentially, Descartes was seen as deigning to question the dependability of science based on empiricism since scientific investigation can only be inference from by means of sensory examination. To prove his point, Descartes underwent what is commonly referred to as an intellectual rebirth and to achieve this he had to deconstruct everything he had learnt from birth since he had leant it through his senses and he wanted to prove that they could deceive. To this end, he postulated a few arguments among them the dream theory, suggested that when one dreams of say a fire, they feel warm and experience the selfsame experience they do when they are actually basking in a fire. The same argument can be extended to cover other sensation that people perceive even the absence of stimulating agents or situations. For example, one can dream they are falling and they will wake up with a sense of terror and probably break in to a sweat with fear exactly as they would have if they had actually being falling. Similarly, he makes an argument about whether God actually exists or whether a deceiving demon or evil genius manipulates humans. He argues, can one know that they have no body but they simply exist in the form of a mind in which information is fed and the physical sensations are actually imagined. This concept has been demonstrated in several works of art more so films such as “inception” where the plot involves a situation in which the characters are able to move and manipulate events in the lives of others by accessing their brain while they dreamt. In the wax example, Descartes further demonstrates the unreliability of the senses by claiming that a piece of wax in its solid form will look, feel and smell very differently from itself if it were melted. Therefore, someone not familiar with wax may see two entirely different things by looking at wax in its different forms although essentially they are the same thing. At the end of the day, Descartes wishes to invite his audience to abandon their blind, (so to speak) reliance of scientific enquiry and investigate everything from a rational point of view. In the famous cogito argument , he claims I am therefore I exist, to prove this he chooses to doubt everything including his own existence which is after all only aware of by means of sensory powers (Kaufman 12). When he figuratively scraps of all his knowledge, he remains with the only bit that is not based on empiricisms, and the fact that he doubts everything means that not everything might actually exist. Nevertheless, that he is capable of doubting is proof of the existence of his doubt and this translates into this existence since he must be existing to doubt. This argument while seeming farfetched and illogical to the non-critical eyes actually bears a point that almost everyone including his greatest critics would agree. An individual cannot know much about something else than about himself because as proved by Descartes, one does not need to apply sensory powers to prove their own sense of being (De Marzio 312). Therefore, the most qualified way of understanding one’s self is the one that does not use empirical reasoning, why them, Descartes seems to ask why it would it not be applied to all other aspects of knowledge. Descartes argument explicably came under fire from various quarters and leading in the onslaught were the empiricists, for year’s empiricism had been accepted as the most objective vessel of knowledge especially because it was among the key tenets of scientific experimentation. One of the points at which Descartes argument is open to opposition is the assumption that the mind, since it bears the doubts, then it is a distinct entity from the body. However, basic science teaches that the mind functions through the working of the millions of neurons and other nerves and tissue that make up the brain. Therefore, by suggesting that the only way through which one can confirm the existence is to ignore all their other senses and focus on the brain Descartes’s argument is self-defeating. Assume for arguments sake he was right and sensory input is not to be trusted, how much more trustworthy would the brain be considering that it is the very organ that controls the rest of organs such as eyes and ears? Furthermore, empiricists will be no doubt question his assumption that the mind is the same as the brain, which according to them is incorrect as the brain, is simply an organic construct and it is therefore no less vulnerable to sensory deception than the rest the body. In the above argument, a critical factor that emerges is that the words mind and brain are often used interchangeably, and this is a typical characteristic of many arguments used to oppose Descartes rationalism. Nevertheless, basing their opposition on this premise, the detractors err in that they assume their understanding of the two constructs is in tandem with Descartes’s. The rebuttal to the argument can be found if one were to examine another of Descartes’s arguments in which he proposes the concept of Cartesian dualism, according to him the mind and body are two distinct entities, which are capable of existing autonomously (Christofidou 217). The mind is capable of thought and the body of physical action, as far as Descartes is concerned, the mind is the same as a soul not brain; therefore, when one equates the brain and mind they immediately veer off the course of his argument and any conclusions that follow must be considered erroneous. Therefore, to return to the opposing argument, assuming that the mind is organic thus must be subject to the same vulnerabilities as the rest of the physical body is erroneous. Invariably, this position like most of Descartes standpoint is likely to brook further argument based on the presupposition that even if the mind and body were distinct and the former had not physical attributes would how would they coexist. This is a valid question and brings bout another interesting counter argument, whereby the underlying assumption the inquisitor would be making is essentially how the nonphysical mind would be able to control the physical mind? This has frequently been used against the theory of Cartesian dualism but it does not in any way serve to weaken the initial argument, how the two distinct concepts can unite, and even Descartes does not answer that and nobody can really give a logical explanation for it. While this may be used to try to weaken the claim on unreliability of perception by refuting the separation of mind and soul, the only thing it actually proves is that Descartes is did not know everything about metaphysics. An argument to reject the possibility of mind and body separation and by extension, the possibility of sensory unreliability is based on the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, as it presupposes that Descartes cannot be right, not because he has been proved wrong but because the opponent cannot prove him to right. Ultimately, one must concede that despite the heavy criticism, Descartes’s argument remains not only plausible but also relevant since the senses can indeed deceive and two people can look at the same thing and see entirely different things. Therefore, there is no doubt about the fact that perception cannot be trusted beyond reasonable doubt, nevertheless, that his argument rest on the premises of Cartesian dualism does not augur well with critics. Admittedly, the arguments put forward against the concept are pretty solid, however it one must also take to account that the critics were just as ignorant as he was about the bond between the body and mind therefore they can neither prove nor disapprove his theory. Until such a time that it will be possible for humans to prove there is or there isn’t a way for the mind and body to bond, Descartes Cartesian dualism will remain relevant and so will every other assumption constructed on it, such as concept of sensory untrustworthiness. Works Cited Christofidou, Andrea. "Descartes' Dualism: Correcting some Misconceptions." Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.2 (2001): 215-38.  De Marzio, Darryl. “Dealing with Diversity: On the Uses of Common Sense in Descartes and Montaigne” Students Philosophy Education. 29: (2010) 301–313 Kaufman, Dan. "God's Immutability and the Necessity of Descartes's Eternal Truths." Journal of the History of Philosophy43.1 (2005): 1-19.  Read More