From The Student Room
TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Philosophy > AQA AS Philosophy - Theory of Knowledge
Theory of Knowledge
Key essay questions
- Assess rationalism/empiricism
- Assess representative realism/naïve realism
- Assess idealism/phenomalism
- Is global scepticism possible?
- Is knowledge JTB?
Naïve Realism
This theory is often cited by philosophers merely to be knocked down, David Hume commented that the slightest philosophy would require an individual to give up this theory. It is worth noting that to the ordinary man this is how they think perception works, and could be known as ‘common sense realism’.
- The real world is as it appears to our senses
- We perceive the tree and all its properties directly
- We see everything as it really is
Problems with this theory
- Perspective – objects get smaller in distance, but in fact they do not. Perspective shows that we do not perceive the world exactly as it is.
- Secondary Qualities – if we have the ‘inter galactic’ council meeting, they may well see the same ‘red’ item as differing colours. Also, if we look at something under a microscope it appears a different colour – so which is its true colour?
- Circular – the naïve realism claims to know what physical objects are like by perceiving them and this relies on the fact that we perceive things as they are. *However, this claim presupposes that we know what they are like. We know what they are like because we perceive them… etc.
- Real vs. Hallucinatory - if our perception is based on what we see, what exactly is a dream or hallucination, because we know it not to really be there? This indicates that our perception is not just about direct contact with the world
- Deception – the ‘evil demon’ could be tricking our senses into believing that something is when it isn’t. (Cf. Descartes)
Conclusion
Naïve realism only maintains its status as an accurate theory of perception before it is examined philosophical which shows it to be false.
Representative Realism
This theory can also be known as indirect realism
PERCEIVER 
PERCEPT / SENSE DATA 
OBJECT
- Realist theory – the real world actually exists
- We do not perceive objects directly
- Distinction between our sense data and the object perceived
- We have a mental component – the way the object appears to us, our sense data give us a representation of the world
- We have a physical component – the object as it is in reality
- The representative realist is essentially saying that we have pictures in our minds, which represent the real world outside of our minds.
Strengths
- Deception/illusion – this can be explained when our sensation does not match up to something within the real world – causing us to be deceived
- Primary and Secondary Qualities – This theory explains the problem of secondary qualities, in that something about the object makes it appear red to our sense organs but it may make it appear different to another creatures sense organs. The distinction remains intact with this theory of perception.
- Fits in with science – Modern science tells us that there are no colours but only light waves etc.
Problems
- Since we do not perceive the world directly how are we to know when we are being deceived or not being deceived? How could we ever know what we actual see through the image in our mind
- Assumes the existence of a real world
- If we are behind a ‘veil of perception’ – then what exactly is matter? Matter according to a representative realist is completely unperceivable – it can never be directly known to us. So, what exactly is ‘matter’ it appears to be a completely empty concept.
- It would appear that the real world existing is a better reason for these sense experiences.
- Problem of an infinite regress, we receive sense data…then sense data of that sense data etc.
Conclusion
Representative realism is not an ideal theory of perception, however it would certainly appear that it is a good working theory based on the hypothesis that the external world actually exists. It’s problem of running into idealism with matter being an empty concept can be solved by showing that idealism is false (solipsism etc.)
Idealism
Idealism is the view that all we have are our ‘ideas’ or sense data, there is no external world.
PERCEIVER 
PERCEPT / SENSE DATA
- Idealism is also an ontology
- Idealism is an anti-realist theory
- All that exists are minds and their thoughts and sensation; we know we have a mind because we perceive objects of various colours and shapes etc.
- However, it is a leap of faith to suppose that there is a material world
Idealism paradoxically comes when you push ‘common sense’ empiricism to its final conclusion
Strengths
- A blind man cannot have the concept of red because they have not experienced red – now applying this to matter we can never experience matter because it lies beyond the veil of perception – so how can be have a concept of it? The whole concept of matter than becomes void of any content so the talk of matter becomes meaningless.
Problems
- Counter Intuitive
- Explanatory Framework – a real world explains where these senses come from better
- Gaps in experience - the fire dwindles when you leave the room
- Solipsism – if all that to exist is to be perceived then all there is to other minds to exist is being perceived they are just collections of sense data and not actually out ‘there’. This is a solipsistic viewpoint that can be refuted using the private language argument.
- Real and Illusion – if I imagine a unicorn, according to idealists that has no different to be actually ‘seeing’ a house. Also, how is the idealist to explain apparently illusionary experience (such as mirages) as that and the ‘real’ world are both just experience. It seems to suggest that there is no difference between them!
- Coherance theory of truth
- What about ‘out of the ordinary’ real experiences?
- Parasitic Language - ‘cat sat on the mat’ – ‘on’ requires a spatial world.
Conclusion
Idealism appears an attractive theory on the surface and somewhat irrefutable, however it leads to an absurd position of solipsism, which shows idealism must be false
Phenomenalism
- Phenomenalism can be classified as a ‘weak’ version of idealism – trying to sit on the fence between idealism and rep realism.
- There are two types of phenomenalism;
- Classical Phenomenalism – ‘matter is a permanent possibility of sensation’ (J.S.Mill)
- Linguistic Phenomenalism – this is mainly a theory of meaning, trying to say what we really mean when we talk about physical objects which is talk about sense data, but this is just too long winded to use normally.
Strengths
- Solves the ‘gaps’ in experience
- Deals with our PERCEPTIONS which we are certain, not the ‘meaningless’ view of objects.
Problems
- What explains the ‘permanent possibilities of sensation’? The phenomenalist runs into problems, why exactly are they permanent surely this indicates a physical world?
- Isn’t it as much as problem to say why does the physical world produce regular patterns as the view that our experiences are?
- Parasitic upon object language talk – they gain all there spatial language from the public world and then reject the public world yet continue to use the language of it – ‘on’ for instance.
- Cannot translate into phenomal talk - it would take an infinite description to describe.
- Sense data indeterminate – we may not be sure how many sides something has does that mean it doesn’t have a fixed number of sides? What does that mean?
- Makes no difference to our lives
- Counter-Intuitive
Global Scepticism
- This differs to ordinary doubt where we may not trust the encyclopaedia etc.
- Any proposition, which is logically possible to doubt, is doubted.
- Both a priori and a posteriori propositions are doubted
- This views tends to be used as a methodological tool to find certainty (Descartes)
Strengths
- Stops any assumptions
- The grounds for knowledge are challenged till we arrive at certainty (if any)
- It is impossible to eliminate subjectivity, as we cannot have a view from nowhere and thus scepticism is inescapable
Problems
- Common Sense
- Global Scepticism only exists in the philosophy classroom
- Doubt – if all money were counterfeit, in what sense would it actually be counterfeit? The meaning of counterfeit requires the negation of the word ‘real’ and if there is no ‘real money’ then what makes the money counterfeit? Doubt gets its meaning from certainty and the absence of it, if the sceptic is unwilling to accept the possibility of certainty it would appear that ‘doubt’ means nothing at all.
- Nilhil Quia Omnia – everything is nothing
- Solipsism – private language shows the existence of public world etc.
- If we have no grounds for belief, we have no grounds for doubt. Just because we may be in error, does not mean we actually are. Also, if nothing can be known then how could the sceptic ever know they are being deceived?
- Paradox – global scepticism leaves if with the certainty that there is nothing certain.
Conclusion
Although global scepticism is often cited when someone ‘mocks’ philosophy, it is actually shown through philosophy that the position of global scepticism leads to an absurd position of solipsism and it is logically incoherent.
Knowledge
- Tripartite definition;
- This has been considered an adequate view of knowledge, until recent times.
- Necessary condition – required to be there but not alone (i.e. oxygen for fire)
- Sufficient condition – enough to perform whatever action (i.e. oxy/heat/spark)
Are the conditions necessary and sufficient?
- Belief – it would appear incoherent to say ‘I know it is raining, but I don’t believe it’. Although this condition for knowledge has been challenged, for instance if I am quizzed on historical dates and guess…I don’t believe them to be true, but I may have got them right. This would appear to suggest I had knowledge yet did not believe. However, this can be challenged firstly that you wouldn’t guess a certain date if you didn’t have a conviction it might be the right one and even if you were just guessing and getting them right – that would indicate you did not know in the first place.
- True – To have knowledge it must be true, for instance people may have claimed to know that the world was flat – this in fact was not knowledge as science has no certainty but merely something that they believed. Truth is not just corresponding to you examining your believes but actually corresponding to the world out there – a set of external criteria.
- Justified – Let us take the example of a racist juror, who before the case begins thinks this man is guilty because he is black, and this happens to be true. This is a true belief however, is this knowledge? His justification is based on an irrational prejudice, we would hesitate to call this juror’s belief the man is guilty knowledge, despite it being true.
As is shown above all the conditions are necessary and together are sufficient to form knowledge.
Problems
- Gettier example
- Does this seem to lead to the problem that nothing could ever count as justification and knowledge is impossible?
- What counts as justification in general
- Is certainty required as a necessary condition?
- No. Subjective certainty about your beliefs does not impact on what you know. Million pound quiz example
Conclusion
It would appear that JTB is not the same as knowledge, and no matter how far we push our standards of justification it will never result in a completely flawless view of knowledge. However, although usually pragmatism may be frown on within philosophy, JTB is a perfectly adequate working definition for knowledge and it only becomes unhinged in very unusual circumstances.
Rationalism
The central claim of rationalism is that some knowledge is a priori, which means that some knowledge is "prior" to experience in the sense that it can be justified independently of experience. In other words, this knowledge can be known by using reason and/or intuition alone. There is no need to find "empirical" evidence to support it, from any of the five senses.
When they speak of "reason" rationalists are thinking of deductive proof, and by "intuition" they mean an immediate apprehension of a self-evident truth. Thus it is a feature of a priori knowledge that it is certain. Reason alone gives us access to certain, necessary and timeless truths. The truths that lie behind the world of appearances (science etc.) can be found out through our reason, the truths of metaphysics for example.
The obvious candidate for being classified as a priori is mathematics, including geometry. For example, Pythagoras' Theorem can be proved using deduction, which establishes it as being knowledge without the need to go around measuring the sides of lots of different right angles triangles, to check that the theorem applies to them. (You could justify Pythagoras' Theorem empirically, but you do not have to do it that way.)
Strengths
- It would appear that you have to accept this notion because at least some knowledge can be gained a priori for example, some have claimed God’s existence could be – but crucially the fact that 180 degrees are in a triangle can be found out by reason alone – it requires no empirical evidence
- Descartes was a famous rationalist and followed this view to try and ascertain certain truths about the world such as a cogito, which was derived from pure reason alone. WAX EXAMPLE
- The senses can be shown to be wrong, so a posteriori knowledge is not certain.
Problems
- You must engage with the world to have knowledge of it
- How could you have the concept of a triangle without every seeing one?
- A rationalist may reply that experience is in part necessary, but the concepts learnt about the triangle are a priori
- Kants Synthesis – Reason alone can provide no information about the world as it appears; reason alone is empty. But, pure sensory experience would make no sense either unless processed by the tools of reason. The world in itself is unknowable by us, so we can only search for the a priori structures of our experience.
- The contradictory of any fact is always conceivable – experience is needed in order to take this a priori hypothesis to the ‘test’ in the real world
- Euclidean Geometry would supposedly be found out a priori however, empirically this was shown to be false.
- Presupposed the laws of logic are infallible
Conclusion
Rationalism was continental viewpoint, and in part it can be considered true because some concept we can ‘reason’ from the intellect. However, we must be able to test these reasoning empirically also. It would appear that to take a stance as a ‘rationalist’ or ‘empiricist’ is too extreme and we must come to some compromise such as Kant’s synthesis.
Comments
These notes are aimed at people studying for AQA AS Philosophy - Theory of Knowledge, but will be suitable for other people too.
Originally written by cor on TSR Forums.
