NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... nature and scope of justification and knowledge, " Here Audi studies the specific nature of scientific, moral, and religious knowledge. Robert Audi is a representative of fallibility and he argues that some or even all claims to knowledge can be mistaken. Audi defines two different kinds of beliefs: perceptual and inferential.
An example of the perceptual is I hear chirping outside the window. An example of an inferential belief is, Birds are outside the window because I hear chirping. These beliefs are called inferential because they take perceptual beliefs and by means of logic use other believe. Epistemology wants to determine in knowing what justifies these beliefs. Audi argue there could be infinite or circular beliefs chains, they could not be sources of knowledge or justification. (Audi 205) In his writing Robert Audi acquaints us with the methods or more precisely with different sources from which we can get the knowledge or the definition. He defines "four standard basic sources" which are the perception, memory, consciousness, and reason.
All these sources are separate and do not depend on each other. According to Robert Audi each of them except for the memory can be considered as basic. (Memory cant be the basic source of obtaining the knowledge because it plays a different role a role of preservation rather than generation). The first source of knowledge is perception. Audi defines it as a believe known through the senses.
For example, I understand through my senses that a sound is coming from outside the window. It is essential that Audi's analysis of perception differs from the analysis of other philosophies. Audi distinguishes three forms of "seeing: " (a) simple seeing, (b) seeing that, and (c) seeing to be. In the traditional analysis supported by other philosophies, it is: (a) simple seeing, (b) seeing as, and (c) seeing that. The second source of knowledge is consciousness that means for example I am thinking about something.
The third basic source of knowledge or justified belief is reflection. Robert Audi, a, describes this source as a following: if person A is older than B and B is older than C, then A is older than C (Audi 205). The last type of knowledge is memory. An example of a belief based on memory is, I recall that five minutes ago I heard chirping outside the window.
Robert Audi distinguishes main sources from the minor according to the testimony. First Audi defines the relationship of the source of knowledge and the reliability. Then he analyses the source from the point of view of its individuality, autonomy and vulnerability to be disproved. Audi also studies the relations of the knowledge and justification and their coherence. Audi says about psychological coherent ism, that he has "encountered more than once" the objection "that partial sustaining relations are not ir reflexive." He imagines a "self-sustaining" structure of poles of a tepee which hold each other up.
The critics object that each of these poles is self-sustaining. Audi answers that the forces on the poles are different, even opposite. The tepee needs a strong stable ground and the relations between the poles are "transitive and ir reflexive. Audi has one general conception of justification. He states that it is of "well-grounded ness", and of knowledge, "appropriately grounded true belief", where in both cases the grounding needs "some kind of causal sustenance" (p. 14). He defends the opinion that first-person mental state beliefs are not incorrigible, infallible, or indubitable, though normally they are non-inferentially justified (Chapter 5).
In "The Causal Structure of Indirect Justification: he states that if one believe is based upon others it must have a sustaining relation. In "Justification, Truth, and Reliability", Audi distinguishes the "two quite different strands in the concept of justification, its normative character and its connection with truth" (p. 299). As justification itself does not mean the truth, Audi holds, the process of justification is linked teleological ly with truth. We can know a priori epistemic principles that "are partly constitutive of epistemically permissible attempts to show truth" (p. 320). Audi created a unique theory of epistemic chains. He defines an epistemic chain as simply a chain of beliefs, with at least the first constituting knowledge, and each belief linked to the previous one by being based on it. (Audi 206), and provides four types of epistemic chains: Infinite Circular Justified beliefs / knowledge can come from epistemic chains that are not based on direct perceptual beliefs.
Justified beliefs / knowledge must come from epistemic chains that are based on direct perceptual beliefs. We can learn history and argue on it but we still must know it to be able to argue. Robert Audi states the same. Fallibilism differs from skepticism in that the fallibility does not also argue that we should suspend belief because of our lack of certainty. Audi considers feeling to be one of the basic sources of knowledge but he didnt deny the other plausible sources. He built the theory of the basic sources of knowledge and studied the reliability of each of them according to their testimony.
Audi recognized that knowledge can be different and it depends on the source we get it from. Having modern views he created a modern theory that can be successfully applied by our contemporary for their further studies. David Hume because he is considered to be a philosopher who made a great contribution to the development of the epistemology. Humes philosophy has a great impact on his days philosophers and still attracts the attention of our contemporary scientists. The most important philosophical questions are associated with his name: the analysis of causality, the problem of personal identity, and the problem of induction. In contrast to Audi Hume is a representative of another branch skepticism.
The term skepticism springs from the Greek word skeptic, which means "to reflect or consider." It is used to any idea which stresses on doubt and questioning. According to skepticism, unless we can know something absolutely and with perfect certainty, then we cannot know anything at all. Hume rejected the possibility of certain knowledge, found in the mind nothing but a series of sensations, and held that cause-and-effect in the natural world originate just from the conjunction of two impressions. We can learn much about Hume's reading in his writings on religion, in which he didnt recognize any rational or natural theology. His main work is A Treatise of Human Nature (1739 - 40), but he also wrote Political Discourses (1752), The Natural History of Religion (1755), and a History of England (1754 - 62). Hume states that every judgement needs to have evidences for and against it.
And we usually have very few of evidences which can really support our believes and can make them matters of fact. So we cant investigate things in the external world because we actually have only our own inside word, psychology and our reactions of what we go through. What we used to understand as knowledge can rather be called custom or demonstration. Our world and reality can hardly be based on what we can rationally prove. So he was sure that the scepticism and even the extreme form of it is the only possible position. Humes view on testimony is nicely described in his work Of Miracles (Philosophical Essays Concerning Human Understanding).
In the work Of Miracles. He assumed that simple laws of nature can disprove every alleged miracle. Hume defined four factors that can disprove the miracles testimony: the witnesses lack integrity; we have a propensity to sensationalize; miracle testimonies abound in barbarous nations; and miracles support rival religious systems. He considers the laws of nature to be consistent and states that they can disprove any miracle testimony, even if it is very plausible and cant be weakened by the four abovementioned factors. Hume states that it is not right to make miracles as a foundation for the religion. He was against the religion suggesting that it is based on faith, not on miracle testimony, notwithstanding that it requires belief in miracles.
Hume unfavourably criticised all the attempts to prove the existence of God and natural theology. He rejected all the religious believes and wrote a critic where stated that miracles even never occurred, disproving the justifications of their occurrence. Hume states that we have to choose: either someone really did see the laws of nature suspended, or they are somehow mistaken. The latter is always more likely than the former, so we are never justified in rationally believing the former. Of course everybody has his own choice what theory to support and what views on the world to have. Now we have to choose among three: fallibility, skepticism and foundationalizm.
As for me I like and support Richard Swinburne's point of view. I dont like skepticism because it sounds like we have no hope to get knowledge and have only feelings without brain. I think it is not true. If we deny everything except our own needs and feelings what we will live for?
Our world is based on the theories, dogmas and rules, which were created for us to learn in order to be educated and understand more than our own feelings. Feeling should be always supported by thinking and if not, we risk becoming subject to degradation. Fallibilism differs from skepticism in that the fallibility does not also argue that we should suspend belief because of our lack of certainty. Audi considers feeling to be one of the basic sources of knowledge but he didnt deny the other plausible sources. The theory of Robert Audi is good, but I think that Swinburne's theory of synchronic justification to be the best because he looks deeply into the problem. The Robert Audi's book is a simple collection of essays, while the Swinburne's work is a whole logically composed easy to read book, where he discussed all the important issues in contemporary epistemology, having made valuable contribution to the analytic philosophy.
Bibliography 1. Swinburne Richard Epistemic Justification, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001 2. Audi, Robert "Epistemology: Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge" (2 nd edition, Routledge, 2003). 3. Locke, Berkeley, Hume: Central Themes (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 70.
Free research essays on topics related to: source of knowledge, sources of knowledge, audi, hume states, natural theology
Research essay sample on Sources Of Knowledge Source Of Knowledge
