Pythagoras was the first person to really influence the founding of Calculus. He was an Ionian greek philosopher, mathematician, and has been credited as the founder of the movement called Pythagoreanism. Keep in mind he was born in 570 BC and died in 495 BC, so yeah, he’s kind of old. Most of the information about Pythagoras was written down centuries after he lived, so very little reliable information is known about him. He was born on the island of Samos, and traveled the world, visiting Egypt and Greece, and possibly India, and in 520 BC he returned Samos. Around 530 BC, he moves to Croton, in Magna Graecia, and there he established some kind of school or guild.
(Descartes, Pg.19). On the other end of the spectrum, apriori knowledge ,which is an understanding based on reasoning, is a more efficient way of explaining the method of doubt presented by Descartes.
I will attempt to clearly explain an argument offered by René Descartes in Rules for the Discovery of Scientific Truth. In order to accomplish this task, I will discern and explain Descartes’ argument, offer what I consider to be the most significant objection to the argument, and contemplate how Descartes would reply to my objection.
In the following paper I intend to compare and contrast the three major philosophical viewpoints regarding this question, and come to a
BonJour manages to defend the claim that a priori justification is necessary in order to avoid a severe, indefensible skepticism and demonstrates that any argument against a priori justification would undermine itself. This dialectical argument demonstrates that a denial of a priori justification is not only unsatisfactory, but impossible for the sake or argumentation. An empiricist critic could only appeal to pragmatism while accepting skepticism or surmount the impossible task of empirical justification of inference. This dialectical argument is by far BonJour's
Therefore, it can be asserted that knowledge gained from causality is not a priori, rather a posteriori, which is knowledge gained from experience and empirical evidence.
The positivism perspective is an extension to the empiricism view on knowledge that states that knowledge comes from induction and observable experiences and that this knowledge is used to explain social phenomena (Benton & Craib, 2011). Nevertheless, the empiric view of knowledge on which positivism is based has long been subject to limitations. Immanuel Kant noted for instance that knowledge does not only come from the senses but also from a basic pallet of conceptual knowledge we all have. Furthermore, the interpretation of observations can differ due to the different way everyone acquires concepts. The claims done by Staman and Slob (2012) mentioned earlier are analyzed below for using this perspective on science.
The progression of intellectual development gives us a guide for which to judge the relative merits of historical ideas. This process proves to be critical in our interpretation of the past. If the ideas of today are the successors to our intellectual heritage, then by its virtues they determine how we construe history. In this regard we look back upon Aristotle. By modern standards this famous Greek philosopher is lionized as a transformative scholar. Our adoration for Aristotle then must be derived from how our own history developed. This is not to make claim as to whether or not his philosophies or opinions were correct, rather merely to state that his works proved so influential that society has a positive opinion of him. Looking around today, however, it is hard to see how a philosopher who lived four thousand years ago could have an immediate impact on us. It is under this pretense through the process of backwards inference that this paper is going to set out to prove that Aristotle’s empirical methods form the basis for the modern day scientific method and regardless of his views on natural philosophy, Aristotle remains a major authority in our contemporary intellectual world.
Studying the history behind Calculus can seem, for the untrained eye, an impractical use of time. One might think that since as Calculus students, we are using the most advanced and contemporary functions of calculus, it's useless to look back and see what people did before us. However, there are several reasons why looking at the historical background of Calculus is important. As the lecture stated, the main reasons why the history of Calculus is important is that it opens our, being the students, eyes. It opens our eyes to the motivation behind historical Calculus scholars. It opens our eyes to how we can organize Calculus' results. It opens our eyes to the human and personal aspects of the people who developed calculus. Finally, it opens our eyes to the link between faith and mathematics. In this historical discussion of the definite integral, we will look at several of the "founding fathers" of this concept.
In ‘Naming and Necessity’, Philosopher Saul Kripke believes that there are some contingent truths that can be known a priori, or independent of experience. It is standard to believe that a priori truths coincide with necessary truths rather than with contingent. I will argue in agreeance with Kripke. There are cases in which contingent a priori truths exist.
Mathematics has contributed to the alteration of technology over many years. The most noticeable mathematical technology is the evolution of the abacus to the many variations of the calculator. Some people argue that the changes in technology have been for the better while others argue they have been for the worse. While this paper does not address specifically technology, this paper rather addresses influential persons in philosophy to the field of mathematics. In order to understand the impact of mathematics, this paper will delve into the three philosophers of the past who have contributed to this academic. In this paper, I will cover the views of three philosophers of mathematics encompassing their
Calinger, Ronald (1999). A Contextual History of Mathematics. Prentice-Hall, 150. ISBN 0-02-318285-7. “Shortly after Euclid, compiler of the definitive textbook, came Archimedes of Syracuse (ca. 287–212 B.C.), the most original and profound mathematician of antiquity.”
Mathematics, study of relationships among quantities, magnitudes, and properties and of logical operations by which unknown quantities, magnitudes, and properties may be deduced. In the past, mathematics was regarded as the science of quantity, whether of magnitudes, as in geometry, or of numbers, as in arithmetic, or of the generalization of these two fields, as in algebra. Toward the middle of the 19th century, however, mathematics came to be regarded increasingly as the science of relations, or as the science that draws necessary conclusions. This latter view encompasses mathematical or symbolic logic, the science of using symbols to provide an exact theory of logical deduction and inference based on
The controversy within the field and study of Philosophy is continuously progressing. Many ideas are prepared, and challenged by other philosophers causing the original idea to be analyzed more thoroughly. One of the cases that challenge many philosophers is The Problem of Induction. David Hume introduced the world to The Problem of Induction. The Problem of Induction claims that, past experiences can lead to future experiences. In this essay, I will explain how the problem of induction does not lead to reasonable solutions instead it causes philosophers more problems.