The Knowledge Inquirers Guide To Knowledge and Inquiry PDF

Knowledge And Inquiry
Revision
Page | 1
Shared by Benjamin Leong
On owlcove.sg
Pg Topic(s) Question Remarks
3 Introduction
4 Epistemology Can we be certain of anything? Complete
Epistemology,
8 How do we be certain? Complete
Inquiry
Epistemology, Is the Scientific Method of Inquiry

12 Complete
Science, Inquiry objective?
Epistemology, Is the Scientific Method of Inquiry reliable?

15 Science, Social Can it be used for all spheres of Mostly complete
Science knowledge?
Should Religious Knowledge be counted

19 Religion Complete
as knowledge?
Should Aesthetic Knowledge be counted

21 Art Complete
as knowledge?
Science, Social Should the Social Sciences be considered

24 Complete
Science as Science?
26 Art, Epistemology Is Art objective? Complete
Social Science,
29 Is History objective? / accurate? Complete
Epistemology
Are Eastern and Western forms of

32 Epistemology Complete
Knowledge incompatible?
Language,
35 How does language affect what we know? Complete
Epistemology
How is Mathematics known?

38 Maths Complete
Is Maths invented?
42 Appendix A: Examples of flawed sensory perception
Page | 2
On owlcove.sg
Introduction
This factsheet was made with the purpose of question-spotting. It should ideally
not be used as the only reference for KI revision, although if one is feeling adventurous and
want to question-spot, this factsheet might suffice. However, it is still advisable to read up a
little in order to find nicer examples or better elaboration.
Bearing in mind that Epistemology WILL come up as a question, it is strongly

suggested that at least some time be dedicated to Epistemology revision. The Rationalism
vs. Empiricism divide is predicted to be an important aspect of this. (edit: this was only true
as of 2010 A levels)
Parts with yellow highlighting are examples. Bolded words in the elaboration are
either keywords, keywords of examples, or philosophers. Appendix A is a list of examples
related to perception other than the stick in the water looks bent.
It should also be noted that the exam calls for an active discussion, not merely listing
out arguments FOR and AGAINST. Hence arguments have been arranged, hopefully, to
best show that one is actually attacking or substantiating the reasons FOR / AGAINST,
instead of merely listing.
Correctly answering the question is also vitally important. Before writing the question
it is suggested that one make sure the question is answered properly, and not launch into
pre-prepared arguments on something which looks related but eventually might not be. (Li
Ti) Writing down the arguments structure briefly before starting to actually write the essay
might be useful.
On the use of Chinese characters in the exam, it probably is not advisable.

Preferably, use the pinyin characters like yi for . Or use both, ie. Confucius talked about
yi , or righteousness (although this might not be recommended).
All the best!
Page | 3
On owlcove.sg
Can we be certain of anything?
We cant be certain of most things
1. Problem of Senses: Introspection, Kants Sunglasses
- Introspection: What I define as pain for me might not be pain for someone else.
Furthermore, pain cannot be proven to anyone else: How useful is this, if it can never
be called into doubt or proven to others? Or of what importance is introspection (I
am feeling pain) epistemologically anyway? Additionally, it may not match reality:
amputees are known to feel phantom pain or itches where their limbs once were.
o Bertrand Russell: Colour and shapes are also not definite it changes
under different lighting conditions or spatial point of views. Our perceptions
cannot give us an accurate picture of reality.
o Locke: We receive sense data from things in the world, and we interpret
this sense data in order to sense things.
Sense datum is highly influenced by sensory perception and affected

by the mind. Hence, even if we receive the same sense datum, due to
us having different minds, we interpret the data slightly differently.
Hence, we might be looking at the same table, but due to our different spatial
standing points we see it as a slightly different shape or colour.
- Kants Sunglasses: Kant imagined that we are permanently wearing sunglasses of

our senses. Anything that we observe is actually filtered through the senses: we
cannot observe the real world without our senses.
o We are perpetually seeing everything through the senses. We cannot actually

perceive anything without having it being sensed. Hence, everything we think
we can experience is actually tainted and seen through the lens of fallible
senses. And even if the senses are accurate, everyone perceives the table a
little differently due to lighting, etc. We only see the phenomenal world (the
world we perceive), not the nominal (the real) world.
- Senses: Dementia, dreams or hallucinatory-inducing diseases or drugs can cause us

to perceive illusions as reality, and there is little means by which to differentiate them.
Someone hallucinating truly believes that the hallucination is real, whereas we as
observers think otherwise. Therefore, how do we know were not dreaming?
For additional examples, see Appendix A.
2. Problem of Induction
- We cannot generalise from particular observations to general laws; we cannot expect

what is happening now to continue, and extrapolate current trends into the future.
o Hume: I am a chicken. I am fed every day, up till today. Tomorrow I will be

fed. Tomorrow, the farmer comes and chops off the chickens head.
Page | 4
On owlcove.sg
3. Correlation / Causation
- Just because two empirical phenomena occur often one after the other (I observe A
and B), it doesnt mean that we can conclude A causes B. To derive general laws
from particular observations, one needs to be able to make that inductive leap.
Related to Problem of Induction.

Much of Science is built on such inductive and causal claims hence, all
metals expand when heated or Chemical X causes Reaction Y are all suspect
to Problem of Induction or the Correlation/Causation confusion.
4. Maths
- Maths seems to be perfectly consistent with the world. Some say Maths is created
precisely to describe out world. However, Maths may not be objectively true because
our world may not be the true world out there.
- Maths is based wholly on fundamental mathematical axioms (eg. 1+1=2) on which

most or the whole of mathematical knowledge is derived. In an alternate
mathematical system, these axioms could change and with it, the whole of
Mathematics. Hence, while Mathematics might be certain, it is certain only given
these axioms. If these axioms were slightly different (or worked differently in a
different system), the whole of mathematical knowledge would be different.
- Mathematical knowledge will stay as only abstractions, and lack meaning in a

concrete sense. There are no such things as perfect circles or triangles in the world,
not even in computer imaging. Hence, while Mathematics might be said to possess
certainty, they might not correspond to our reality at all.
o [Some smart-aleck tried to say that 1 does not necessarily equal to 1 in the
real world an apple is NOT the exact replica of another (slight differences in
size, shape and so on). Hence, even fundamental axioms like 1+1=2 might
not work out, because 1 apple + 1 apple does not equal 2 (exactly identical)
apples.]
We can be certain of some things
1. A Priori Statements
- A priori statements are analytic statements, where the subject and the predicate are
already linked. All bachelors are unmarried or All vixens are female cannot be
denied without making a logical contradiction. These are therefore truths.
- However, a priori statements have no truth-value because unmarried is already

semantically contained in bachelor. Furthermore, these sentences are based only
on our perception of what the real world is: these sentences might only apply in our
hallucinatory world.
- Furthermore, a priori statements can also be shaken. The semantic stability of these
statements can be doubted with new experience. These statements are ultimately
based on subjectively mediated experience and human recognition. Examples of the
Page | 5
On owlcove.sg
semantic acceptance of swans as white, or mammals as animals on land
both of which were shaken with the discovery of black swans, and whales.
2. Problems of Global Skepticism
- It is equally improbable that we are in a perpetual dream. Our senses may fail us
occasionally, but it is improbable that they should fool us for years. Just because we
are occasionally tricked doesnt mean we should wholly discredit the senses on every
occasion.
- According to direct realism, we can get accurate reports on the real world via sensory
experience.
3. Pragmatism
- Even the most radical skeptic will still step out of the way of a moving car.
- Sometimes, we have to go with what works, because that does have truth value and
usefulness as knowledge. Even if we are deluded by an Evil Demon or are Brains in
Vats, at least the truths we have work within the world we live in.
- Even so, belief statements such as Boyles Law have been tried and tested in many,
many different environments, with different gases at different temperatures and
pressures, and has remained consistent. With this, we can safely assume Boyles
Law, even if its not 100% accurate because it has held up to repeated scrutiny
over different experiments, different conditions and a long period of time, and is
useful in our everyday life.
4. Maths
- Arguably, Maths is a form of synthetic a priori knowledge. It is synthetic because in

the concept of 3 is not found in the concept of either 1, 2 or + unlike where
the concept of unmarried is already found in bachelor but at the same time it is
(arguably) a priori, thus giving it a special epistemological significance.
o The supposed existence of this synthetic a priori therefore posits that there
exists some knowledge which we can have, which says something useful
about the world and is not self-explanatory, and yet is known intuitively
without external influences.
- Formalism in Mathematics: Mathematical statements are statements deduced from

fundamental axioms, and are therefore taken to be true by definition (being analytic).
For arguments that Maths is a priori, see Is Maths Invented?
5. Usefulness of epistemological endeavours
- Insights into the limitations and fallibility of knowledge are themselves cognitively
meaningful.
- The fact that we know where our limits are is useful as knowledge else we might
fall into hubris and assume that we might actually get certain knowledge about
Page | 6
On owlcove.sg
everything, and thus rule out many epistemologically important concepts (such as
skepticism).
- Additionally, the Problem of Induction may be invoked: just because we arent sure of
anything doesnt mean that we may not reach concrete, provable knowledge in the
future.
Page | 7
On owlcove.sg
We can be certain of only some things
1. Cogito
- Descartes: We can only be sure that thinking exists. Hence, even if all else is
disproved (for example, if we are all deceived by an Evil Demon) we can still be sure
thinking exists.
- Mind-body Dualism: We can only be sure that thinking exists, but not that I (our
body) exists. We cant move from the cogito to the real world hence, the limit of
what we can claim for certain stops at thinking exists.
- According to Foundationalism, this is the only basic belief we can arrive at, and we
can derive nothing else from it.
2. The skeptics claim
- The sceptics absolute claim that we cannot know anything is itself a claim to some
sort of epistemological knowledge. Hence the statement we cannot know anything
might be seen as self-defeating and contradictory.
3. Do we need certainty?
- Stroud: We dont need 100% certainty. Knowing that we are not dreaming is not a
criteria for knowledge hence, even if our entire world is a dream, at least the
knowledge we have constitutes useful knowledge for our dream-world. We can
reach a compromise in the form of JTB, for example.
See below, How do we be certain?
Page | 8
On owlcove.sg
How do we be certain?
[One way to argue this is to use the framework of JTB. We are certain if our belief is justified and is
true. Hence this current format explores how one may justify and prove the truths of ones beliefs.]
How do we justify?
- Agrippas Trilemna: No one can say he knows, unless he can say how he knows. In
this, we run into three ways of justification: Infinite Regress, Circular Reasoning and
Dogmatic Assumption, neither of which are sufficient justification.
o Infinite Regress: S knows p because S knows q, because S knows r

Circular Reasoning: S knows p because S knows q, because S knows p
Dogmatic Assumption: S knows p. Refusal to justify.
- Foundationalism: proposes that all beliefs can be reduced to basic beliefs which
need no further justification. All these basic beliefs would therefore be self-evident or
incorrigible and therefore do not fall into any of the three forms of justification above.
o However: What is a basic belief? How do we ensure it is sufficiently basic

such that it cannot be questioned any further? And how exactly do we move
from these basic beliefs (if they exist) to the greater body of practical beliefs?
o Foundationalism can only hold the cogito (thinking exists) as the only 100%
certain statement; and even then it cannot move on to justify that I exist.
o Foundationalism therefore is rendered practically useless, because it is

restricted to an extremely limited pool of self-evident or incorrigible
statements, which have little use in the real world.
1. Coherentialism: We cannot get outside our set of beliefs to determine what reality
is. Hence, we can only know that a belief coheres with a set of beliefs. The truth of a
belief depends on its level of coherence with other existing beliefs as mutual
support or logical entailment. (Hempel, Neurath)
o However: Coherent systems simply means the system is coherent, and not
that it is true. Fictional worlds may be constructed where the system of beliefs
are coherent but false.
o Coherentialism additionally might not explain true but unsupported facts. For
example, the statement Jane Austen wrote 10 sentences on this day, 1807
might be true but there is no one to confirm it, and is not supported or
corroborated by any existing belief, and hence has no place in the coherent
system of beliefs.
o Coherentialism therefore cannot give us 100% accurate knowledge, because

even the most coherent system might be false.
- Externalism:
o For our justification to be reliable, it has to come from some reliable process,
such as external sources (such as our faculty of reason) and not from fallible,
Page | 9
On owlcove.sg
not-reliable sources (such as senses, memory, testimony and so on).
Externalists would hold that this is the only way to achieve true knowledge,
because we cannot trust our internal faculties.
o For example, a Brain in a Vat thinks it is taking a KI test Internalists would

say that it is justified in thinking so (because of the memory of studying for the
test, the seeing of the test paper, etc.) but Externalists say that this belief is
unjustified.
True
- Memory: According to the representational theory of memory, we remember by

calling up images of the past. (For example, to recall our birthday, we recall an image
of what the birthday was like). Hume supports this by positing memories fainter than
the actual happenings but far more forceful than imagination in his Treatise on
Human Nature. Bertrand Russell adds that memory must come with a belief that
this actually happened in the past. In this, our memories (which arguably correspond
to what actually happened in the past) can be seen as links to the world of the past.
o However, can we rely on memory to determine what is true? Thought

experiments with memory deal with issues such as faulty, implanted or
deliberate deletion of memories, such that memories are no longer reliable.
o Humes idea of memory as images is problematic. Images may lose vivacity

(part of its representativeness) and therefore fall into pure imagination, or
imagination become so vivid that it mimics memory. It isnt unusual for
memory to be mistaken as imagination and vice versa.
o Russells idea of having belief in the memory is also fallible because it is also
consistent with having false memories (and believing in them).
o In fact, without thought experiments, it is known that memories tend to

deteriorate and are generally not trustworthy sources of knowledge.
Externalists demand that we rely on reliable sources of knowledge such as
the faculty of reason, rejecting introspective sources of knowledge like
memory.
- Testimony: Social Sciences such as History rely on testimony and varying

perspectives in order to approximate the objective truth of what really happened. And
consequently, when testimony is corroborated and verified by many, it is probable
that it tends towards truth.
o However Testimony is the least reliable of forms of knowledge. Testimony

might be swayed by popular opinion or cultural norms or traditions (brought
about by education or propaganda).
Page | 10
On owlcove.sg
Belief
- Never a sufficient condition for certain knowledge, but only a necessary condition.
- This means that knowledge definitely requires belief, but belief in a statement doesnt
mean that it is knowledge.
We can never be certain
1. Radical Skepticism
- We might be fooled about everything and anything which we thought was certain
knowledge for us. Possible explanations include Descartes Evil Demon Hypothesis
or the Brains in a Vat scenario.
- In essence, we cannot be 100% sure about anything we see in the world, because it
is filtered through our senses and our senses may be completely fooled. Kants
perpetual sunglasses of the senses ensure that all we see is the phenomenal
world, and that we cannot actually perceive the real world out there.
- We depend entirely on the supposition that our perceptions do not systematically

mislead us and that they are indeed produced by external objects. Hume: How do
we know whether we really perceive the external world accurately? The mind has
never anything present to it but the perceptions. Experience is, and must be entirely
silent.
See Appendix A for more examples on Global Skepticism
2. Gettier Problems
- Even if Truth, Justification and Belief are satisfied, we still may not be able to
declare a JTB as knowledge. It is possible that we are true by mere coincidence.
o Examples include seeing a hologram of a table in a room, but there is a real

table hidden elsewhere in the room. If we say I know there is a table in the
room, we are true only by coincidence, even if we are justified (having seen
the table) in having the belief.
o Responses include trying to add in a fourth criteria, which firstly defeats the
idea of knowledge being only justified, true belief. Secondly, these criteria
each have their own weaknesses and have been shown to be unusable.
Defeasibility: Ensuring that the justification is indefeasible that no

new truths will overturn it.
But, how do we ensure that? Furthermore, if new truths can overturn
justification, newer truths can overturn the overturning. Hence it is
redundant.
Presence of Relevant Falsehood: Nothing that is inferred from a

group of beliefs of which one is known to be false can be known.
But, how do we know its false in the first place? And what about
beliefs which do not have inferences?
Page | 11
On owlcove.sg
Do we need certainty?
1. Pragmatism: We dont need 100% certainty
- Descartes: The only thing we can be 100% certain of is the cogito, or more
specifically, that thinking exists. Unfortunately, this is not very useful in the scientific
sphere of knowledge.
o If we insisted on having 100% certainty in the things we did, we would never
be able to get anything done. Architecture, for example, needs to make
assumptions that such a metal will continue to expand according to this
certain trend even though it might not hold 100% true.
- Stroud: We dont need 100% certainty. Knowing that we are not dreaming is not a
criteria for knowledge hence, even if our entire world is a dream, at least the
knowledge we have constitutes useful knowledge for our dream-world. We can
reach a compromise in the form of JTB, for example.
- Against Radical Skepticism and Solipsism: We have no proof against them.

However, to assume that we have a sort of knowledge of the world is a perfectly
reasonable hypothesis. A determined solipsist will not be swayed by any arguments,
but that the fact that solipsism is irrefutable doesnt necessarily mean it is true.
o Sokal: Just because it is irrefutable doesnt mean its true.
2. Beyond Reasonable Doubt

- Science does not aim to prove for 100% certainty, but beyond a reasonable doubt.
This removes the objections posed by Underdetermination and the Problem of
Induction, provided that sufficient experiments are conducted properly and as
objectively as possible.
There is such a thing as reasonable doubt, which questions obvious
lack of data points, improper experiment execution and so on.
We can make justified assumptions and inferences from limited data
points, if the data points are plausibly accurate and justified even if it
is remotely possible that the Problem of Underdetermination may
come into place.
Boyles Law: Faces the Problems of Induction and
Underdetermination (just like any other Theory or Law) but has been
used countless number of times in many, many different situations.
Hence, even if its not 100% true, it has a high probability of truth and
is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Sokals answer to Humes Problem: No statement about the real world can ever
literally be proven. However, we can prove it beyond reasonable doubt the
unreasonable doubt always exists.
- Einstein: Scientists cannot afford to try to achieve absolute certainty, but only to
reach a high probability of truth.
- Hence, we may say we know if we have proved something beyond reasonable doubt.
Page | 12
On owlcove.sg
Is the Scientific Method of Inquiry objective?
Yes, it is objective
1. Hypothesis Deductive Method (HD Method)
- The HD Method is generally recognized as a means by which reliable scientific

knowledge can be gained. It deals with issues such as pet-theory, confirmation bias
and minimises human error by allowing peer review, demanding repeatable
experiments and continued hypothesis testing before making it a scientific theory or a
law.
o HD Method provides a systematic means by which truth claims can be

integrated into the greater body of scientific knowledge, as objective, (at least
approximately) true scientific statements.
o All metals expand when heated can be counted only after repeated
experiments (to reduce chance of human error) by different scientists (to
reduce chance of confirmation bias) and testing all sorts of metal (to be able
to extrapolate from finite number of observations to a general law).
o Even if the discovery was made serendipitously (accidentally, for example,

the discovery of curium by Madame Curie), to be properly accepted into the
body of knowledge it still has to go through certain standards. Madame Curie
might have accidentally discovered radium, but what we know about radium
has been processed through the scientific method.
o Hence, the HD Method has a high chance of probability in producing objective

scientific truth claims.
2. Falsification
- Popper: Posited that for something to be scientific, a theory must make predictions
that can be false in the real world. Popper believed that because one can never
prove a theory true (one will need infinite observations) one can prove a theory is
false (one will need just one or maybe a few reliable observations).
o Pseudoscience like psychoanalysis avoid subjecting themselves to such a

test and hence cannot be qualified as a science they do not make precise
predictions, or change conclusions on an ad hoc basis in order to
accommodate new empirical results.
o Falsification as a criterion for science ensures that the Scientific Method

constructs theories with possibility of falsifiability in mind, such that inaccurate
theories may be discarded when proven to be false. This is an approximation
towards the objective truth (if it exists).
3. Scientific Revolutions
- Kuhns The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Normal science enters into crisis
from time to time with paradigm changes: examples including Aristotle to Newton to
Page | 13
On owlcove.sg
Einstein, Static view of species to Evolution, Lamarck to modern genetics, and
atomic theory pre-Dalton to atomic theory post-Dalton.
- Hence, the notion of Scientific Revolution posits that it is able to get closer to the
objective truth in the world. Even though we might start off with a misconceived
notion of how the world works (Aristotle thought rocks fall to the ground because of
the innate nature of the rocks), we are able to move on from there and get
increasingly accurate pictures of what the world is really like (Newton, Einstein).
No, it is not objective
1. Bias
- Confirmation bias exists. Scientists are human too, with dreams and aspirations
and pet projects, hence they subconsciously observe with an intended result in
mind. Especially in situations which require interpretation, such as titration (colour
changes), social sciences (attention, surprise) may scientists interpret data in a
subjective or biased way.
o Even in the same experiment, different scientists may hold different views due
to differing personal views or preconceived notions. Experiments not finding
life on Mars may lead to either there is no life on Mars at all or there is life
which is intelligent and concealed from our observation.
o Confirmation bias is present because everyone wants their own pet theories
to be true. Hence there is a natural bias to support ones own theory and
interpret data or purposefully seek out or discounting specific information in a
favourable way.
o Scientists may have biased or faked data in order to achieve personal goals.
An example is Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk who falsely claimed
creation of embryonic stem cells, blind[ed] by glory and drive.
- Scientists may be influenced by non-objective spheres, such as ethics, military,

governments, or funding. Even the level of funding dedicated to different spheres of
science determines its progress and the level of inquiry levelled at it. Hence, Science
is not purely objective, but is now coloured politically.
- Observer effect exists. In some experiments, the very act of observing affects the
experiment. For example, connecting a voltmeter or ammeter to the circuit changes
the thing you are trying to observe. In particle physics, to observe a particle, a photon
must bounce off it and affect its path. If you stick a thermometer into a liquid, you
already change the temperature you are trying to measure.
Page | 14
On owlcove.sg
2. The failure of Falsification
- Falsification does not always occur in the scientific community scientists want to
hold on to beautiful theories or are otherwise affected by the authority of the great
scientists which formulated those theories to begin with.
o Falsification, strictly speaking, demands a blanket rejection of induction.

But if a theory withstands tests and time, some might argue that it has a
higher possibility of being true (for example, Boyles Law has a very high
chance of being true). However, one cannot quantify this chance, and Popper
himself was strongly against according varying possibilities of truth. And yet,
everyone still has theories which are highly likely to be true, and employ them
in all parts of life doctors, detectives, engineers, even laymen (Sun will rise
tomorrow). How then, is this systematic employment of falsification?
o Newton vs. Einstein: With Einsteins theory of relativity claiming Newtons

Laws of Motion were wrong in certain circumstances (e.g. objects travelling at
near-light speed), several staunch Newtonian refused to believe anything was
wrong with Newtons Laws as they stood.
o Newton vs. Neptune: According to Falsification, when Newtons Laws failed

to account for irregularities in planetary orbits in both Uranus and Mercury,
they should have abandoned Newton altogether. However, they didnt. In
these cases, it worked out in the end (and Newtons Laws still held) but when
do we know when to abandon theories and when to hold on to them?
Page | 15
On owlcove.sg
Is the Scientific Method of Inquiry reliable?
Can it be used for all spheres of knowledge?
Yes, it can be used for all spheres
1. Scientific Methods are found in other spheres of knowledge
- Social Science, History, Economics display signs of using the Scientific Methods (or
some derivative) to create their own knowledge in their own spheres, and to minimise
bias or human error.
2. Falsification
- Poppers ideals of falsifiability are still used in non-Science areas such as the Social
Sciences. In this, falsification is present because social sciences recognize that
3. Practical usage
- The Scientific Method has to work, in order to establish an objective scientific truth. In
aspects such as detective work, scientific method s in deduction and testing of
hypotheses is necessary in reaching a conclusion.
o Doutrwe vs. Lesage: A court case in which a relativist claimed both

parties had their own version of truth. A relativist would say both have
their versions of truth which is nonsense and absurd in a practical setting
(say, a court of law). Hence, it is imperative to reach some sense of objectivity
that comes with the Scientific Method.
Please see Should the Social Sciences be considered a Science? as well as other
non-Science areas where the HD Method and Falsification can be found
No, it cant be used for all spheres
1. Incompatible spheres of knowledge
- Religious knowledge seems incompatible with science. Religious knowledge places

itself above science by discussing the supernatural and hence is not of the natural
world which Science operates in. Discussion of miracles, God or gods cannot fall
under the purview of Science because of their claim to be supernatural.
o Faith vs. Reason: Religion and science use two different means of
justification. Where Science appeals to reason, empirical evidence and logic,
Religion often appeals to faith despite the lack of empirical evidence.
o Stephen J. Goulds Non-Overlapping Magisterial: Science is science,

religion is religion. Both of them aim to talk about two different things
Page | 16
On owlcove.sg
science on what is, religion on what ought to be. Therefore, since they aim
to construct different kinds of knowledge, with different methods of knowledge
construction, we should simply not mix the two and judge one based on the
other.
- Moral knowledge is also incompatible. For prescriptive moral schools of thought, be

it moral objectivity, absolutism or relativity, there is an Is/Ought distinction. Science
simply states what is, while moral knowledge (and religious knowledge to some
extent) state what ought to be.
- Aesthetic knowledge might also be on a completely different plane. Whereas

Science aims to avoid and minimise bias, Art seems to accept these biases as
tastes. Hume even states that Art is all about personal taste. How, then, can the
Scientific Method work here?
2. Practical Impossibility
- There are scientific disciplines in which it is impossible to conduct experiments, due

to inability to control the variables. Observation is an example Darwin noted that
observation was important, but needed prior understanding.
o Examples include astronomy; Kepler and Copernicus never conducted any

experiments but instead carried out lengthy observations and other non-
experimental techniques.
o More examples are Darwin, Goodall and Nossey who using qualitative
techniques (more associated with social sciences) rather than the
experimental techniques (more associated with natural sciences) in their
investigations or primate studies.
o And yet these are recognized branches of science (especially astronomy)

which can make relatively verifiable knowledge claims of the world and the
universe without conducting experiments or adhering to the Hypothetical
Deductive Method.
Scientific Method is unreliable
1. Cartesian attacks on Empirical Knowledge

- The senses are fallible but there is no way to get past the veil of perception. For
example, a pencil looks bent in water. The principles of Kants sunglasses: Were
permanently wearing sunglasses (the senses) that are the lens we see through. We
can only observe the phenomenal world. There is no way to observe without the
senses (we cant even be sure that it exists outside the senses).
o All scientific experiments are based on empirical evidence (through the
senses); therefore all science is potentially based on flawed sensory
perception. We can only have scientific knowledge only through the senses!
2. Doubt exists
- Problem of Induction
Page | 17
On owlcove.sg
o The Problem of Induction is undefeatable. Science can only make finite
amount of observations for a finite period of time. To be able to overcome the
Problem of Induction one will need to continually make observations that all
metals expand on all metals forever.
o Hume: The Sun has risen each morning for years and The Sun will not rise
tomorrow are not contradictory statements.
- Assumption of Causation
o Assumptions have to be made in order for us to proceed anywhere. We do

need to assume that metals will not change qualities suddenly
3. Hypothesis formulation
- Popper: Ideally, hypotheses should be designed with the possibility of disproving,

and the scientist should have a neutral attitude. However, hypotheses are designed
to prove something. And hence, by their own design they cease to be neutral. They
arise from scientists established knowledge, biased and prejudices.
- The manner in which the Scientific Theory demands hypotheses mean that it is
susceptible to pet theory and confirmation bias. Hence, it is unsystematic and
possibly not objective.
Scientific Method is reliable [and therefore can be used for at least some spheres]
1. Scientific Revolutions
- Kuhns The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Normal science enters into crisis
from time to time with paradigm changes: examples including Aristotle to Newton to
Einstein, Static view of species to Evolution, Lamarck to modern genetics, and
atomic theory pre-Dalton to atomic theory post-Dalton.
o In this science is reliable because it constantly revises itself to get a closer

approximation towards the objective scientific truth.
2. Sokals answer to Feyeraband
- Just because Scientific Methods are not cast in stone doesnt mean everything goes.
There are many different views on scientific methods of inquiry, but this doesnt mean
that it is unsystematic or that knowledge claims are flippantly integrated into the
larger body of scientific knowledge.
o There are several ways to swim, but there is one which is the best.
There are several methods of criminal investigations, but some are more
undesirable than others.
Similarly with scientific methods, there are limitations to all methodologies.
o Hence we know that trial by fire (ie. burning witches at the stake) is not a
good method, nor does torture produce reliable evidence, but the scientific
method is a rather reliable one. Hence, the scientific method is tried and
tested to be a relatively reliable method of generating knowledge claims.
Page | 18
On owlcove.sg
3. Reasonable Doubt is dispelled
- There are two kinds of doubt: reasonable and unreasonable doubt. Unreasonable
doubt will always remain, but the question is if adequate measures have been made
to dispel reasonable doubt.
o Sokal: Science does not and cannot give us 100% accuracy because
unreasonable doubt always remains. (Will undiscovered metals expand when
heated? Will metals suddenly change their properties in the future and not
expand when heated? Do the metals even exist?)
o Sokal: However, it gives us a very high probability we can say with high
certainty that gases exist and that they follow Boyles Law, according to the
coherent phenomena which is observed.
o Hence it can be said that the Scientific Method is reliable because it dispels
Reasonable Doubt. Because of the Methods, we can get closer and closer
approximations towards an objective external truth.
See above, Is the Scientific Method objective?
Page | 19
On owlcove.sg
Should Religious Knowledge be counted as knowledge?
No
1. Does not follow JTB or the Scientific Method
- Rather obviously, Religion does not follow the Scientific Method. There is no way to
check against an accurate text, with different religions claiming different accurate
texts, and even then the accuracy of these texts can be doubted scientifically.
- Additionally, it could be said that Religion fails to satisfy the Scientific Method
because it does not include the opportunity for repeated experiments, due to
variables outside human control. Indeed, because religion deals with the
supernatural, it is humanly impossible to control the supernatural as we would natural
variables.
- God appeared to me last night. because Buddha said so. The methods of
justification are laughable from a scientific viewpoint, because they rely heavily on
Authority or Testimony, neither of which are reliable as sources of knowledge
because they cannot be proven.
- Religion could be said to be a belief, or even a justified belief, but as always the truth
of the statement can always be called into doubt. They are based on introspection or
the weakest of internalist reasoning (Testimony or Memory) which are not seen as
reliable sources of knowledge by externalists.
Yes
1. Differing kinds of knowledge does not need to follow JTB standards
- Stephen J. Goulds Non Overlapping Magisteria: Science (or traditional

knowledge) and Religion are two separate things we should not talk about them at
the same breath. Science is justified one way, religion another; Science talks about
what is, Religion what ought; and we should simply keep them separate.
o Different aims of knowledge: prescriptive rather than descriptive. Religion

does not attempt to describe the current world in detail but merely focus on a
more prescriptive knowledge (what to do).
2. Different justifications
- Faith vs. Reason: Religion is justified on faith, which is a completely different idea
than Reason.
o John Worrall: Science is incompatible with religious belief. Sciences

dominant epistemological attitude should be critical empirical investigation
(Reason, Experiments, Deduction, etc.), as compared to Religions Faith
(Authority, Source of Belief)
o Evidently, Scientific propositions or theories cannot refer to God or any other

supernatural agents to explain the natural process of the world.
Page | 20
On owlcove.sg
- Reasonable and Unreasonable Beliefs: There are reasonable beliefs (Japan
exists), to mildly reasonable beliefs (There is intelligent life on other planets) to
unreasonable beliefs (We are actually Brains in Vats), all of which are devoid of
actual physical evidence that we see (provided we have never been to Japan).
o Religion may be argued to fall under mildly reasonable beliefs, because it

hasnt been disproven entirely.
o However, critics would argue that this is insufficient, because the duty is on
Religion to prove itself. (Otherwise, someone would point to the fact that
Unicorns cant be proven to not exist to say Unicorns exist.) Furthermore,
Religion (and unicorns) havent been definitely proven to be true/exist.
3. Appears to explain the world
- Arguably, some might say that Religious Knowledge answers certain epistemological
questions, and in the lack of ability to disprove it, should be considered a kind of
knowledge.
o Aquinas First Mover Principle: There must be a First Mover to set all
things in motion else, nothing would be in motion.
o Intelligent Design: Life as we know it could only have developed under very
narrow constraints the ratio of the protons mass to the electrons, the
strength of gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, cosmological constants
etc. is coincidentally suited for life.
o Falsification: Some even argue that this is potentially Scientific Knowledge,

because it is falsifiable. We can apply this to the entire theory of Intelligent
Design (with multiple theories existing on how Intelligent Design might be
flawed) and thus qualify Intelligent Design as a claim to some sort of Scientific
Knowledge.
For Arguments for/against the existence of God
See Lecture 12 May 2010 and Tutorial 20 May 2010
Page | 21
On owlcove.sg
Should Aesthetic Knowledge be counted as knowledge?
No
1. Reducible to Opinion
- Art is very subjective. Hume even posits that Art is all about taste: which inevitably is
personal and will vary from person to person.
o Knowledge, like in Science, demands general rules, such as All metals

expand when heated. It is of little to no use to say This artwork is beautiful
to person X. We want to be able to say that This artwork is beautiful. But
Art cannot identify something we all agree upon as standards of Beauty.
2. Does not follow traditional forms of Knowledge
- JTB: The notion of a justified, true belief. We might be justified in holding a belief that
Artwork A is beautiful, but how do we know it to be true? What is a truly beautiful
artwork? There has yet to be a conclusive standard set for what should be
considered beautiful or what should be considered Art.
o Institutional Theory of Art: In fact, the Institutional theory holds that the art
experts are the ones who determine for the rest of us what is Art and what is
not. However, who are these experts? Should they be the ones in charge of
dictating what is Art and what is not?
- Scientific Method: The Scientific Method demands repeatable experiments,

rigorous testing and so on and so forth. However, the nature of Art means that it
cannot be subject to these kinds of experimentations any repeatable experiments
in Art are called forgeries and are generally not looked upon with a good light.
o The idea of Art is fundamentally different form that of Science while Science
is impersonal, and can be experimented upon, Art is personal, dealing with
issues of emotions and human experiences, and cannot be experimented or
repeated.
o Even if Science falls short, and still is affected by personal bias (as is Art), the
Scientific Method attempts to reduce this bias, whereas Art more often than
not accepts this bias as part of its knowledge. In this issue of personal bias
and taste, Art is incompatible with the Scientific Methods.
Page | 22
On owlcove.sg
Yes
1. Knowledge about the human condition
- Art gives us important knowledge about the internal world, human minds; how we
function or construct knowledge; about the emotions, human psyche and so on. The
reaction to Art has been cited as one of the important aspects of human reaction.
- Artistic Revolutions: What we considered Art has changed with the advent of
Artistic Revolutions (for example, Picasso leading the change for Cubism, the recent
post-modernist Art, and so on). This artistic knowledge gives us an idea of what we
feel attracted by, and how that has changed with Artistic Revolutions; and it is even
somewhat consistent with the notion of Scientific Revolutions put forth by Kuhn.
- At the same time, Art can help to detail how we experience the world, and our
differing perceptions of beauty.
o Example: Tang dynasty represented female beauty as being fat, whereas

Mona Lisa represents beauty in an entirely different light. Surely there is
something worth studying on the cultural knowledge or knowledge about the
human psyche Art might bring.
2. Presence of an objective standard
- Arguably, Art does have some objective knowledge, which is useful for humankind to
know.
o Plato: True Form of Art exists, we should strive towards more and more
accurate approximations of what Art is.
o Kants Critique of Judgment: A universally accepted standard on what is

considered Art and what isnt, by focusing on the Form of the art. Additionally,
even though we each have our differing perspectives on the pleasure
obtained from different pieces of Art, we are likely to agree on certain pieces
and say that it is Art (eg. The Mona Lisa).
3. A different kind of Knowledge
- Art is a completely different field of knowledge altogether. Hence, the standard for
what is knowledge employed in other fields, such as Science and Math, cannot be
used here.
o David Novitz: Knowledge of Art is not JTB, but does it need to be? The fact
that we respond emotively to Art indicates that there is something worth
responding to.
o You cant use science to tell you something looks aesthetically pleasing, etc.
Art is on a completely different plane from traditional Scientific Knowledge.
Page | 23
On owlcove.sg
o Arguably, what knowledge Art does give is completely independent of other
fields of knowledge. We may be able to derive Science from Maths (or the
other way around?) but aesthetic knowledge cannot be derived from anything
else.
- Art has a different purpose while Science and Mathematics describes the outside
world, Art appeals to emotions and if anything, seeks knowledge on our introspection
and human psyche than the physical world.
o Art therefore should logically be free from, and not bound by the traditional
knowledge acquisition methods of other fields of knowledge. There are
distinctly separate methods of knowledge construction.
4. OR, Art is a complementary field of knowledge
- There are similarities between both traditional knowledge fields (such as Science)
and Art. Hence they should not be seen as opposing forces to each other, but rather,
complementary fields of knowledge Aesthetic and Scientific Knowledge are both
equally important.
- Both Science and Arts require some degree of creativity and imagination
o Even though a large part of Science appears to be deductive and does not
require much imagination, revolutionary Science demands creativity and
imagination in order to push forth new paradigms or ways of thinking.
Examples include theoretical physics, string theory, etc.
- Both require acceptance and validation from their community
o Institutional Theory of Art: What the critics deem as Art, is Art.
o Peer Review: The Scientific Methods demands peer review, and recognition
from the community before it can be integrated into the greater body of
scientific knowledge.
Page | 24
On owlcove.sg
Should the Social Sciences be considered as Science?
No
1. Does not follow the Scientific Method
- The Social Sciences differ from the natural Sciences precisely because they
deal with the human aspect and as such cannot be truly bias-free, or adhere
to the Scientific Method strictly. And given that the Scientific Method is
recognized to produce more reliable results, Social Science cannot be truly
considered a Science.
o Even if they pursue knowledge of the world, their method of

construction of knowledge is different from that of traditional, reliable
Scientific Methods in the Natural Sciences.
- History: It might be said that there are general (scientific-like) rules that
govern human nature, but scientific methods are not so easily applied.
o Bias
Human bias historians are human, after all. And because we

cannot check against what actually happened, all historical
accounts are naturally biased in some way or another.
Unlike Science, we cannot actually go and check against the

objective truth because Historys objective truth (what actually
happened) cannot be experienced again and it is impossible to
recreate past events.
o Bias in selection / Diction
In the very selection of sources, the historian necessarily cherry-

picks certain examples or sources which are beneficial to his
intended goal.
Diction is also a problem because words do have value-laden

connotations for example, massacre implies a wrong action.
Therefore history cannot be said to be bias-free as the natural
Sciences.
o Experimentation problems
The nature of human subjects is that they are unpredictable, and

cannot be observed under laboratory conditions. Workers who
were monitored had an artificial increase in productivity because
they knew they were being monitored. Hence any sort of
experimentation with a conscious human being is useless.
Page | 25
On owlcove.sg
Yes
1. Some adherence to the Scientific Method
- Economics
o There might be some laws of economics which resemble scientific
laws (for example, the Laws of Supply and Demand). They cannot be
proven, but they have been seen to work.
o Economic laws have been drafted and redrafted, and changed

accordingly to best fit given data. This can be seen as a gradual
approximation to an economic truth, or a law which governs economic
transactions.
For example, People buy stuff when it is cheaper. It cannot be

accurately verified (by artificially changing prices) because it
would be impractical, but oftentimes we do see confirmation of
this law in the real world.
- Even if they dont adhere to the Scientific Method strictly, these Social
Sciences are known to approximate the Scientific Method and still aim to keep
bias, confirmation bias and human error to a minimum, as with the natural
Sciences.
- Critical Social Science: The Hegelian Dialectic
o Proposes a critical method of knowledge construction, societies go

through cycles of revolutions as seen by history, with the creation of
better societies from the knowledge gained from the old societies that
didnt work or didnt work as well.
o History: While its methodology is not the Hegelian dialectic, the

knowledge we gain from history reflects the dialectic a synthesis
between two opposing ideals (thesis and antithesis).
For information on the spheres of History and Religion (and how they
are / are not objective), please see their respective factsheets above
and below.
Page | 26
On owlcove.sg
Is Art objective?
Art is not subjective
1. Kants Idea of Artistic Form
- Kants Critique of Judgment: By focusing on the Form of Art, we should

have some standard of universal judgment on what can be considered Art and
what is not. Hence, if we are able to pin down what the Form is, we will be
able to come up with something everyone can agree is beautiful.
o Clive Bells Significant Form: The particular arrangements and

relations of lines, colours etc. which is common to all works of visual
Art. Clive Bell does not support that Art is objective but his idea of
Significant Forms might suggest that there are some qualities which we
do look out for in Art.
- Kant: Given that we have similar cognitive abilities (we are all human) we
should arrive at the same conclusion and interpretation of Art. And indeed,
most normal human beings (with similar cognitive abilities) are able to arrive
at the same conclusion for some works of Art eg. The Mona Lisa is
beautiful.
- Kants Genius: It is the Genius which gives new forms, materials and rules
that makes one an Artist.
o Hence, we can probably conclude that Forgeries are merely copying of

the Form. If ever we find forgeries beautiful, it is because the Form has
been copied, and this is what makes the picture beautiful. Even if the
forgery itself is not Art, it might be considered beautiful because of its
Form.
Art is subjective
1. Highly influenced by inquirer
- Artists themselves can determine what is Art.

o Institutional Theory: Art is only art when it is recognized as art in the
artworld or by critics or expers of art.
Art community and critics decide what is and what is not art;
museums decide what to display and what they consider as art;
audience provide a general perception on what is and what is
not considered as art.
Tracey Emins My Bed, Andy Warhols Brillo Boxes or

Duchamps Fountain: Can be declared as Art by the artworld
Page | 27
On owlcove.sg
even though they are near-exact replicas of normal, everyday
objects. Anything can be considered Art, if reasons are provided
and these reasons are often accepted by the Art world.
o Clive Bells Significant Form: The particular arrangements and

relations of lines, colours etc. which is common to all works of visual
Art. And what is appreciable to you might not be appreciable to me.
2. Distinction from Scientific Methods
- Art, quite obviously, cannot be tested by formal experimentation to decide

what Art is. It does not fall back on a verification principle, or if it does, it is
unenforceable.
o Arguments of a verification principle such as the Institutionalists what

is considered Art by the experts is Art or so on can be questioned.
Does this verification actually work? Is it justified?
o Kants Genius: The notion of a Genius which gives new forms,

materials, rules and originality. However, How do we test for this
Genius? Does this mean that everything an Artist creates is necessarily
Art?
- Against Kuhns notion of Paradigm Shifts: Even if there is a sort of

paradigm shift (the acceptance of Cubism, Post-modern Art, etc.), arguably
helping to expand the definitions or Art; however, Art does not seem to have
an objective truth we can approach!
- Plato: Goes as far as to declare it weakens our ability to lead rational lives.
o Art, as a language of emotions, represents the division between our

rational and emotional (irrational) sides. Hence Art is completely
different from the rational Sciences and is hence subjective, in fact
might even be impeding our ability to search for objective scientific
truths.
3. The Problem of Multiple Interpretations
- Hume: Its a matter of sentiment. We do see things differently from other

people, and both of us can be correct in our interpretation of Art.
- Against Kants Critique of Judgment: Kant claims that given that we have
similar cognitive abilities, we should arrive at the same conclusion and
interpretation of Art, and the truth in Art. Hence, there should be only one true
interpretation of Art (or, a common universal standard).
Page | 28
On owlcove.sg
o However, given that obviously we have different ideas on what Art is
and what it isnt, and that Art critics sometimes have vastly different
views, this is obviously subject to question.
o Even if the judgements should be universal, pleasure is individual and

subjective. What Art makes people happy is also very subjective, and it
is very hard to get something everyone can agree upon.
Page | 29
On owlcove.sg
Is History objective? / accurate?
No
1. Construction of knowledge is flawed
- Impossibility of a 100% accurate recounting of events.
o Does not record all of what actually occurs, but only an account of
events.
o Cannot be checked except against other accounts. There is no

objective truth with which we can judge the accuracy of account,
because the objective truth (the actual happening) no longer exists.
o A history of 17th century Spain does not involve going to the the 17th
century or Spain, but merely to the library to read up on different
accounts of what had happened then.
o Hence, History is destined to be only a mere representation, without

the check and balance of the actual happenings.
2. Exclusion of minority accounts (differand)
- Relativism: There are no absolute truths, no one theory is better than the
other. Whoever who prevails at that point in time passes off as the truth.
History is written by the victors indeed whoever wins gets to write that
version of truth to be accepted by the community.
o Examples: No women in historical accounts, Western accounts of the

East in Orientalism etc... These show how women and the East are
seen as the Other and are systematically excluded from the knowledge
construction process.
o This was seen as the objective Historical truth of that time, because
men / white men were in power at that time and that was the depiction
of what had happened then. It was therefore accepted as truth in that
society.
o Lyotards differand: In contrast to the grand narrative of History, the

differands (minority voices) are often quickly silenced and shut down,
and thus go unheard and are unable to provide a more accurate view
of past events.
o According to the Standpoint Theory: One should therefore consider

different views and bring their version of events to the table. But even
then, it is shown that the truth we have now is merely relative and not
the objective truth of what actually did happen.
Page | 30
On owlcove.sg
- History can be abused by people in power.
o Keith Jenkins: Particular societies want their historians to deliver

particular things. History is therefore constantly re-worked by those
affected by power relations.
o Historians can paint events in a certain way such that they support a
particular political agenda, or tear down an opposing political viewpoint.
This actually does occur today, and can happen because History can
be interpreted in more than one light.
3. Theory-laden views
- Humans will judge. We are conditioned, have a certain level of stereotyping,

our own view of what is normal and what is not, tendency to cherry-pick
examples, and generally have a pre-existing idea of how the world should be
like.
- Even if we are not judged, history is forever clouded, because it was told from
the perspective of a biased observer. We can never experience past events
as they were, but the closest we can get is to listen to someone who has been
through it (a primary account).
- Personal bias of the historian: History is forever biased because the

historian (our only link with the past) has personal constructs to determine
what the source is talking about, bias to colour perceptions, etc.
o Lowenthal: Even if historians do try to be objective, they inevitably

select some examples over the other. And as such, History is biased
and unobjective.
- The Arrogant Eye: The consequence of theory-laden views is this because

we perceive the Other to be so, so they will present themselves to us, and
eventually they emulate the stereotypes out of pressure. The way we perceive
the Other affects how the Other acts.
o Example: History thinks women are weak. The standard norm is to

think women are weak. Women know this, and adapt to societal norms.
Women are observed to be weak, and hence the statement is justified.
Even if they are not, confirmation bias helps to pinpoint several
instances where women who weak and use them to justify the
statement.
Page | 31
On owlcove.sg
Yes
1. There is an objective truth and we can strive towards it
- According to the Standpoint Theory: In order to get a more accurate

representation of History, we should consider the differands.
o By inviting female perspectives into a traditionally male-dominated

sphere of History, we will be able to achieve a more well-rounded
perspective of past events as well as to hear another point of view.
Similarly, Western studies of the East could actually involve Eastern
points of view instead of stereotyping and assuming, which leads to
misguided Orientalism.
o Harding: According to the strong objectivity theory, one should

treasure these differands even more because the marginalised group
can create a more objective view, and being oppressed, are best suited
in pointing out flaws in social systems which might otherwise be
missed.
Page | 32
On owlcove.sg
Are Eastern and Western forms of Knowledge incompatible?
Yes, they are incompatible
1. Methodological Incommensurability
- Methodological Incommensurability: The inability to find common ground

among traditions, needed as a basis for comparison. Some models differ so
radically so as to make it impossible to understand.
o Wittgensteins Moderate Methodological Incommensurability: We

might not prove others are wrong, or why they value the values they
do, but we should live and let live. Knowledge is dependent on a
background of shared assumption.
Bilinguals: They might understand both traditions, but the

knowledge of one still is unable to be translated into the other
language, nor can conflicts between traditions be solved.
- Knowledge-of vs. Knowledge-that
o Mohist school of thought: Brief statements on Chinese ethics,

language, epistemology, language and science becoming one of the
most important tests in the history of Chinese philosophy.
o Mohists: Very practical and very social knowledge. Did not trouble
themselves much with the problem of Induction or of the Senses - to
know x meant the ability to distinguish x and not-x ie. ). This was
Mohist Epistemology.
The focus on knowledge-of rather than knowledge-that: Did

not focus on justification, truth of beliefs or propositional
attitudes, nor representational or theoretical theories of truth
but very pragmatic. Dealt mainly with the knowledge of language
and the ability to represent what one meant.
Justification: Did not consider justification a component of

knowledge, but merely knowledge-of the skill (naming), and
knowledge-how in application. Knowledge was the ability to
recognize, describe, sort or analyse (cost-benefit analysis).
Argumentation: Did not develop the formal logic (deduction-

premise-conclusion) but merely functional logic, bian , in order
to divide this and not-this .
- Ethics
Page | 33
On owlcove.sg
o Eastern philosophy focuses on ideals of character, as compared to the
prescriptive nature of Kant (duty-based ethics). According to Confucius,
if one has achieved the central value of benevolence jen, he is a
gentleman junzi and will know what to do.
o No parallel in Greek virtue ethics for the centrality of family, which take
great priority in Eastern ethics like the Lunyu ().
o No parallel in Confucianism for the Western notion of morality (a belief

in universal laws validated by pure reason) as advocated by Kant, or
individual rights to liberty and other goods.
Incommensurability caused the West to claim that Confucianism

fails to provide adequate protection to the individual, but
Confucianisms critique of the West is that it fails to protect the
social whole.
2. Descriptive chauvinism
- The recreation of the other tradition in the image of ones own. This may the
the form of reading a text assuming that it asks the same questions or
behaves in a manner with which one is familiar.
o Using Western philosophy to incorrectly interpret Eastern ideals is one

such example, like reading Confucius as a virtue ethicists (like
Aristotle) or translating Zhongyong as the Doctrine of the Mean, or
dismissing some views as mystic or superstitious, etc.
o Alternatively normative chauvinism might result believing that ones

own beliefs are the best and others are inferior or wrong.
No, they can work together
1. Similarities
- They are not incompatible. They do support each other in different ways.
- In any cases, the differences between them appear to be trivial. They can be
seen as different ways in achieving some kind of truth, or moral guidance.
- tao vs. Eudaimonia
o Specification of ideal character traits, involving ethical reasoning, and

ability to judge in the context in question, instead of giving laws or
duties to what has to be done.
Page | 34
On owlcove.sg
o Emphasis on practical wisdom the ability to balance conflicting values
in a conflict. Parallels the Aristeotelian notion of phronesis or the
practical wisdom that depends on knowledge acquired through
experiences.
- Wittgenstein and Mohism:
o Mohism teaches identifying and sorting as a form of knowledge, a

Wittgensteinian concept. Through Language, we can use familiar
language to inform others of unfamiliar concepts.
- Even with the conflicting ideas in Western morality, Eastern morality also
encompasses many of the ideals espoused.
o Mencius: Basis of morality is developed on the theory of four

beginnings, namely: Natural compassion, Innate shame, Respect and
Courtesy (which could develop into li), as well as a Sense of Right
and Wrong (which could develop into wisdom). vs. Kant: All humans
are rational and possess a sense of goodwill.
o Mencius: Moral dilemmas require us to rely on past cases of reliable
judgment. vs. Hannah Arendt: Notion of exemplars.
o Xunzi: Human nature is evil, love for profit, envy and hatred, sensual
desires, even though there exists natural concern for others but this is
the result of conscious activity, and is restricted to friends and family.
vs. Hobbes: State of nature, where human life would be nasty, brutish
and short.
o Xunzi: Sage kings to recognize the evil in human nature, and created
ritual principles and precepts of moral duties to reform human nature,
and guide it in the proper channels so as to be consistent with dao.
vs. Plato: Republics view of philosopher-kings.
Page | 35
On owlcove.sg
How does language affect what we know?
Language does not affect what we know
1. Perception
- At face value, perception does not seem to be affected by language. Sense-datum

will still be collected whether or not we can speak or not. If not, infants would never
be able to interact with the world.
- There are some truths which does not seem to be diluted by language. Mathematical
truths, for example 1+1=2 is the same as one plus one equals two in English,
Mandarin, German, French, Afrikaans etc. and is understood everywhere.
Language affects what we know
1. Perception
- While collection of sense-data is independent of language, language affects our

classification of sense-data and helps to make it intelligible to us.
- We are able to differentiate red and pink through the use of linguistic concepts. As
language is a medium of transmitting information and ideas and meaning, the ability
to specify which shade of red one is referring to becomes increasingly important.
Language is therefore able to help us convey the meanings accurately.
o Imagine, then, a shade of red for which we have no explanation or language

concept. It would be futile for one to try to explain that particular shade of red
to another, because there are no words and we are therefore unable to
convey any sort of ideas about it.
o In a sense, language affects what we know because without it we would not

be able to have access to the greater body of knowledge of humanity. Much
of what we know about the world is taught to us as children through
parents, formal education or otherwise without this education we wouldnt
know very much.
Additionally, I might know specific knowledge on Topic A, while

someone might know specific knowledge about Topic B, but if we both
are unable to communicate this knowledge it remains unknown to the
other person.
2. Meaning of Words
- Each word, even in different language, has different connotations and hence lightly
different meaning. Even laymen or politicians appreciate the difference wording may
have.
o Across languages: Some nouns are given genders in some languages

(particularly French, German, etc.) where they are gender-neutral in others
(English, Chinese, etc.) Something which may be masculine in French might
be feminine in German. Hence, between languages, these distinctions have
Page | 36
On owlcove.sg
an effect on the way the noun is thought of, and has a direct effect on the
connotations of the term.
Additionally, translation across languages may lose meaning,

because of shades of meaning which are inadequately represented in
the new language. Examples include important German phrases in
Kant or Weber, or Confucius and Mencius brief and expressive
Chinese paragraphs that lose meaning when translated to English.
The fact that terms are used (such as Mitsein, Dao) may signify a
recognition that these terms will never be able to be fully translated
and hence should be represented as they were in the original text.
o Across people: Even with the same language, different people have slightly
different interpretations. Due to environmental factors, personal interests, age
differences and so on, English-speakers may disagree amongst themselves.
There are common meanings we can all agree upon two hours late
is late by anyones definition but on other aspects (is five minutes
late late?) we might disagree.
o History: Because written records are often the only records we have of the
past, the usage of different words are important. Selection of words and
connotations can severely distort historical accounts of the past, making it
non-neutral and non-objective.
Japanese liberation from British rule or Japanese invasion?

Taliban terrorists or Taliban freedom-fighters?
Final Solution or Jew extermination?
3. Ability to understand
- Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: One cannot think outside the confines of their language
as language is the thing that shapes ones ideas.
o When one realises language is the main medium by which we convey

meaning, this becomes even more important. Perhaps when we do not have
words or linguistic ability to think about a certain concept, we cannot imagine
it or even if we do, we cannot convey it to other people, thus limiting
understanding of that concept.
o Wittgenstein: The limits of my language are the limits of my world.
o Nineteen Eighty-Four: The restriction of language to remove the word

rebellion on the assumption that if there are no words for it, it will be
impossible to think about it or to talk about it. Hence, they would not be able
to overthrow the government for there would be no thoughts about it.
o Lack of a language concept to describe anything means that it could be

unthinkable or un-conveyable and hence useless. Hence language is
needed because it shapes what we know.
Page | 37
On owlcove.sg
o Against Mathematical Truths being language independent: There are
several tribes which do not have words for numbers greater than two
preferring one, two and many. Hence, mathematical truths utilising those
numbers will be lost on them, as they lack the words needed to grasp these
truths. Even if they can tell that 10>3, they will not be able to grasp the higher
mathematical truths which depend on these numbers.
- Structural Linguist: In contrast to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, Structural Linguists

claim that words are merely arbitrary symbols which describes our perception of
reality. Apple and Raining cats and dogs make sense because we all agree on
what picture they paint.
o Saussre: Language is the system for these arbitrary signs, where new words
or symbols fall into this system and have to be accepted by society. Words
are valid only because society accepts them at that time.
o Early Wittgenstein went as far as to suggest that sentences did not describe
state of affairs, but only describe our thoughts / perception of reality.
- Hence language is needed because it describes all that we (think we) know of reality
without language we wouldnt even be able to describe anything.
Page | 38
On owlcove.sg
How is Mathematics known?
Is Mathematics Invented?
Maths is a posteriori
1. Empiricism
- When little children are taught mathematics, they are not expected to understand it or
draw on any innate knowledge. They are given examples, real-life examples on
addition (2 apples and 2 apples equal 4 apples), which helps them understand
mathematical truths through induction and experience.
o Mathematical truths (or at least, basic mathematical axioms) are taught to us

via experience, and hence should be counted as a posterior knowledge.
o However, it can be argued that mathematical truths are only brought to our
consciousness by our experience, but experience does not create these
truths. This means that although we might use experience to understand
them, this knowledge is in fact innate in us and does not come from
experience.
Additionally, it can be said that 2 apples plus 2 apples is 4 apples is

not definitive at all. What experience does is simply to point to an
innate truth (2 of anything and 2 of anything is 4 of that thing) as a
truth that transcends the experience of apples and whatnot.
Maths is analytic a priori
1. Formalism
- Axioms: Everything can be reduced back to axioms. If the fundamental axiom is

1+1=2, then 2+2=4 can be written as (1+1)+(1+1)=(1+1+1+1) and derived from the
fundamental axiom. Hence, all mathematical truths (like 2+2=4) are already evident
in the axioms. And, these axioms are self-evident.
o Euclids Geometric Axioms are self-evident, and are immediately obvious

even to people who have not studied mathematics rigorously. Things such as
the shortest distance between two points is a line are immediately obvious.
And from such axioms we can derive properties of triangles and angles.
o However, if mathematical truths are true by definition, why do they fit the
world so well? We might have come up with a coherent system which does
not apply to the real world at all, but mathematics seems to have an
unreasonable effectiveness in the real world (Wigner).
Maths is synthetic a priori
1. What is synthetic a priori?
- The question is if there is such a thing a synthetic a priori knowledge which is

known independent of experience, yet unites two or more concepts together.
Page | 39
On owlcove.sg
o Mathematics seems to fit that bill, because 1+1=2 seems to incorporate the
idea of 1, add, equal and 2 together while being immediately obvious.
Even without experience, one could reason that 1+1=2, and yet in the
concept of 2 there is no concept of 1 or add (unlike bachelors and
unmarried).
Maths is discovered
1. Absolutism
- Mathematics is objective, universal and certain, discovered through intuition and

established by proof. Mathematics is woven into the fabric of the world, thus
accounting for the so-called unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics it must
actually exist in relation with the real world, which is why it is so effective.
2. Platonism
- Mathematics is timeless, and this grants them a superior level of existence. Concrete
objects (tables, chairs, humans) dont exist, then come into existence, and then
return to dust, but the Pythagorean theorem is still the same as it was two thousand
years ago.
o Hence Plato argues that Mathematics is more certain than perception, and
timelessly true transcending human invention or existence. Even if humans
never existed, the fact of the theorem still will exist (although, probably not
under Pythagoras name).
o Plato further argues that Mathematics exists as an ideal (a real circle does not
exist in real life, but we can define what a real circle IS). We can approximate
to these idealisations. These idealisations hence have a unique way of
existing.
Maths is invented
1. Fallibilism
- Maths is an incomplete and everlasting work in progress, revisable and subject to

changes. New Mathematical Truths can be invented than discovered.
o Euler Relation, a geometric equation, took a century for mathematicians to

publish, notice loopholes in, and revise proofs, refining definitions of
mathematical solids, faces, etc Imre Lakatos: As in this example, no
definitions or proofs in mathematics are ever absolutely final, and beyond
revision.
o Later Wittgensteins Remarks on the Foundation of Mathematics: Why

do we follow rules in Mathematics? Not because of logical necessary, but due
to well-tried human, invented custom.
o Philip Kitchers The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge: Much

mathematical knowledge is accepted based on the authority of the
mathematician.
Page | 40
On owlcove.sg
Furthermore, Mathematical proofs are not complete, drawing on
unspoken mathematical knowledge learned through practice an
unwritten agreement. But because this unspoken mathematical
knowledge changes from generation to generation and is not written
down, these mathematical proofs are not absolute.
2. Different Applications of Mathematics
- Mathematical truths are not absolute they differ when you interpret them differently.
o Is 1+1=2 absolutely true? No. There are different ways of interpreting

depending on whether you use Boolean algebra or Base 2 Modular
Arithmetic, 1+1=1 and 1+1=0 are equally true!
o Euclids axioms work only on flat planes the assumptions that parallel lines
exist, two parallel lines cannot touch, and that two straight lines cannot define
an area. But, according to Riemanns coherent and workable system using
a SPHERICAL plane instead all these axioms can be challenged and yet
the system remains intact.
Riemann Geometry (vs. Euclidean Plane Geometry): If you think

on a spherical plane, there are no such things as parallel lines, two
lines (latitude) drawn from the North to the South Pole do encompass
a certain area and touch at the Poles.
o What does this mean? Mathematics is invented Mathematicians are all the
time inventing new imagined worlds without needing to discard or reject the
old ones. Therefore, such a thing as invented Mathematics exists.
Additionally, there is no such thing as absolute mathematical truth (1+1 = 2 is
not an absolute mathematical truth, see above) and as such, obviously,
maths cannot reach an absolute mathematical truth.
3. On the Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics
- Absolutists claim that Maths is so effective because it actually exists. Fallibilism

would argue that it is because Mathematics was invented to deal with problems, the
effectiveness of Mathematics is expected. After all, if Maths was invented to solve a
certain problem, one would expect Maths to be able to solve that certain problem.
o Whole branches of mathematics have been invented in order to deal with

practical problems. From basic arithmetic (for taxation and scribing), spherical
geometry and trigonometry (navigation), mechanics and calculus (ballistics,
military sciences), statistics (insurance, biomedical) all the way to modern
computational mathematics (military, cryptography, missile guidance).
o Hence, even though Mathematics studies pure structures which are

increasingly abstract, but Mathematics always find root in practical problems
and expand from there.
Page | 41
On owlcove.sg
How we understand Maths is history-/culture-dependent
- Even if it is conceded that Mathematical truths are time-independent that 1_1-2 cis
true even before human existed it take humans as a whole to be able to
understand that, and for mathematicians to introduce it to the population, before any
statement about it could be given any meaningful value.
o For example, before the description of Hilbert space by mathematicians, any

statement about Hilbert space would have been meaningless. Any statement
referring to the Hilbert space in the 1800s would have been meaningless
because the concepts are not established in the consciousness of
mathematicians.
o Hence, even if Mathematical truths are considered to be time-independent,

they only become applicable when established by mathematicians.
Page | 42
On owlcove.sg
Appendix A
Examples of flawed sensory perception

0 Illusions
a. Optical illusions: Seemingly-sloping but parallel lines, gray spots in between a
black-and-white grid, old-woman-or-young-girl picture
b. Natural illusions: Mirages, stick-in-water, moon seems bigger nearer the
horizon, sun revolves around the earth
1 Hallucinations
a. Hallucinations: Dreams (including dreams of waking up, when one is actually
still dreaming), delusions (in patients with dementia, for example), hallucinations,
religious visions
b. Sensory hallucinations: Auditory, olfactory, visual, tactile (I thought I
heard/smelt/saw/felt...) Examples include amputees who feel itchiness in limbs
they no longer have, feeling that a bowl of water has different temperatures when
felt with either a warm or cold hand.
c. Descartes Argument From Dreaming, Meditations on the First Philosophy:
Descartes asked Is it possible to tell reality form a dream? considering that
when we dream, we cant tell its a dream and that we can dream of waking up,
or dream that I can tell waking from dreaming - eventually leading to the cogito
as the only form of reality that is distinguishable.
2 Global Skepticisms Thought Experiments
a. Brain in a Vat what if we are just a brain in a vat with all sensory experience
inputed by a mad scientist?
b. Evil Demon what if an evil demon is manipulating us, causing us to be fooled
even about basic mathematical truths?
c. The Matrix Humans are hooked up to a virtual world, believing they are living
normal lives when they are not, in a massive Brain in a Vat scenario.
Page | 43
On owlcove.sg

The Knowledge Inquirers Guide To Knowledge and Inquiry PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Knowledge Inquirers Guide To Knowledge and Inquiry PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Knowledge And Inquiry

4 Epistemology Can we be certain of anything? Complete

Epistemology, Is the Scientific Method of Inquiry

Epistemology, Is the Scientific Method of Inquiry reliable?

Should Religious Knowledge be counted

Should Aesthetic Knowledge be counted

Science, Social Should the Social Sciences be considered

26 Art, Epistemology Is Art objective? Complete

Are Eastern and Western forms of

How is Mathematics known?

42 Appendix A: Examples of flawed sensory perception

Bearing in mind that Epistemology WILL come up as a question, it is strongly

On the use of Chinese characters in the exam, it probably is not advisable.

All the best!

1. Problem of Senses: Introspection, Kants Sunglasses

Sense datum is highly influenced by sensory perception and affected

- Kants Sunglasses: Kant imagined that we are permanently wearing sunglasses of

o We are perpetually seeing everything through the senses. We cannot actually

- Senses: Dementia, dreams or hallucinatory-inducing diseases or drugs can cause us

For additional examples, see Appendix A.

- We cannot generalise from particular observations to general laws; we cannot expect

o Hume: I am a chicken. I am fed every day, up till today. Tomorrow I will be

Related to Problem of Induction.

- Maths is based wholly on fundamental mathematical axioms (eg. 1+1=2) on which

- Mathematical knowledge will stay as only abstractions, and lack meaning in a

We can be certain of some things

- However, a priori statements have no truth-value because unmarried is already

2. Problems of Global Skepticism

- Arguably, Maths is a form of synthetic a priori knowledge. It is synthetic because in

- Formalism in Mathematics: Mathematical statements are statements deduced from

For arguments that Maths is a priori, see Is Maths Invented?

5. Usefulness of epistemological endeavours

2. The skeptics claim

See below, How do we be certain?

o Infinite Regress: S knows p because S knows q, because S knows r

o However: What is a basic belief? How do we ensure it is sufficiently basic

o Foundationalism therefore is rendered practically useless, because it is

o Coherentialism therefore cannot give us 100% accurate knowledge, because

o For example, a Brain in a Vat thinks it is taking a KI test Internalists would

- Memory: According to the representational theory of memory, we remember by

o However, can we rely on memory to determine what is true? Thought

o Humes idea of memory as images is problematic. Images may lose vivacity

o In fact, without thought experiments, it is known that memories tend to

- Testimony: Social Sciences such as History rely on testimony and varying

o However Testimony is the least reliable of forms of knowledge. Testimony

We can never be certain

- We depend entirely on the supposition that our perceptions do not systematically

See Appendix A for more examples on Global Skepticism

o Examples include seeing a hologram of a table in a room, but there is a real

Defeasibility: Ensuring that the justification is indefeasible that no

Presence of Relevant Falsehood: Nothing that is inferred from a

1. Pragmatism: We dont need 100% certainty

- Against Radical Skepticism and Solipsism: We have no proof against them.

o Sokal: Just because it is irrefutable doesnt mean its true.

2. Beyond Reasonable Doubt

1. Hypothesis Deductive Method (HD Method)

- The HD Method is generally recognized as a means by which reliable scientific

o HD Method provides a systematic means by which truth claims can be

o Even if the discovery was made serendipitously (accidentally, for example,

o Hence, the HD Method has a high chance of probability in producing objective

o Pseudoscience like psychoanalysis avoid subjecting themselves to such a

o Falsification as a criterion for science ensures that the Scientific Method

No, it is not objective