Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Getting nervous for this exam! Not good with Reason and Experience, any ideas what the questions are likely to be? Can't be dealing with a 30 mark question on conceptual schemes!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Eurgh I really can't deal with the conceptual schemes part of R&E, could anyone explain it to me in simple terms? Sorry I keep asking questions like that here, Reason and Experience just confused me so much
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GregMc)
    Getting nervous for this exam! Not good with Reason and Experience, any ideas what the questions are likely to be? Can't be dealing with a 30 mark question on conceptual schemes!
    Unfortunately it's look likely that a Conceptual Scheme 30 marker will come up, I feel the same way you do about it
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NiallD)
    Unfortunately it's look likely that a Conceptual Scheme 30 marker will come up, I feel the same way you do about it
    I've done this exam 3 times before. This is the last time I can sit it and if CS comes up, I will actually cry
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dlaiden)
    - Hume explained the concept of causation as us seeing two events occurring together again and again until we believe them to have a causal relationship. So causation is an a posteriori, empirically-gained concept for him.

    - Sapir-Whorf: Hopi Indians have a different concept of time than we do. Time might thus be an empirically gained concept, and this paves the path for the empiricist to argue that other concepts are also derived from experience of the world.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Thank you very much!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pseudo-truth)
    I've done this exam 3 times before. This is the last time I can sit it and if CS comes up, I will actually cry
    There are only so many questions they can ask you about conceptual schemes. As long you learn the basics such as kants conceptual schemes (synthetic apriori, categories in the mind) and the sapir-whorf (language as a conceptual scheme) and some criticisms of each one you should be okay. Just try to drag out the arguments and criticisms for at least 3 arguments and 3 criticisms.
    I think the question is likely to be something like: 'conceptual schemes are the only way we can gain knowledge of the world' discuss. or 'conceptual schemes give us knowledge of the world' discuss the implications of this view for empiricism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hugh_devlin)
    There are only so many questions they can ask you about conceptual schemes. As long you learn the basics such as kants conceptual schemes (synthetic apriori, categories in the mind) and the sapir-whorf (language as a conceptual scheme) and some criticisms of each one you should be okay. Just try to drag out the arguments and criticisms for at least 3 arguments and 3 criticisms.
    I think the question is likely to be something like: 'conceptual schemes are the only way we can gain knowledge of the world' discuss. or 'conceptual schemes give us knowledge of the world' discuss the implications of this view for empiricism.
    Any chance you could help me out with a few arguments for and criticisms as I don't understand conceptual schemes at all how would you answer those two suggested questions?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by >Username<)
    When you say hard determinism, what do you mean?

    So basically coincidence, ignorance and probability prove we have free will. However the weakness is if your arm move without you wanting to move it then you do not have free will as you did not want it to move therefore there must be a cause to it. Therefore coincidence, ignorance and probability do not mean there is no cause. And this can be illustrated as:

    Coincidence - Someone may go to the shop and bump into a friend however although they choose to go to the shop, something initially caused them to do so meaning they bumped into their friend.
    Probability - Winning the lottery may seem like probability but there are causes to why some balls are selected.
    Ignorance - It may seem like there is no cause but really there is, we are ignorant to realise what the cause is.

    So they are weaknesses of hard determinism? I thought coincidence, probability and ignorance were for hard determinism as they show that we do not have free will.

    I am making the assumption here that hard determinism is determinism...?
    Hard Determinism is the belief that given the prior causes and the laws of nature there is only one possible out come. This is founded upon the principles of Universal Causation and Causal Necessity. If hard determinism is true, and their definition of Free Will is the ability to do otherwise in exactly the same situation. then we don't have free will. This is different from Soft Determinism which defines free will as the ability to do what you want without constraint. With soft determinism , if it is true we can have our actions determined and still have free will as we are still doing what we want despite our actions being determined.

    Coincidence and probability/chance/luck would be arguments against hard determinism but we can say that really this is compatible with hard determinism as we are just ignorant of the causes and therefore that if we knew all the causes and laws of nature we could accurately predict what was going to happen in say winning the lottery, we are simply ignorant of the causes , this is know as Laplace's demon.

    I hope this has helped in someway!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GregMc)
    Any chance you could help me out with a few arguments for and criticisms as I don't understand conceptual schemes at all how would you answer those two suggested questions?
    I know it can be very difficult to learn these theories without the proper resources. Kant's conceptual schemes basically were his way of justifying synthetic apriori such as maths (Knowledge of the world that is necessarily true) and he does this by explaining our mind as having innate categories like a filing cabinet and all of our sense experience can only be interpreted and understood by filing our sense experience away in these categories thus the conceptual schemes use reason and experience to show how we gain knowledge of the world hence the fact it is an issue for empiricists (believe only sense experience can give us knowledge). Kant claims that without the conceptual schemes all we would interpret is raw sensory data such as colours, sounds, tastes, touch and textures, yet no actual matter. Only through the conceptual schemes do we apply this raw data with the concept of substance to form knowledge of matter. This raw sensory data is described as being the 'noumenal world' and the world we perceive through our innate structures is the 'phenomenal world'.

    The sapir-whorf conceptual scheme is basically the idea that language is a conceptual scheme and changes the way we see the world depending on the origins of the language for example inuits have around 30 different words for snow and would thus see it as being more important rather most languages will only have a few words for snow. A thought experiment created by george orwell called 'newspeak' outlined that if he created a language in which words such as 'freedom' 'rights', similar words and all their synonyms weren't included in the language these people would not know what it was to be free or to have rights thus their perception of life is changed. This conceptual scheme is also a mix of sense experience and innate knowledge as it is claimed that the universal laws of grammar are innate thus the language is learnt through these.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hugh_devlin)
    I know it can be very difficult to learn these theories without the proper resources. Kant's conceptual schemes basically were his way of justifying synthetic apriori such as maths (Knowledge of the world that is necessarily true) and he does this by explaining our mind as having innate categories like a filing cabinet and all of our sense experience can only be interpreted and understood by filing our sense experience away in these categories thus the conceptual schemes use reason and experience to show how we gain knowledge of the world hence the fact it is an issue for empiricists (believe only sense experience can give us knowledge). Kant claims that without the conceptual schemes all we would interpret is raw sensory data such as colours, sounds, tastes, touch and textures, yet no actual matter. Only through the conceptual schemes do we apply this raw data with the concept of substance to form knowledge of matter. This raw sensory data is described as being the 'noumenal world' and the world we perceive through our innate structures is the 'phenomenal world'.

    The sapir-whorf conceptual scheme is basically the idea that language is a conceptual scheme and changes the way we see the world depending on the origins of the language for example inuits have around 30 different words for snow and would thus see it as being more important rather most languages will only have a few words for snow. A thought experiment created by george orwell called 'newspeak' outlined that if he created a language in which words such as 'freedom' 'rights', similar words and all their synonyms weren't included in the language these people would not know what it was to be free or to have rights thus their perception of life is changed. This conceptual scheme is also a mix of sense experience and innate knowledge as it is claimed that the universal laws of grammar are innate thus the language is learnt through these.
    do sapir and whorf explicitly state that their idea of a conceptual scheme is partially composed of innate synthetic ideas? I've been told that they argue that language is instead an innate capacity; we acquire the linguistic knowledge through sense experience. It follows that one criticism against their view is whether we can organise sense experience with sense experience itself. Do correct me if you feel i'm wrong

    http://i.imgur.com/ZsRbhSp.jpg what one of my books says
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Can anyone tell me the Questions for the January 2013 Unit 2 paper please? In particular for tolerance and god and the world.........
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronak134)
    do sapir and whorf explicitly state that their idea of a conceptual scheme is partially composed of innate synthetic ideas? I've been told that they argue that language is an innate capacity; we acquire the linguistic knowledge through sense experience. It follows that one criticism against their view is whether we can organise sense experience with sense experience itself. Do correct me if you feel i'm wrong
    They do not explicitly state that their conceptual scheme is composed of synthetic apriori. I may stand corrected but from what i've been taught conceptual schemes were just Kant's way of justifying synthetic apriori and synthetic apriori do not come into any other conceptual schemes.
    I'm not entirely sure about your counter argument however you probably have been taught something different to me and i'm sure it is viable. A counter arguments you could use may be Hume's causation, the argument a conceptual scheme is not necessary for knowledge of the world. We can gain knowledge free of conceptual schemes through experience alone as he argues sense experience is how we interpret causation. A further explanation may be: If a rock hits a window (A) and the window breaks (B) we immediately assume that A was the cause of B however we cannot experience the actual causation, the underlying mechanism that tells us A caused B. However we know A caused B because of the constant conjunction of events, our sense experience tells us we have seen this sequence of events many times before so we know that a caused b.

    Edit:I just saw the picture in your book. In my example i am mixing Chomsky(believed in innate universal grammar) and Sapir-Whorf however you may choose to explain each one separately in order to create a good argument/counter argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hugh_devlin)
    They do not explicitly state that their conceptual scheme is composed of synthetic apriori. I may stand corrected but from what i've been taught conceptual schemes were just Kant's way of justifying synthetic apriori and synthetic apriori do not come into any other conceptual schemes.
    I'm not entirely sure about your counter argument however you probably have been taught something different to me and i'm sure it is viable. A counter arguments you could use may be Hume's causation, the argument a conceptual scheme is not necessary for knowledge of the world. We can gain knowledge free of conceptual schemes through experience alone as he argues sense experience is how we interpret causation. A further explanation may be: If a rock hits a window (A) and the window breaks (B) we immediately assume that A was the cause of B however we cannot experience the actual causation, the underlying mechanism that tells us A caused B. However we know A caused B because of the constant conjunction of events, our sense experience tells us we have seen this sequence of events many times before so we know that a caused b.
    yes, i think i agree with you. though i'm a bit puzzled by what you meant when you said 'This conceptual scheme is also a mix of sense experience and innate knowledge as it is claimed that the universal laws of grammar are innate thus the language is learnt through these.' if this innate knowledge is not synthetic a priori what is it?

    i think the problem with philosophy a level is that a lot of the theories are explained ridiculously vaguely!

    ah ok just saw your Chomsky edit.. makes more sense now thanks!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronak134)
    yes, i think i agree with you. though i'm a bit puzzled by what you meant when you said 'This conceptual scheme is also a mix of sense experience and innate knowledge as it is claimed that the universal laws of grammar are innate thus the language is learnt through these.' if this innate knowledge is not synthetic a priori what is it?

    i think the problem with philosophy a level is that a lot of the theories are explained ridiculously vaguely!
    Yes it is explained very vaguely. I've been looking through my textbooks trying to understand this myself. I am only assuming this because in the stuff my teachers have put together the section of language as a conceptual scheme makes no mention of synthetic apriori but as your textbook said it is originally an conceptual scheme that relies only on sense experience.

    A section of your essay could go something like this if it makes more sense:
    Argument: Sapir-Whorf, we can have a conceptual scheme without innate ideas
    Counter argument: Chomsky, however this conceptual scheme still relies on innate ideas as the universal laws of grammar are innate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi there... I'm not sure if this the right bit to ask a new question but its too late now i guess

    Could anyone please, PLEASE help me try and understand the structure for the 30 markers! (I am doing reason and experience and persons).

    I have had so many structures thrown at me I have no idea what is right and what to do! So if its not too much to ask, could someone please describe to me how structure the essay, paragraph by paragraph with what you write in each one?

    Is it just me or is 30 minutes WAY TOO SHORT to write an essay like this?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HiddenOutOfView)
    Hi there... I'm not sure if this the right bit to ask a new question but its too late now i guess

    Could anyone please, PLEASE help me try and understand the structure for the 30 markers! (I am doing reason and experience and persons).

    I have had so many structures thrown at me I have no idea what is right and what to do! So if its not too much to ask, could someone please describe to me how structure the essay, paragraph by paragraph with what you write in each one?

    Is it just me or is 30 minutes WAY TOO SHORT to write an essay like this?!
    You aren't expected to write more than around 2 sides and a bit. a clear introduction and conclusion that flows from the essay with around 2 illustrated points both for and against the issue raised in the question (broadly speaking), that flow from each other (i.e. points that respond to each other and don't seem to be juxtaposed) to form a coherent response is enough for an A. they don't expect you to include every single point that could possibly be included. hope that helps
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronak134)
    You aren't expected to write more than around 2 sides and a bit. a clear introduction and conclusion that flows from the essay with around 2 illustrated points both for and against the issue raised in the question (broadly speaking), that flow from each other (i.e. points that respond to each other and don't seem to be juxtaposed) to form a coherent response is enough for an A. they don't expect you to include every single point that could possibly be included. hope that helps
    Thanks very much! In my class we were told to do 3 points but there is no way I can do that even if I actually knew what I was writing so if other people have been told 2 points that fantastic!

    Thanks again!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HiddenOutOfView)
    Thanks very much! In my class we were told to do 3 points but there is no way I can do that even if I actually knew what I was writing so if other people have been told 2 points that fantastic!

    Thanks again!
    2 detailed and well thought out points is definitely better than 3 more sketchy ones. I self teach but i'm in touch with an examiner who marks my essays and she sent me some A grade scripts - you don't need to write pages and pages for a good mark. quality matters more than quantity
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronak134)
    2 detailed and well thought out points is definitely better than 3 more sketchy ones. I self teach but i'm in touch with an examiner who marks my essays and she sent me some A grade scripts - you don't need to write pages and pages for a good mark. quality matters more than quantity
    You have no idea how re-assuring that is to hear *sighs in relief* Thank you again!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mohamed68)
    Can anyone tell me the Questions for the January 2013 Unit 2 paper please? In particular for tolerance and god and the world.........
    I'm not sure for Tolerance but for God an the World the 15 mark question was something to do with two reasons (or criticisms, I cannot remember) for why evil makes us better people - something around the Irenaean theodicy; the 30 mark question was discussing the existence of God as a reasonable hypothesis.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.