Philosophers ask questions about knowledge like, what is knowledge, how do we acquire knowledge, what do we really know, these questions fall into the category of epistemology. 4. Why is logic important in philosophy? Logic means analyzing the structure of arguments to determine whether they are valid. Logic is important, because it can help you determine the validity of syllogisms and other arguments.
Hume and Kant – On Cause and Effect Compare and discuss the concept of causation as it appears in the philosophy of David Hume and Immanuel Kant. “Der ønskes en sammenligning af Hume og Kants analyse af årsagsbegrebet.” Units: 16.548 Introduction: This assignment has the goal of explaining and relating the concept of cause and effect as found in the philosophy of Hume and Kant. Causation is a vital concept to the human understanding of reality. Whether we will it or not it is as good as impossible to imagine the world without some notion of cause and effect. It is therefore not surprising that the grounding for this notion has been the subject of heavy debate.
The items identified with Lower Case letters (a, b,. . .) are the pieces of support. They are your proof, evidence, etc.
To yield and to develop their theories and conclusions. The scientific method for the natural sciences relies the most on reasoning as the way of knowing. This method attempts to test observations and have reliable and reproducible results, a process in which many participate in and improve upon with the aim of describing the world in an objective manner. This means that a theory in the field of natural science must be tested until the
Question A) Explain Aristotle’s theory of the Four Causes. (25) Four Causes refers to an influential principle in Aristotelian thought whereby causes of change or movement are categorized into four fundamental types of answer to the question "why?” Aristotle wrote "we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its why, that is to say, its cause." While there are cases where identifying a cause is difficult, or in which causes might merge, Aristotle was convinced that his four causes provided an analytical scheme of general applicability. Aristotle held that there were four kinds of causes: A change or movement's material cause is the aspect of the change or movement, which is determined by the material which the moving or changing things are made of. For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.
In other words, they answer the question What drives behaviour? It is important to remember that the following are theories, none of which have been conclusively shown to be valid. Nonetheless, they are helpful in providing a contextual framework for dealing with individuals Process theory is a commonly used form of scientific research study in which events or occurrences are said to be the result of certain input states leading to a certain outcome (output) state, following a set process. Another theory that attempts to explain human behavior is Content theory. Process theory holds that if an outcome is to be duplicated, so too must the process which originally created it, and that there are certain constant necessary conditions for the outcome to be reached.
Aristotle, like many Greek philosophers, believed that the world was in constant change, or in persistent flux. Aristotle also believed that because of this motion, there had to be a system of cause and effect. Aristotle, then devised his famous ‘4 causes’ in an attempt to understand and develop his knowledge on causation. The first of this ‘4 causes’ is called the Material Cause. This cause seeks to understand the composition of materials in an object, or a thing.
I will explain the basic ideas of functionalism and explain how common-sense plays a role in the theory. I will then present one objection to the common-sense functionalism theory and form a hypothesis of how a common-sense functionalist would respond to the objection. Lastly, I will present my own evaluation of the common-sense functonalism theory. Functionalism, in simple terms, is the doctrine that the function of an object should determine its design and materials. It is a doctrine in the philosophy of mind according to which mental states are defined by their causes and effects.
This demarcating of science is a definite way to distinguish the difference between true science and pseudo-science. Before diving into the details of the criterion of demarcation, it is crucial to first understand the significance of demarcating science. In the simplest of reasoning, science is a study based on factuality (it is important to point out that scientific conclusions are however not based on absolute certainty, something I will touch on later). There is a specific process and order in which scientific experiments are conducted, the scientific method, and conclusions are gathered based on very tedious and detail-oriented procedures. That is one of the main reasons why that which is labeled a “science” has a certain level of credibility attached to it.
(Lawhead 2011:15-16). However, the pre-Socratic philosophers brought about change through discrediting the accepted mythical thinking that all things can be explained by means of the nature of the Greek gods. They went about removing the negativity surrounding knowledge at the time in order to facilitate human beings to determine truth for themselves instead of blindly believing explanations of a blind nature. This opened up a consideration for knowledge from a naturalistic standpoint (Curd & Graham 2008:8). The theories of the pre-Socratic philosophers were generally characterised by their link to perception.