EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
2672

That our acquirement of knowledge is in part a priori

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
0 points
StarlessStarless (PRO)

I'd like to thank Csareo for accepting the debate. I hope to have a stimulating and challenging exchange.


To review the scope of this debate:


Knowledge was defined as justified true belief


A priori was defined as independent of experience with the added stipulation “For someone to be a priori justified in believing some proposition is for her to be justified absent experiences beyond those required for her to acquire the relevant concepts employed in the statement of that proposition.”


I will be drawing heavily from Immanuel Kant during this debate, though some particular facets are my own.


Staying true to Kantian epistemology, I will not deny sense experience as necessary for knowledge. Rather I will be focusing on the transcendental modes of the understanding. I will argue that humans bring to experience something which enables us to form judgments on experience. Though we are discussing the existence of a priori epistemic justification, I will mainly talk about knowledge of the empirical world. I wish to discuss what humans bring to bear on experience and demonstrate that an a priori manifold is necessary for there to even be any intelligible experience.


The external world provides us with the content of our understanding, but our a priori faculties determine how we know it and the form with which we understand it. This also means that our perception of reality does not match reality as it truly is. Our minds shape reality to make it understandable to us, meaning there is no guarantee of an exact account of the external world.


Experiences must fall into patterns to be recognizable. All experiences are conceived of in spatial and temporal terms. The question arises how we may come by these spatial and temporal concepts; either as given to us in experience or as foundations within us, which we bring to experience. The latter is the only account capable of giving us plausible picture of our acquirement of knowledge. Time and space cannot be given from experience since experience is antecedently dependent on our knowing them. If space were an a posteriori concept, we could conceive of it as a pure thing instead of a characteristic of objects. The inherent and universal nature of time and space make it obvious that they are features inherent, not learned a posteriori. Space and time are thus pure intuitions of the understanding which we bring to experience. There must be forms of intuition which we impose upon objects of experience. It is what we bring to experience that makes experience intelligible. Prior to any experience we know that it will take temporal and geometrical forms and that mathematics will apply to it. Furthermore, there must be a priori concepts by which we organize the content of experience into a unified coherent whole. Otherwise, the vast array of phenomena that enters through our senses could not contain any meaning. They must be synthesized into a coherent whole. It is remarkable that the elaborate manifold of sense data may be synthesized into something coherent that we can make sense of. Our empirical faculties give us the contents of the external world but this is absolutely not enough to give us a meaningful picture of the external world. For a meaningful picture, the pure--as in non-empirical--faculties of our mind must render experience intelligible. One demonstration of this is that we can conceive of a chiliagon and have no doubt of its geometrical validity, but we cannot possibly perceive it since the variations of its sides would have to be so slight so as to be undetectable.


We can go even further than this. By virtue of our ability to attain intelligible understanding about the external world, we know that a conceptual organizing framework must exist within us which structures and interprets sense data. Our mental apparatus synthesizes the contents of experience into qualitative and quantitative categories i.e. qualitatively applying “all”, “some”, “none” to objects or quantitatively “positive” or “negative”. Moreover a conceptual framework must organize the items in our awareness e.g. causality, substance, possibility etc.


A good analogy is that we experience reality wearing a complex set of colored glasses. Without the glasses, we could not go from merely seeing things, for example, to knowing the things we see. Through the glasses we impose necessity and universality on things. The content of the world is not determined by the glasses, only the form we see it in. For example, humans experience takes on spatial and temporal forms as given by intuition. Experience does not lend us our notions of time and space, they’re inherent within us. Otherwise we could a posteriori examine space and time, which we cannot.


One final argument is that of our ability to conceive of necessity and possibility. The domain of empiricism rests only on that which actually is i.e. what is true of this world. However, humans can conceive of the notions of necessity and contingency. We know that it’s contingently true that we're having this debate, but it's necessarily true that two points on a plain form a straight line. Experience by itself only gives us knowledge of what is, not of what could have been but is not, or is but could not have been, or is and must be, or is not and could not have been etc. Therefore, without some a priori apparatus, we could not conceive of possible worlds, but only of what is. Since we can make these judgments, it follows that there is more to our understanding than the empirical tools.


I reserve the right to introduce new arguments in the next round.



Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-05 11:46:49
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
I'm thankful that the opposition both accepted and opened this debate, and would love to negate this contentious resolution.

What is knowledge? My opponent has already provided the definition, but hasn't elaborated on its meaning. Knowledge is what we believe based on justified reasoning, Despite my actual beliefs, I affirmed that knowledge is also a "True" belief. It seems fallacious doesn't it? For something to both be "True", "Justified", and a "Belief".  An example by the Stanford's Plato Institute put's it nicely.
i. p is true 
ii. believes is true 
iii. s is justified in believing p is true 

But how, and I ask this in its greatest sense, can the acquirement of these "justified" "beliefs" be independent of our experiences as humans? Isn't everything built off of human experience? We live, breath, and most important all, learn by experience. There are indeed several false interpretations of why someone would form a justified belief off of a non-experience, but for the very reason they are false, they are also fallacious. 

My opponent is absolutely right, as objectivity (commonality) teaches us things, and our mind puts these "patterns" into a way we can understand. Think of a mountain. The Big Bang Theory. All sorts of other conclusions reached through the most logical "puzzle" our mind's can complete. That's right, almost everything we know is built off of multiple patterns intertwined into something our mind can understand. 

Science confuses many people, but in reality, science is a web of different justified truths. An independent example is as follows....
i. a plant dies
ii. the plant didn't receive water
iii. the other plants received water 
iv. the other plants survived
v. plants must need water to survive

The knowledge, or justified true belief, is that plants need water to survive. How did we reach this conclusion? We experienced a plant dying, we experienced other plants receiving water, and we experienced the other plants surviving. This was, in all its glory, 100% founded on our experienced, and in no way was the acquirement of this knowledge, based on things "independent" of experience. 

We've already drawn this conclusion, but the opposition is well aware that I would tread down this line of reasoning. The part that will most likely be refuted, is the "conclusion" gap between iv. and v. The opposition actually equates this to an example of multi-tiered colored glasses. Stating that what we "Know" and what we "See" are two intemperate things. 

The basis of the opposition's case, is that there is only one reality. There is only one truth. There is only one belief that can be justified. Stephen Hawking's is an advocate for multi dimensions, and I've studied his scientific studies in detail, and have translated them to a much simpler and approachable truth. What we "See" is our "Reality". As the idea of an objective reality is fallacious, and immensely false. 

A good example, is to picture a color blind man and a color seeing man. Both are in a field. To the eye of the color blind man, the field is grey. To the eye of the color seeing man, the field is green. Many would say that the color blind man is wrong, and the field isn't grey. Many would also go on to say the color seeing man is right, and that the field is green. Well many of these people are wrong. Both men had experienced a sensory observation, and reached a justified conclusion. A true conclusion at that. 

Who's to say that the color seeing man is right, simply because there are more of him than the color blind man? That's exactly the point I would like to stress. Reality isn't being covered by the "complex colored glasses". Reality is what is seen through the "complex colored glasses". The Cynics, an ancient Greco-Roman school of philosophy, were firm believers that since nothing can be proven true, people should remain ignorant to everything. Additionally, the Epicureans, also believed nothing can be proven true. Where they differed from the Cynics, is that Epicurus believed one should follow the most well founded conclusion.

       I'm here to say, both Antisthene's and Epicurus were wrong. There isn't one truth, for there are multiple. Reality is but a shadowy veil set to mask and confuse us. Yes, nothing can be proven true, so why does my opponent claim the patterns we draw and connect equate to knowledge? We have no way of knowing, or ever proving that it is water plants need to survive, except for one thing....

Sensory Experience. It is the sole empirical evidence for the existence of facts. The only way, to ever prove and acquire the knowledge that plants need water to survive, is to sit and watch that plant die without water. That is the only way knowledge can be justified. Quoting the Münchhausen trilemma, there are but three broken paths to proving that our belief is justified. 
- Circular Arguments (where the belief and the premise give weight to each other)
- Regressive Arguments (in which a belief based on a premise, requires more premises)
- Axiomatic Arguments (Beliefs based on assumptions)

The Munchhausen Trilemma is correct, for it is impossible to gain knowledge and reach conclusions, without committing a fallacy. The Trilemma, is considered the bane of philosophy, but there is only one sure-fire way to prove something is justified within our own reality, and that is observation. The only way to prove animals bleed, is to watch an animal bleed. The only way to know humans need food, is to watch a human die without food. 

An old philosophy story is the "Sane Man and the Mad Man".  A Sane Man and a Mad Man are trapped out at sea. The mad man is claiming to see a boat, and the sane man is claiming there is no boat. The sane man has no way of proving there's no ship, and the mad man has no way of proving there is a ship. Both men are stuck separately believing that there is or isn't a ship.

This story deeply influenced the way I think. For the mad man is justified in believing there is a ship, because he saw it, just as the sane man is justified in believing there is no ship, because he failed to see one. The Cynics, while wrong about many things, were partially correct when it comes to the "root of ignorance". There are two paths to tread in life...
  • We ignore objective observations, because they can only be proven with Regressive Arguments
  • We believe objective observations, because they can only be proven with Axiomatic arguments 

I actually lied, because there is one more path that a man can go down, and I dare to say it's the correct path....
  • Choose to believe in our own subjective observations, existing within our own sphere of reality

By doing this, we can prove things are true, to us. Not others, but ourselves, and that is, in my justified belief, the only way to gain knowledge. 
The only way to gain knowledge, is to observe, to sense, and to study, for the only things that can be proven true are seen through our own eye's, not others. 

Research Sources 
- Dan Robinson's Lecture's on Kane's Critique, University of Oxford 
- Plato Institute Study on Epistemology 
- Multi-Verse Studies, Stephen Hawking



Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-05 13:22:19
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
BlackflagBlackflag
This is going to take me a couple of days to dissect. I'll try to go full out on this debate, and provide a somewhat good case.
Can you point me to what text Kant wrote this in?
Posted 2014-10-05 11:50:44
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 10000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 3 months
  • Time to prepare: None
BoP rests with Pro.

Knowledge: justified true belief

A priori: independent of experience, with the added caveat, "It seems impossible for there to be any justification completely independent of experience. We need to distinguish the experience needed to acquire the relevant concepts involved in (1a)–(14a) and any additional experience needed to determine whether the relevant propositions that contain those concepts are true or false. To say that a person could be justified in believing any of (1a)–(14a) independent of experience means that they could be justified independent of experience beyond that which is needed to acquire the relevant concepts needed to understand those propositions. For a person to be justified in believing any of (1b)–(14b), it is also true that she must have enough experience to acquire the relevant concepts expressed in those propositions. Having those concepts is necessary for her to understand the relevant propositions, and she cannot justifiably believe a proposition that she does not understand. However, she must also have additional experience beyond that in order to determine whether the relevant proposition is true or false, or be aware of the testimony of someone who has had the requisite additional experience. That additional experience is not required for someone to tell whether (1a)–(14a) are true or false. For someone to be a priori justified in believing some proposition is for her to be justified absent experiences beyond those required for her to acquire the relevant concepts employed in the statement of that proposition. This is sometimes described as the view that a priori justification depends only on enabling experiences, that is, the experiences a person needs in order to understand the proposition at issue."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/

Click the link if you wish to understand what is referred to as 1a-14a.

"Our" refers to humans in general, with the assumption that humans are generally the same in how they acquire knowledge.

Clarification of topic: Pro will be arguing that for some or all of knowledge claims, such as "horses eat grass", part or all of the substantiation or discovery of the claim is a priori.

In essence, a priori epistemic justification exists.