How Do We Know Something?

With this lesson, we begin a new unit on epistemology, which is the philosophical study of knowledge claims. In this first lesson on epistemology, we begin by examining the question “What do we mean when we say we know something?” What exactly is knowledge? We will begin with a presentation that introduces the traditional definition of knowledge. Wood then discusses some of the basic issues raised in the study of epistemology and then presents an approach to epistemology that focuses on obtaining the intellectual virtues, a point we will elaborate on in the next lesson.

This author ascribes to the empiricism paradigm. This paradigm is similar to empirical knowing in that it is based on the premise that what is known can be verified through the senses, or

Though there are many good and bad aspects of the scientific method, there is an underlying fault with all of them. The scientific method in psychology relies on empiricism. Empiricism is a view that all knowledge is derived from experience. The scientific method can ultimately be split into two attitudes. The first is the dogmatic attitude. Dogmatism is the wish to impose regularities on the basis that repetition of regularly occurring events mean that a belief in

As humans, where does our knowledge come from? In Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes outlines his proof for the existence of God. However, David Hume offers a rebuttal in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding that questions not only Descartes’ proof but also his notion of how humans acquire knowledge. In what follows, I will examine Descartes’ proof of God’s existence, then argue that Hume would disagree with it by maintaining that humans can conceive of God through mental processes. Furthermore, I will show how in responding to Descartes' claim that God is the source of our knowledge, Hume asserts that we are instead limited to knowledge from experience.

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.

John Locke, Berkeley and Hume are all empiricist philosophers. They all have many different believes, but agree on the three anchor points; The only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience, reason is an unreliable and inadequate route to knowledge unless it is grounded in the solid bedrock of sense experience and there is no evidence of innate ideas within the mind that are known from experience. Each of these philosophers developed some of the most fascinating conceptions of the relationships between our thoughts and the world around us. I will argue that Locke, Berkeley and Hume are three empiricists that have different beliefs.

David Hume, a philosopher who raised radical doubts about the rationality of the scientific enterprise. Hume believed that “experience can only assure us of what we are actually observing at present, or can remember having observed in the past” (Cottingham, 2008). In this paper I will show that David Hume’s claim on induction that when there is real knowledge of an event, it cannot correctly justify inductive assumptions.

In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume attempts to uncover the ultimate truth about where our knowledge comes from.  This leads him to suggest that all our ideas and knowledge arise from outward experiences and sensations.  He attempts to prove this by solving the "problem of induction."  I disagree with Hume's ideas, and in this essay I will explain why.  I shall begin by explaining the problem of induction, and the sceptical doubts Hume raises concerning the inductive process.  I will then explain how Hume solves the problem.  Finally, I will conclude by offering a critique of Hume's doctrine, and explain why I find it to be inconsistent.

This is a central construct of CBT. So it appears that the human desire to understand ourselves and the world we live in has existed since the beginning of time (Barker, C., Pistrang, N., Elliott, R., Barker, C., & John Wiley & Sons, 83. 2002).” According to Barker et.al., other great philosophers such as Plato and Socrates believed that “the unexamined life was not worth living,” which gives further credence to the early beginnings of cognition and behavior.

René Descartes was a skeptic, and thus he believed that in order for something to be considered a true piece of knowledge, that “knowledge must have a certain stability,” (Cottingham 21). In his work, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes concludes that in order to achieve this stability, he must start at the foundations for all of his opinions and find the basis of doubt in each of them. David Hume, however, holds a different position on skepticism in his work An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, for he criticizes Descartes’ claim because “‘it is impossible,’” (qtd. in Cottingham 35). Both philosophers show distinct reasoning in what skepticism is and how it is useful in finding stability.

Furthermore, Locke’s profound analysis on sources of knowledge contributed to today’s psychological analysis of the unsolved dilemma of nature versus nurture while significantly shaping the foundation of modern psychology. As Locke introduced empiricism in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he was an important figure of Enlightenment to foster and alternate the schools of thinking in many spheres including here philosophy and psychology among many others.

David Hume was a Scottish empiricist who became renowned as a philosopher for his metaphysical skepticism and his account of the mind. Born in the 18th century, Hume follows Locke, a fellow empiricist and Descartes, an idealist, in the philosophic cannon. As a result he responds to each. From Locke Hume builds upon his concept of perceptions. Hume’s defining skepticism pertains to idealistic claims of substance, god, and the self.

In the selection, ‘Skeptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding’, David Hume poses a problem for knowledge about the world. This question is related to the problem of induction. David Hume was one of the first who decided to analyze this problem. He starts the selection by providing his form of dividing the human knowledge, and later discusses reasoning and its dependence on experience. Hume states that people believe that the future will resemble the past, but we have no evidence to support this belief. In this paper, I will clarify the forms of knowledge and reasoning and examine Hume’s problem of induction, which is a challenge to Justified True Belief account because we lack a justification for our

Rene Descartes was a philosopher of the 17th century. He had this keen interest in the search for certainty. For he was unimpressed with the way philosophy is during their time. He mused that nothing certain was coming forth from all the philosophical ideologies. He had considered that the case which philosophy was in was due to the fact that it was not grounded to something certain. He was primarily concerned with intellectual certainty, meaning that something that is certain through the intellect. Thus he was named a rationalist due to this the line of thought that he pursued. But in his work in the meditation, his method of finding this certainty was skeptical in nature; this is ‘the methodic doubt’.

Empiricism is an approach to philosophical thinking assuming that all human knowledge arises originally from sense-experiences. John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume are most notably known for the branch of empirical philosophy. Philosopher David Hume discusses what he believes are “bundles of perception.” He argues that we can never experience the objective world and alternatively only observe patterns. According to Hume, there are two methods used to detect these patterns, unit and continuity and causality. Casualty is defined as a relationship between ideas that allows you to infer knowledge beyond your immediate experience. Ultimately, Hume’s argument identifies the flaws and limitations involving casualty. Hence, the limitations surrounding casualty deal with the problem of induction, necessary connection and ultimately how it can lead to circularity and infinite regress.