PYA1 Theory of Knowledge - revision help needed.

OP

my philosophy teacher is against revision guides, and guides in general. He says that they reduce the subject into something you can learn and recite, rather than an activity. I agree with him like, but right now i want to pass the A- level. Do you know how much they cost at all?

Reply 3

-mel-

I don't I'm afraid. Try google? www.hoddereducation.co.uk
I think that's the website not sure though.

It's not like a revision guide with stupid things in, it's rather good.

Reply 4

OP

i'll have a look. Tis a bit late for me to be hunting books.. i've let it so late to think about this. I've been so busy with the coursework

Reply 5

Do you still need any help with this? If you do, remind me of the topics involved in Theories of Knowledge, and I'll have a look! Not sure if I've actually got my notes anymore, but yeah...I'll have a look if you can tell me the topics involved! (It's been a few years since I did Theories of Knowledge...:P)

Sorry if I can't be any help!

Reply 6

Levity

1

Get the book, even if you've only got two weeks to read it. I found it really, really good.

Reply 7

OP

it's theories of perception
empiricism v rationalism
knowldeg and skepticism
knowledge and justification

Reply 8

Right...I can't find my notes atm!

But I am bored today and have nothing better to do, so I'll have a look, see if I can find anything else useful!

http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/tokhome.htm <---- This website looks useful though, it's got a whole Theories Of Knowledge sections with loads of stuff on it. :smile:

Reply 9

Ok...so from Wikipedia on Theories of Perception:
Realist theories of perception:

• Naive realism – people believe that what they perceive is things in themselves.
• Direct realism - says sensation is composed of a set of data transfers, but said that these were in some way transparent, so that there is a direct connection between perception and the world.
• Indirect realism – the succession of data transfers involved in perception suggests that somewhere in the brain there is a final set of activity, called sense data. Perception is some form of brain activity, and somehow the brain is able to perceive itself.
• With indirect realism, it is held that we can only be aware of external objects by being aware of representations of objects (e.g. John Locke)
• Arguments against indirect realism:
- Appears as if the mind is seeing the mind in an endless loop
- Assumes that perception is entirely due to data transfer and classical information processing
- This argument can be avoided by proposing that the percept is a phenomenon that does not depend wholly upon the transfer and rearrangement of data
• Direct and indirect realism are known as ‘realist’ theories of perception because they hold that there is a world external to the mind
• Direct realism says that the representation of an object is located next to, or is even part of, the actual physical object, whereas indirect realism holds that the representation of an object is brain activity
• Direct realism says there is a direct connection between external representations and the mind, while indirect realism requires some feature of modern physics to create a phenomenon that avoids infinite regress
• Indirect realism – consistent with experiences e.g. dreams, imagining, hallucinations, illusions, etc
• With indirect realism, it is held that we can only be aware of external objects by being aware of representations of objects (e.g. John Locke). Direct realism argues that these experiences do not occur, or avoids this problem by defining perception as only those experiences that are consistent with direct realism.

Reply 10

Anti-realist theories of perception:

• Idealism and scepticism:
• Idealism says that reality is limited to mental qualities. E.g. George Berkeley – said everything was mind or dependent upon mind
- Phenomenalism – physical events are viewed as a special kind of mental event
- Subjective idealism
• Scepticism says we can’t gain knowledge of any reality external to our minds. E.g. David Hume

Reply 11

Empiricism and rationalism:

• Rationalism (e.g. Descartes) says that our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience; truth is gained by reason alone
- Argues that there are cases where the content of our concepts/knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4 – what sensory experience can explain that?)
- Intuition/deduction thesis – some things are known to us by intuition alone, others can be known can being deduced from intuition. Deduction is the process of gaining conclusions from intuited premises through valid arguments – if the premise is true, that conclusion must be true So intuition/deduction provide us with a priori knowledge – knowledge gained independently of sensory experience
So some rationalists include mathematics, ethics, religion/God, etc as a priori knowledge
Innate knowledge – we have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area as part of our rational nature (so again, a priori knowledge) – but this theory says it is not gained from intuition/deduction, it is just part of our nature. Experiences may bring this knowledge to consciousness, but it is already there
Innate concept – we have some of the concepts used in a particular subject area as part of our rational nature (e.g. Locke).
Arguments for – maths and logic are innate, based on reason. Morality? How do we verify empiricism? Empiricism undermines creativity, abstract ideas etc
Arguments against – innate knowledge can be wrong
• Empiricism (e.g. Locke, Berkley, Hume) says that sense experience is the source of all our concepts and knowledge
- We have no source of knowledge or concepts other than sense experience
- A posteriori knowledge – dependent on sense experience
- Locke – the mind is a blank slate at birth. Understanding is a set of propositions present to consciousness
- Can be linked with scepticism in that, if experience can’t provide the concepts or knowledge, then we don’t have them
- Arguments for – it is simpler – rationalism involves innate knowledge, which doesn’t seem to do anything. Ockham’s Razor (simpler theory is better when deciding between theories that explain the same phenomena) – empiricism is more simple. Colours – the only way to have an idea of colours is to experience is with senses (e.g. if you were blind you couldn’t see colours). Imagination and experience; much of science is founded on empiricism – theories can be improved based on experience
- Arguments against empiricism – what about maths, etc, where we can’t have sensory experiences? Observations can be misleading – e.g. hallucinations/illusions

Reply 12

Knowledge and scepticism:

• Questions whether knowledge is possible
• The belief is something does not necessarily justify an assertion of knowledge of it
• Sometimes beliefs are true by chance – does this amount to knowledge if it is just by accident that what we believe is true? There must be conclusive reasons, surely?
• What about mistakes? There are limitations with our senses
• Illusions and deceptions argument – if we can be deceived by our senses, how do we know that what we are seeing is true? What about dreams/hallucinations/mental illness and hearing voices? Or if something feels hot or cold depending on whether we are hot or cold? If our senses can be deceived, are they reliable?

Reply 13

Obviously there's a lot of other arguments and evaluative points that you can use, and I'm sure you've got stuff in a lot more detail than what I've just posted, but this was just to give you some basic details and ideas, and I really do recommend the website I posted - it's got a lot of useful stuff and it's quite simplified too, which is always good!

Good luck. :smile:

Reply 14

Gorge

The_Goose

Does anyone have an decent notes for this unit? or a link to a wiki with some on.. I have looked, but I don't really understand the wiki thing :biggrin:

hey there have u found any deasent notes... i hve the exam on the 23 rd awwww i dnt no an awful lot

Reply 15

Gorge

Liv1204

Do you still need any help with this? If you do, remind me of the topics involved in Theories of Knowledge, and I'll have a look! Not sure if I've actually got my notes anymore, but yeah...I'll have a look if you can tell me the topics involved! (It's been a few years since I did Theories of Knowledge...:P)

Sorry if I can't be any help!

hey there do you have any good notes concerning triparte knowledge regards xxxx gorge

Reply 16

OP

what are primary qualities of an object?

Reply 17

Fatema991

Things that are real physical qualties of an object eg size position motion..
secondary stuff is like, colour or taste..

Reply 18

DescartesWasMyDad

8

The_Goose

what are primary qualities of an object?

Primary qualities are the ones an object has regardless of if it is being percieved or not.

Seondary qualities are ones that have to be percieved to exist.

For example, I've got an orange on my desk at the moment.

Its priamry qualities are that it is a spherical, extended object. It has mass and shape.

Its secondary qualities are things like its colour. To make it orange I have too look at it and percieve it. For it to taste of orange I have to taste it.

Reply 19

OP