PHIL VID MOD4
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Christian Brothers University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
324
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by avaavon
Ava Nguyen
A new way to explain explanation
1.
Briefly explain the speaker's point (s). What did you think was the most interesting thing(s) he or
she said?
David Deutschland discusses important discoveries in human history. He brings up the immense time it
took to come to these discoveries and questions why it is so. He uses the words “stagnation to open
ended discovery”. He claims people then based their knowledge on authority that actually knew very
little. Therefore, progress depended on rejecting authority. What changed everything was the
enlightenment period and scientific revolution. He claims a lot of knowledge we have is by induction and
not by what we see ourselves. All scientific work is guesswork. He believes a crucial thing to consider are
bad explanations where it is easy to vary. Instead, he says we should seek good explanations that are
hard to vary. Hence, it is worth testable. He claims this is the origin of progress. He shares an example by
using the Greek myth versus scientific approach. To the ancient Greeks, spring and summer signified the
six months when Persephone returned from the Underworld, and her mother Demeter made the earth
bloom and grow bountiful after her absence. He claimed this story can easily vary. However, the earth's
spin axis is tilted with respect to its orbital plane is more difficult to vary and therefore a good
explanation.
2.
What philosophical ideas we have read about do you think is informing the speaker's thoughts?
You can use general theories or specific theorists (Hobbes, Kant, Aristotle, etc.). Make sure to
fully explain your answer, showing what it is that the speaker said that led to your answer.
He uses Karl Popper’s theory of knowledge that all observation is theory-laden. All knowledge is
conjectural or guess work. Scientific work is tested by observation and derived from it. Therefore,
scientific theories are testable conjectures. Another theory the speaker may have been influenced by is
rationalism. His input on good explanations reveal reason as the primary source of knowledge. It claims
that truth does not come from the evidence of one’s senses but instead is deductive in nature.
Combined with empiricism, these thought processes produced rapid growth in science, mathematics,
and even politics. Plato and Immanuel Kant share similar views on rationalism. However, Kant’s moral
law may now confide with the speaker's thoughts. On Kant’s account, basic moral requirements retain
their reasoning force under any circumstance, and therefore they have universal validity. So, whatever
else may be said of basic moral requirements, their content is universal. Only a universal law could be
the content of a requirement that has the reason-giving force of morality. The speaker would probably
consider this argument to vague or easily varying because it is not by discrete reasoning.
3.
Do you agree with the speaker's reasoning? Why or why not? Be sure to explain your own
reasoning.
Do you agree with the speaker's conclusions?
Why or why not
I do agree with the speaker’s reasoning. I think the overall points are that progress heavily depends on
good explanations or hard to vary reasoning. Otherwise, it is a matter of skepticism or doubted
knowledge claims that should be challenged by adequacy or reliability asking what principles it is based
upon or what it actually establishes. The ability to reason has a fundamental impact on one's ability to
learn from new information and experiences because reasoning skills determine how people
comprehend, evaluate, and accept claims and arguments. Reasoning skills are also crucial for being able
to generate and maintain viewpoints or beliefs that are coherent with, and justified by, relevant
knowledge. The axis tilt theory is based on facts that are very hard to vary. It makes risky and narrow
predictions. The axis tilt theory can predict the exact length of summer and winter at different latitudes,
and you can test that precisely.
Do we see reality as it is?
1.
Briefly explain the speaker's point (s). What did you think was the most interesting thing(s) he or
she said?
In his research to uncover the underlying secrets of human perception, Donald Hoffman has discovered
important clues pointing to the subjective nature of reality. The greatest mystery is the relationship
between your brain and your conscious experience. He then asks if we see reality as it is. We construct
what we see and just what we need to at the moment. According to scientists, we also reconstruct what
we see. Rather than as a set of absolute physical principles, reality is best understood as a set of
phenomena our brain constructs to guide our behavior. We actively create everything we see, and there
is no aspect of reality that does not depend on consciousness. He brings up evolution and how seeing
reality does not always guarantee survival. Evolution has shaped us with perceptual symbols that keep us
alive. However, he says it should not be taken as literal. For instance, the icon on a desktop. Space, time,
and objects are not the nature of reality.
2.
What philosophical ideas we have read about do you think is informing the speaker's thoughts?
You can use general theories or specific theorists (Hobbes, Kant, Aristotle, etc.). Make sure to
fully explain your answer, showing what it is that the speaker said that led to your answer.
By his ideas on reality, the speaker might lean towards subjective idealism, or empirical idealism. He
speaks about
the monistic metaphysical doctrine that only minds and mental contents exist. It entails
and is generally identified or associated with immaterialism, the doctrine that material things do not
exist. Subjective idealism rejects dualism, neutral monism, and materialism; indeed, it is the contrary of
eliminative materialism, the doctrine that only material things, and no mental things exist. However,
unlike Berkeley’s perspective perception by God, the speaker does have a more scientific approach. Our
perceptions are limited, but often in our advantage to survive or adapt. According to
Berkeley, ideas
acquire meaning by a process of association with particular experiences, which are in turn associated
with each other. But of course, mere association is not a reliable guide to reality. Hoffman’s theory
suggests that organisms develop a perception of the world that is directed towards fitness, and not of
reality.
3.
Do you agree with the speaker's reasoning? Why or why not? Be sure to explain your own
reasoning.
Do you agree with the speaker's conclusions?
Why or why not
I agree with the speaker for the most part. Other concepts, I am still uncertain about. The concept that
constructs what we need to see and not for what reality is still questionable. I am yet fully convinced
after the speaker’s TED talk. Maybe, I do not fully understand his idea yet. I do agree that certain beings
see more or see less for the sake of their survival or just for the best. Or by Hoffman’s words, natural
selection is necessarily directed toward fitness payoffs and that organisms develop internal models of
reality that increase these fitness payoffs. I also agree that seeing reality as it is is not a must know topic,
but I am optimistic that humans are capable of solving it. I think our brains unconsciously bend our
perception of reality to meet our desires or expectations. And they fill in gaps using our past
experiences.
What we think we know
1.
Briefly explain the speaker's point (s). What did you think was the most interesting thing(s) he or
she said?
The speaker introduces questions that science experts find difficult to answer. The questions are: A little
seed weighs next to nothing but a tree weighs a lot. “From where does the tree get the stuff that makes
up a wooden desk?”, “Can you light a little torch-bulb with a battery, a bulb and one piece of wire?”,
“Why is it hotter in summer than in winter?”, and “Could you scribble a plan diagram of the solar system
showing the shape of the planets’ orbits?” The speaker claims children had better responses in
comparison to adults. He goes on to say that children derive their a lot ideas from common sense. The
answers are: “the mass comes from the air”, “Yes you can.”, the rays of the sun are more spread out in
the summer, hence the heat, and the accurate solar system diagram and he shows a model for the
planets’ orbits. He claims good interpretations are things budged and stuffed. Neither we nor children
are empty vessels or ideas. Poor teaching does more harm than good. Early mental models are
extremely persistent.
2.
What philosophical ideas we have read about do you think is informing the speaker's thoughts?
You can use general theories or specific theorists (Hobbes, Kant, Aristotle, etc.). Make sure to
fully explain your answer, showing what it is that the speaker said that led to your answer.
The speaker’s key point was that there are gaps in our knowledge and specifically about science as we
might think we do. How philosophy factors into this is through perception. A philosophical idea well
known is that our understanding of, and interaction with, the world comes through particular constructs
of the human body – eyes, ears, fingers, etc. Most people intuitively understand the subjectivity of some
of our perceptions. Philosophers from Descartes to Kant have tried to describe our existence in such a
way as to arrive at understanding of the physical world in which things can be conclusively known.
Descartes famously employed systematic doubt, questioning all knowledge conveyed by his experience
in the world until the only knowledge he couldn’t doubt was the fact that he could doubt. While the
speaker did not speak on to this extent, Descartes spoke on self where we could be isolated brains, being
manipulated by things unknown, our entire world a mirage.
3.
Do you agree with the speaker's reasoning? Why or why not? Be sure to explain your own
reasoning.
Do you agree with the speaker's conclusions?
Why or why not
I agree with the speaker. It is hard to imagine a world that exists outside of what we can perceive. I
believe some assumptions are based on our own experience, some on the knowledge imparted by
others of their experience, and some on inferences of logic. The questions were in fact more difficult
than expected despite the plenty children that could answer them. Knowledge of empirical facts about
the physical world will necessarily involve perception, in other words, the use of the senses. Science,
with its collection of data and conducting of experiments, is the paradigm of empirical knowledge.
However, much of our more mundane knowledge comes from the senses, as we look, listen, smell,
touch, and taste the various objects in our environments. I also agree with using hands and education by
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
visualizing or by action. It helps us further understand and think about concepts. Children are fresh
minds that when planted wrong ideas or methods of learning by an educator might be detrimental to
obtaining knowledge.