American Indian studies.
Fahad502
ais101lecturefirst.pptxWhat is philosophy?
Inventory of some philosophical topics:
1. Epistemology
2. Metaphysics
3. Value Theory
4. Logic
1
Epis—what do we know and how do we know it
Metaphy—what kinds of things are there in the universe
Value—ethics, morality and beauty
Logic is really a tool used to develop the other three
Epistemology
Considers questions such as:
What is knowledge?
Is ‘justified true belief’ enough?
How do we acquire knowledge?
What does ‘rational means’ include?
How much knowledge do we have?
What is it for a belief to be justified or rational?
Open question
2
This definition ‘JTB” was accepted for several thousand years [aristotle]—middle of last century has been called into question.
Gettier:You're in the meadow, and you see a rock which looks to you like a sheep. So you say to yourself "There's a sheep in the meadow." In fact there is a sheep in the meadow (behind the rock, where you can't see it).
Here again you have a justified true belief that there is a sheep in the meadow, which fails to count as knowledge.
independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.
Has this standard ever been met? Do we need this high a standard?
Metaphysics
A highly general or abstract issue about the nature of reality
A main subdivision of metaphysics is ‘ontology’, which concerns what sorts of things exist.
Do numbers exist?
Do non-physical minds exist?
Is everything in the universe interconnected/interrelated?
3
Human construct – or. . .
Something that is separate from the brain synapsis . .
Recent past—not likely. . .quantum physics—seems possible
There are other general issues about the nature of reality, including
Do human beings have free will?
4
Everything is caused—for every effect there is a cause, i.e., everything is determined—the result of long causal chain
Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other. In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case.
Value Theory [Axiology]
This topic includes issues about ethics [moral and ethical values] and issues about aesthetics [artistic values].
5
Embed code (HTML):
<iframe width="555" height="665" src="http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals?embed"></iframe>
ethics and morals both relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. However, ethics refer to the series of rules provided to an individual by an external source. e.g. their profession. On the other hand, morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.
Aesthetics may be defined narrowly as the theory of beauty, or more broadly as that together with the philosophy of art. The traditional interest in beauty itself broadened, in the eighteenth century, to include the sublime, and since 1950 or so the number of pure aesthetic concepts discussed in the literature has expanded even more.
Logic
This is the study of the principles of right reasoning. Logic is the basic tool that philosophers use to investigate.
What makes an argument valid/strong?
What is a sound/cogent argument?
6
Attempt to Define
Philosophy concerns issues which for one reason or another have not lent themselves to scientific investigation. In some cases this may only be that we haven’t developed the right scientific techniques.
7
For instance, issues in cosmology [has the universe a beginning in time; is the universe infinite in extent] used to be regarded as philosophical because there didn’t seem to be any way to settle them empirically. Now, however, they are thought to belong to physics, and empirically supported answers have been offered.
8
Tentative definition:
Philosophy is
[1]The attempt to acquire knowledge;
[2]By rational means
[3]About topics that do not seem amenable to empirical investigation.
9
Condition [1] distinguishes philosophy from creative disciplines such as literature and music..
Condition [2] distinguishes philosophy from mysticism and some varieties of religion.
Condition [3] distinguishes philosophy from the empirical sciences.
Is this definition adequate?
There are two questions to ask about any definition—
Does it include all the cases it should?
Does it exclude all the cases it should?
10
That is does it pick out all and only X’s
Socratic method (dialectic)
Socrates asks what ___ is
Someone answers
Socrates analyzes the definition and asks questions to show that
It’s unclear
It’s too narrow
It’s too broad
Someone proposes another definition, etc.
Precising the definition
11
What is a chair?
Chairs
Need to define in such a way as to include all and only chairs
12
Let’s try to define it
Things satisfying our definition
In this circle are the items that meet our definition
13
Good Definitions
We want the definition to pick out all and only chairs
So we want these circle
14
Definitions: Problems
What is a chair?
“A kind of furniture”
Unclear: What kind?
“A piece of furniture with four legs and a back”
Chairs
Things satisfying the
Too narrow
Too
broad
definition
Remember Socrates. . .unclear, too broad, too narrow.
More detailed description
15
Definitions and their problems
What is a chair?
“A kind of furniture”
Unclear: What kind?
“A piece of furniture with four legs and a back”
Too broad: stools, divans, sofas, benches
Too narrow: bean bag chairs, chairs suspended from ceiling
Chairs
Things satisfying the
Too narrow
Too
broad
definition
4 legs + back: blue—would exclude beanbag chairs, chairs hung from ceiling—too narrow
yellow—would include stools, etc. –too broad
green—those that meet the definition
Remember we want the figures to overlap completely.
16
How about condition [1]? “attempt to acquire knowledge”
This condition may rule out some writings that are often treated as philosophy. For example, it rules out activism, writing or speech whose goal is to effect change rather than to acquire knowledge. But Marx wrote,” the philosophers have attempted to understand the world, the point, however, is to change it.
17
To get back to the definition of philosophy—have we identified the necessary and sufficient conditions?
Kierkegaard seems to have as a goal to help his readers become religious.
Still, both of these writers also were concerned with acquiring knowledge, and it could be argued that it is only this aspect of their writing that is philosophical.
18
Does any philosophical writing meet the standard.
How about condition [2]? “by rational means”
This condition is rather vague. It may rule out some Eastern and Native American thought, though certainly much of these philosophies is eminently rational.
Even the sciences are known to place some reliance on ‘intuition, hunches, etc”.
19
What about presuppositions that were in error and therefore resulted in bias and lack of objectivity
Newton’s apple; double helix that prompted gene structure
How about condition [3]? “not. . .empirical methods”
This condition certainly rules out some topics that have traditionally been thought of as part of philosophy, such as whether the universe is deterministic, whether it has a beginning in time, whether it is infinite in extent, and so on.
20
Is this definition so flawed as to be unserviceable?
21
Another candidate:
Philosophy is critical thinking about presuppositions. A presupposition is a claim we take for granted and usually don’t analyze. For philosophy, presuppositions are controversial.
22
They are also sometimes hard to realize you have them—
Definition 1 (Strawsonian presupposition) . One sentence presupposes another iff whenever the first is true or false, the second is true.
Another definition that is often used is this:
Definition 2 (Presupposition via negation) One sentence presupposes another iff whenever the first sentence is true, the second is true, and whenever the negation of the first sentence is true, the second sentence is true.[3]
what people presuppose when they are speaking. A pragmatic presupposition associated with a sentence is a condition that a speaker would normally expect to hold in the common ground between discourse participants when that sentence is uttered.[8]
What has to be true in order for the proposition/statement to be true
Ordinary conversation does not always proceed in the ideal orderly fashion described earlier. People do make leaps and shortcuts by using sentences whose presuppositions are not satisfied in the conversational context. This is the rule rather than the exception […] I think we can maintain that a sentence is always taken to be an increment to a context that satisfies its presuppositions. If the current conversational context does not suffice, the listener is entitled and expected to extend it as required.
Some questionable presuppositions
There is a world independent of my mind.
The future will resemble the past.
Mankind is by nature ‘good’
Mankind is by nature ‘evil’
Human cultures develop/evolve/age following patterns that are basically identical.
23
Since everything that we know about the world is mediated through our senses—how do we know there is anything ‘out there’?
Science is based on this presupposition—how do we know. . .from past experience [actually both of these first presuppositions]
A causal relationship transmitted through an indefinite number of terms in a series, with no term that begins the causal chain. Infinite regress for the future resembles the past.
American indians, for the most part, argue that this is the case;
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, short –Hobbes version of man’s nature in Leviathan. Some organized religions agree.
I can know what the world is like using my senses.
My senses are not systematically deceiving me.
24
False dawn Chills from fever Spacial disorientation Weightlessness in an elevator Seat of the pants perception of 'down' in an out of trim aircraft
Descartes thoughts are that maybe you use your mind to understand abstract things like the nature of his existence, but it is with the senses that we explore and examine physical things. He uses the example of a piece of wax. He observes a piece of wax and notices that it has a distinctive feel, odor, sound, taste, size, color, and temperature. The wax was heated and each of the sensory attributes the wax changed. Relying only on the physical senses would lead to the conclusion that the wax in its original form is different than the wax after it has been heated. In the end both are still the same substance. In this example Descartes argument is to show that even physical things can only be clearly understood by inspecting them with the mind and not relying only on the senses because they can misguide information about qualities that are not essential to substances. After Descartes removes the possibility of knowing things through the senses, he considers the imagination as a source for knowledge. Read more: http://www.disclose.tv/forum/fooled-by-the-senses-t38442.html#ixzz2g3JWPDjZ
Some persons are morally better than others.
Humans are more important than non-human animals.
Some arguments are better than others.
Something is either ‘true’ or ‘false’.
25
Many argue that there are universal moral truths—It is wrong to torture an infant for no good reason.
A person who makes morally better choices than some other person is arguably ‘morally better’.
Animals that Act for Moral Reasons Mark Rowlands1.Preliminaries
Non-human animals (henceforth, “animals”) are typically regarded as moral
patients rather than moral agents
. Let us define these terms as follows:
(1) X is a moral patient if and only if X is a legitimate object of moral concern: that is, roughly, X is something whose interests
Should be taken into account when decisions are made concerning it or which otherwise impact on it.
(2) X is a moral agent if and only if X can be morally evaluated–praised or blamed (broadly understood)–for its motives and actions.
Nothing in (1) and (2), of course, rules out one and the same individual being both a moral agent and a patient.
Mere persuasion is NOT the ultimate goal of argumentation, at least as this term is used in philosophy and rhetoric. Argumentation is about persuasion for good reasons. Precisely what this means is not obvious, and it will take us some time to work it out work, but at a minimum it involves offering premises that your audience is willing to accept, and demonstrating how the conclusion follows logically from those premises. Here’s another way to think about argumentation. From a broader perspective, to argue with a person, as opposed to merely trying to persuade or influence a person, is to treat that person as a rational agent capable of acting from, and being moved by, reasons. It’s part of what it means to treat a person as an “end” in themselves, rather than as a mere means to some other end. In this respect, theories of argumentation are normative theories of how we ought to reason, if we’re treating our audience as rational agents. They’re a component of a basic moral stance that we adopt toward beings who we recognize as capable of rational thought.
The classical logics [propositional logic and predicate logic] subscribe to a bivalent logic , more recently, there has been a lot of work in multivalent logics—using undetermined, probable, etc.
Schroedinger saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects, resulting in a contradiction with common sense. The scenario presents a cat that may be both alive and dead, depending on an earlier random event. Although the original "experiment" was imaginary, similar principles have been researched and used in practical applications.
All people are equal under the law.
The universe operates in an orderly way, that the future will resemble the past.
There is a specific female nature, or gender is socially constructed.
26
Some presuppositions are most relevant to particular areas of philosophy:
phil of law
phil of science
feminist phil
Such is the broad picture of philosophy.
27
Quantitative vs. Qualitative
Experimental
Laboratory-like control
Logical Positivism
Field research
Ethnography or phenomenology
Constructivist
Both are empirical!
Qualitative
Quantitative
"There's no such thing as qualitative data. Everything is either 1 or 0" - Fred Kerlinger
"All research ultimately has a qualitative grounding" - Donald Campbell
Qualitative
Quantitative
The aim is a complete, detailed description.
The aim is to classify features, count them, and construct statistical models in an attempt to explain what is observed.
Qualitative
Quantitative
Researcher may only know roughly in advance what he/she is looking for.
Researcher knows clearly in advance what he/she is looking for.
Qualitative
Quantitative
Recommended during earlier phases of research projects.
Recommended during latter phases of research projects.
Qualitative
Quantitative
The design emerges as the study unfolds.
All aspects of the study are carefully designed before data is collected.
Qualitative
Quantitative
Researcher is the data gathering instrument.
Researcher uses tools, such as questionnaires or equipment to collect numerical data.
Qualitative
Quantitative
Data is in the form of words, pictures or objects.
Data is in the form of numbers and statistics.
Qualitative
Quantitative
Subjective - individuals� interpretation of events is important ,e.g., uses participant observation, in-depth interviews etc.
Objective � seeks precise measurement & analysis of target concepts, e.g., uses surveys, questionnaires etc.
Qualitative
Quantitative
Qualitative data is more 'rich', time consuming, and less able to be generalized.
Quantitative data is more efficient, able to test hypotheses, but may miss contextual detail.
Qualitative
Quantitative
Researcher tends to become subjectively immersed in the subject matter.
Researcher tends to remain objectively separated from the subject matter.
Main Points
Qualitative research involves analysis of data such as words (e.g., from interviews), pictures (e.g., video), or objects (e.g., an artifact).
Quantitative research involves analysis of numerical data.
The strengths and weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative research are a perennial, hot debate. The issues invoke a classic 'paradigm war'.
The personality / thinking style of the researcher and/or the culture of the organization is under-recognized as a key factor in preferred choice of methods.
Overly focusing on the debate of "qualitative versus quantitative" frames the methods in opposition.
It is important to focus also on how the techniques can be integrated, such as in mixed methods research. More good can come of science researchers developing skills in both realms than debating which method is superior.
Qualitative mode
Quantitative Mode
Assumptions
Reality is socially constructed
Primacy of subject matter
Variables are complex, interwoven, and difficult to measure
Emic (insider's point of view)
Assumptions
Social facts have an objective reality
Primacy of method
Variables can be identified and relationships measured
Etic (outside's point of view)
Qualitative mode
Quantitative Mode
Purpose
Contextualization
Interpretation
Understanding actors' perspectives
Purpose
Generalizability
Prediction
Causal explanations
Qualitative mode
Quantitative Mode
Approach
Ends with hypotheses and grounded theory
Emergence and portrayal
Researcher as instrument
Naturalistic
Approach
Begins with hypotheses and theories
Manipulation and control
Uses formal instruments
Experimentation
Deductive
Qualitative mode
Quantitative Mode
Inductive
Searches for patterns
Seeks pluralism, complexity
Makes minor use of numerical indices
Descriptive write-up
Component analysis
Seeks consensus, the norm
Reduces data to numerical indices
Abstract language in write-up
Axioms About The Nature of Reality
Naturalist Paradigm (Qualitative)
Realities are multiple, constructed, and holistic.
Positivist Paradigm (Quantitative)
Reality is single, tangible, and fragmentable.
Axioms About The Relationship Of Knower To The Known
Naturalist Paradigm (Qualitative)
Knower and known are interactive, inseparable.
Positivist Paradigm (Quantitative)
Knower and known are independent, a dualism.
Axioms About The Possibility of Generalization
Naturalist Paradigm (Qualitative)
Only time- and context-bound working hypotheses (idiographic statements) are possible.
Positivist Paradigm (Quantitative)
Time- and context-free generalizations (nomothetic statements) are possible.
Axioms About The Possibility of Causal Linkages
Naturalist Paradigm (Qualitative)
All entities are in a state of mutual simultaneous shaping, so that it is impossible to distinguish causes from effects.
Positivist Paradigm (Quantitative)
There are real causes, temporally precedent to or simultaneous with their effects.
Axioms About The Role of Values
Naturalist Paradigm (Qualitative)
Inquiry is value-bound.
Positivist Paradigm (Quantitative)
Inquiry is value-free.
Research with Informants (Qualitative)
1. What do my informants know about their culture that I can discover?
2. What concepts do my informants use to classify their experiences?
3. How do my informants define these concepts?
4. What theory do my informants use to explain their experience?
5. How can I translate the cultural knowledge of my informants into a cultural description my colleagues will understand?
Research with Subjects (Quantitative)
1. What do I know about a problem that will allow me to formulate and test a hypothesis?
2. What concepts can I use to test this hypothesis?
3. How can I operationally define these concepts?
4. What scientific theory can explain the data?
5. How can I interpret the results and report them in the language of my colleagues?
The key issues in the quantitative-qualitative debate are ontological and epistemological.
Quantitative researchers perceive truth as something which describes an objective reality, separate from the observer and waiting to be discovered.
Qualitative researchers are concerned with the changing nature of reality created through people’s experiences – an evolving reality in which the researcher and the researched are mutually interactive and inseparable .
Because quantitative and qualitative methods represent two different paradigms, they are incommensurate.
The one [paradigm] precludes the other just as surely belief in a round world precludes belief in a flat one.
Fundamental to this viewpoint is that qualitative and quantitative researchers do not, in fact, study the same phenomena.
Qualitative and quantitative research methods have grown out of, and still represent, different paradigms.
However, the fact that the approaches are incommensurate does not mean that multiple methods cannot be combined in a single study if it is done for complementary purposes.
Each method studies different phenomena. The distinction of phenomena in mixed-methods research is crucial and can be clarified by labeling the phenomenon examined by each method.
For example, a mixed-methods study to develop a measure of burnout experienced by nurses could be described as a qualitative study of the lived experience of burnout to inform a quantitative measure of burnout. Although the phenomenon ‘burnout’ may appear the same across methods, the distinction between “lived experience” and “measure” reconciles the phenomenon to its respective method and paradigm.
it may be that quantitative and qualitative approaches are inadequate to the task of understanding the
emerging science of wholeness because they give an incomplete view of people
in their environments. Perhaps in a “Kuhnian” sense, a new paradigm is in order,
one with a new ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Alternatively, we have
proposed seeking complementarity which we believe is both philosophically and
practically sound. This solution lends itself to new standards for mixed-paradigm
research.
55
This brings us to the reason AIS is an interdisciplinary course.
Considering the breadth and unique challenges of the subject matter—the most effective approach includes using a truly interdisciplinary design.
The idea is to weave a story with the threads of the various disciplines which may more closely resemble the intricate tapestry of the lives of the people studied.
56
