ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY

Lecturer: Dr Olatunji Oyeshile - 08035751891

14/10/10

 Course Outline

1. Epistemology and sceptical challenge

2. The traditional definition of epistemology by Plato and the challenge of Edmund Gettier
3. Fundationalist’s theories
 The rationalist project of Descartes
 Hume’s critique of induction (Causality)
 Kant’s mediation between the rationalist and empiricists
 The critique of Pure Reason
 The critique of a priori
 Is pure reason possible?
4. Contemporary theories of knowledge
 Quinn’s naturalised epistemology
 Alvin Goldman’s epistemic
5. Theories of truths
6. Existentialism and traditional epistemological theories
7. Knowledge and human interest

 Class interaction:
 Do we really know something? Yes, we do know something but there may be mistakes
in what we know.
 If it is true that we do know something, why then would the sceptics argued we cannot
know anything?
 Who is a sceptic? A sceptic is one who doubts that human knowledge is possible.

 Protagoras – For Protagoras all custom were relative, not absolute. For him, everything is
relative to human subjectivity. According to him, man is the measure of all things, of things that
are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not.

 Gorgias – According to Gorgias:

1. There is nothing
2. If there were anything, no one could know it
3. If anyone did know it, no one could communicate it
The point is that if you can ‘prove’ these absurdities, you can ‘prove’ anything.

 Descartes – Descartes began by doubting everything in his treatment of epistemology

 Sources of knowledge:

 Sense experience
 Intuition
 Reason
 Revelation

 Epistemology and sceptical challenge

1
 ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY
Lecturer: Dr Olatunji Oyeshile - 08035751891

Introduction

Like philosophy itself, the definition of epistemology, that is, theory of knowledge, can only be
clearly formulated after we have described what epistemology sets out to achieve. Epistemology
claims to tell us how knowledge is possible, the sources of knowledge, the nature of knowledge
and the scope of our knowledge. It grapples with such issues as to the limits of our knowledge,
what we know and how we know that we know. One may therefore define epistemology as the
branch of philosophy which studies knowledge. More precisely, it refers to the objective and
scientific knowledge (episteme) as opposed to opinions.

Epistemology concerns itself with propositional knowledge, that is, what it is for S to say that it
knows P and so P. For one to claim that one knows that P, it means that the art of knowing
involves a subject, that is, a knower and an object (the thing known).

S knows that P
Object (thing known)

Subject (something that knows)

The epistemological enterprise has been greatly challenged by the sceptics. Some of these
sceptics include:

 Thales
 Pyrrho
 Montaigne
 Descartes

There are two broad kinds of scepticism: total scepticism and partial scepticism. A total sceptic
will insist that knowledge is not possible. But the position of total scepticism is not feasible
because it is self-contradictory1. Genuine or partial scepticism has to do with further inquiry. It
1
Common sense frequently says it is sceptical, but it means simply that it demands to be shown the evidence – a
position not only commendable but necessary for the true philosopher. When we say “sceptical” in philosophical
sense, however, we are referring to those who refuse to accept even the first principle of the understanding, even the
very existence of the self, as evident and knowable.

To demonstrate the error of skepticism to the skeptic is impossible because the skeptic refuses to accept the
principles which make demonstration possible. It is no use saying to the skeptic, “At least you are certain of one
thing, and that is that you are not certain of anything,” or “At least you know that you do not know anything.” All
such propositions imply the validity of the principles of non-contradiction, which the skeptic refuses to accept.

It is verbally possible to doubt everything forever. Whether it is actually possible to have a living, real doubt of
everything is a deeper question, and to answer it we must penetrate behind the barrier of language. The real problem
of skepticism is not whether it is verbally possible to doubt everything but whether it is psychologically possible;
whether, that is, a human being can actually be what the absolute skeptic says he is. It is not possible to question the
sincerity of the person who calls himself a skeptic but it is legitimate to remind him of the difference between a
verbal doubt and a real doubt and of what is implied by real doubt.

2
 ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY
Lecturer: Dr Olatunji Oyeshile - 08035751891

recognises the fact that no knowledge claim, no matter how sure we are, is free or immune from
error. It questions the notion of absolute certitude or certainty.

Systematic scepticism started with Thales and continued through Pyrroh, Sextus Empiricus, the
Sophists, and then René Descartes who is regarded as a partial sceptic. The sophist Protagoras,
sensing the uncertainty in things and lack of absolute criteria, concludes that man is the measure
of all things, of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not – man
determines everything. It should be noted that whenever philosophy is getting into dogmatism, a
claim that its truths are incorrigible, it needs scepticism to save it.

 15/10/10

 Assignment:

What is the relevance of scepticism to the epistemological enterprise? – 3 to 5 pages.

 A. J. Ayer

A.J. Ayer gives 4 steps of the sceptical argument that:

1. We rely on the premises for our knowledge of the conclusion

2. Relationship between the conclusion and the premises are not inductive
3. The move from premise to conclusion is also not inductive
4. Therefore, we are not justified in claiming that we know the conclusion
According to Ayer, if one is not content to make merely dogmatic claims to knowledge, the
range of propositions which one regards as capable of being known to be true will coincide with
those which we can show to have sufficient justification for accepting. The practice has always
been to start with propositions which one can be certain of or virtually certain of their truth and
then see what further propositions there can be supposed to justify. This method/procedure Ayer
tells us has its origin in Descartes methodic doubt. The aim of the sceptics, according to Ayer,
which is positive, is to demonstrate the existence of an unbridgeable gap between the
conclusions which we desire to reach and the premises which we set out.
 21/10/10

Real doubt paralyses activity. If you had a real doubt whether or not your food was poisoned you would not eat it. If
you had a real doubt of the safety of the elevator you would walk. If you had a real doubt of the destination of your
train, you would get out and ask. Of course, if you had a real doubt of everything you would doubt the very
existence of the food, of the elevator, of the train. You would also doubt, really doubt, the existence of other people,
of your own past, of the immediate future. If a person really doubted all the evidence of his senses and intellect, he
would be able only to lift his finger as Aristotle puts it. The absolute skeptic is reduced, in short, to the existence of a
vegetable.

This is one check, then, that can be made against the absolute skeptic. Does he really act as though he had a real
doubt of everything? For if someone asserts a philosophical position as true, it is legitimate to ask whether he acts in
accordance with his asserted philosophy.

3
 ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY
Lecturer: Dr Olatunji Oyeshile - 08035751891

The inductive inference can enable us to predict the occurrence of future sense impression on the
basis of those that we already have. But it cannot lead us to a conclusion which we could
conceivably verify. But then the sceptics concludes that if our belief in the existence of physical
object cannot be justified either by a deductive or inductive argument, it means that it does not
have any rational ground. The sceptic’s position is further backed-up by the following
arguments:

1. Argument from illusion:

This argument claims that the senses often deceive us and sometimes we confuse dream and
hallucinations with reality. Therefore sense knowledge cannot be trusted.

2. Although we are naturally convinced of the truth of the first principles, there is no
guarantee that they apply to reality. They might be merely laws of the mind.

3. Any attempt at proving the value of reason, necessarily involves a vicious circle since we
must of necessity use the intellect in formulating such a proof while the value of the intellect for
knowing and proving is not yet established

4. Nothing can be absolutely proved according to the sceptics for every argument supposes
premises and this in turn must be established by means of some further argument and so forth ad
indefinitum.

5. Subjective certitude is not sufficient. Many subjective convictions including those of

philosophers have proved upon closer inspection, to be false.

 The traditional definition of epistemology by Plato and the challenge of Edmund Gettier

For Plato, knowledge is not the same with true-belief because knowledge requires an ability to
give the ground on which our claims of knowledge rests while true-belief is a matter of opinion
and liable to error whereas knowledge is not liable to error. This means that for Plato, we cannot
have knowledge of sensible things since we cannot attribute the quality of absolute necessity to
them which is a necessary ground for all knowledge claims.
In the Theaetetus, Plato presents the dialogue between Theaetetus the young mathematician and
Socrates. They progressively moved from having knowledge as aesthesis, that is, perceptions of
what is. We cannot be wrong in what we perceived and that means that we can have knowledge
through perception. Socrates argues that things are always changing and as such, we can never
be sure that what we claim to perceive is exactly what we are perceiving since sensible things do
not enjoy stability.

Again, it is doubtful if our perceptual organs are effective and reliable in reporting what is. The
whole problem of misperception, illusion, delusion, hallucination and phantasmagoria are very
strong arguments against our perceptual process. This means that there is an extra dimension to

4
 ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY
Lecturer: Dr Olatunji Oyeshile - 08035751891

the question of knowledge through perception. In our perceptual process, there is a place for
judgement. Perceiving is one thing, and then making the right perceptual judgement is another.

We find here that knowledge is therefore not a wholly sensible process but involves mental
activity of judgement. This leads us from the point of true-belief to the need for justification;
hence the traditional conception of knowledge as Justified True Belief (JTB). The need to
provide justification is very important in knowledge, otherwise anything becomes acceptable as
genuine knowledge claim.

 28/10/10

 The Challenge of Edmund Gettier to the Traditional Definition of Epistemology

Let us recall that Plato had given us a tripartite account of knowledge in the Theaetetus which
takes knowledge to be Justified True Belief (JTB) in order words S is the subject of knowledge
while P is the object of knowledge, the three conditions stated above must obtain; that is:
1. P must be true
2. S must believe that P
3. S must be justified in believing that P
This conception or definition of knowledge was challenged by Edmund L. Gettier in his article:
“Is True Belief Knowledge?” 1963. According to Gettier, the three criteria for knowledge are
necessary but they are definitely not complete or sufficient for knowledge.

 First reason is that sense of justified in which S’s being justified in believing that P. It is
possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is in fact false.

 Secondly, for any proposition P, if S is justified in believing Q, and P entails Q and S

deuces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Take schematically:

PQ

QR

P  R

Gettier presents two cases in which the conditions stated above are true for some propositions
though it is at the same time false that the person in question knows that proposition.

 Case 1: Suppose that Smith and Jones have applied for a certain bob and suppose that
Smith has evidence for the following conjunctive propositions.

5
 ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY
Lecturer: Dr Olatunji Oyeshile - 08035751891

1. Jones is the man who will get the job and Jones has ten coins in his pocket.
2. Smith had counted the coins in Jones’ pocket to be ten and the president of the company
told Smith that Jones would be selected.
3. At the end of the day, Smith got the job unknowing to him; he too had ten coins in his
pocket.

In the above example, the three criteria for knowledge had been met yet Smith did not know who
will get the job.

 A Critique of Gettier.

Edmund Gettier’s position had been criticised by some contemporary philosopher. According to
McGolderick, the apparent successes of Gettier counter examples rests upon a conceptual
confusion. He argues that the Gettier counter example seem to attack JTB by sliding between the
various meaning of the word ‘justified.’ The way in which the slide occurs is quite complex and
is made possible by the complexity of the concept of justification. Whereas a claim of conception
cannot be justified on the basis of false evidence; a person can be justified for holding a false
belief on the bases of false evidence because when applied to persons, a justification exonerates
from real blame.

What is justifies because in the circumstances and on the basis of evidence at hand, that is, how it
appeared or that is what a reasonable or moral man would assume. But a claim, theory or
proposition cannot in the same way be justified on the basis of false evidence. The evidence
either establishes the truth of the claim or it does not. If it does not or if at some future time it
turns out that it did not, then, we deny the claim is or was justified. To do otherwise would be to
commit us to the absurdity that claims or propositions themselves can be exonerated from the
falsehoods which they proclaim, if it can be shown that they were based on false evidence.

When we apply this analysis of the term ‘justification’ to the Gettier counter example, we see
that Smith is justified in believing that P in nether of the two senses elucidated above. He cannot
be justified in the sense of being exonerated from the rebuke of having held a false belief since
his belief is in fact true. At the same times, the proposition that P is not justified in the sense that
the evidence on which it is based cannot be justified or sustained. Gettier’s sense of justified can
best be described as a mixed mood which fails to correspond to the normal usage of the word.

 Research Question:

What in your opinion are the adequate criteria for knowledge? You must take cognisance of JTB
and Gettier’ counter example – 2 to 3 pages, hand written.

 4/11/10

 The Foundationalist Theories.

6
 ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY
Lecturer: Dr Olatunji Oyeshile - 08035751891

What do we mean by a foundation? And why is a foundation important?

In building, foundation is that part of a building, usually below the ground, that transfers and
distributes the weight of the building onto the ground. Foundation therefore is the root, the base,
the anchor of anything. In everything we do, there is always a foundation. It is the platform on
which everything rests.
Foundation is important because there can be no building without it. In any field of endeavour,
there can be no progress without a foundation. In the history of philosophy, there has been the
problem of skepticism and this problem gave rise to the need for a sure foundation on which base
our knowledge claims. What then, are the things that must be present so that our knowledge
claims becomes secured?
 Descartes

In his philosophical enterprise, Descartes began by doubting everything so as to establish a

secured foundation of knowledge. Through his methodic doubt, he discovered that the only thing
he cannot doubt is his personality as a thinking being – cogito ego sum. For Descartes therefore,
the I, is the starting point of true knowledge. Now, when one thinks, he is excising his brain and
there is a close connection with thinking and reasoning. Consequently, Descartes sees reason as
the bases of true knowledge.
 Read about Descartes. Identify the major problem with the foundationalist’s theory of
Descartes, Locke and Berkeley; and make a small note to be discussed in the class.

 12/11/10

What all empiricists have in common is their rejection of innate ideas and their insistence that all
knowledge derives from sense experience/perception and is circumscribed by sense perception.
They all maintain that at birth, the human mind is in a blank state – tabular rasa. Some of the
notable empiricists are John Lock, George Berkeley, and David Hume
 John Locke

John Locke lived between 1632 –1704. He studied at oxford and worked as a secretary to a
diplomatic mission, and subsequently as a medical adviser to Lord Ashley. His main work is his
essay concerning human understanding.
Lock rejected the theory of innate idea and argues that if there were innate ideas, children and
even idiots would know them. Again he argued that if moral principles were innate (as advocates
of innate ideas say), all men would have the same moral principle. On the contrary, different
people and different cultures have different moral principles and practices. According to Locke,
this shows that there are no innate ideas. The human mind is blank at birth; all knowledge
therefore comes from sense perception/experience.
According to John Locke, what is innate in us is the power of the intellect. For him, the actual
knowledge is acquired through experience or external world. The intellect helps us to acquire
knowledge through experience and he made a distinction between senses:
 Internal sense

7
 ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY
Lecturer: Dr Olatunji Oyeshile - 08035751891

 External sense
 Sensation – according to him, helps us to acquire knowledge from without.
 Inner reflection – this helps us to acquire knowledge from within. And sense experience
also provides us with sensible qualities such as colour. When these senses are acquired by the
mind, the mind processes them. The rationalists would insist that man has innate ideas but the
empiricists disagreed with this submission.

 Primary and Secondary Qualities.

Locke distinguishes between primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are qualities that
are inherent in objects while secondary substances do not. We cannot speak of an object without
these qualities. Secondary qualities according to him are attributes of the mind.
Examples of primary qualities are:
 Solidity
 Size
 Extension

Examples of secondary qualities are:

 Sound
 Taste
 Smell
 Colour

Secondary qualities are not qualities of the object. They can be said to be accidental to objects.

 Ideas

Ideas are the immediate object of human knowledge. This implies that we have no direct about
them. How are ideas of things formed in our minds? According to Locke, when we perceive
things, they impress their images or copies in our minds. These things are the representatives of
things in our minds and these are our ideas of things.
 Simple and Complex Ideas.

Locke distinguishes between simple and complex ideas. Simple ideas are fundamental ideas
while complex ideas are built from simple ideas. Abstract ideas are ideas from which all
particular traits have been removed.

 Substances

Substances are formed from simple ideas processed by the mind but we cannot perceive them.
Primary qualities are objective while secondary qualities are not. For John Locke, it is the
primary qualities that constitute the foundation of knowledge.
8
 ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY
Lecturer: Dr Olatunji Oyeshile - 08035751891

 George Berkeley

George Berkeley was born around 1685 – 1753. He studied in Trinity College, Dublin Ireland.
He is the second British empiricists. His main works are: “Essay towards a New Theory of
“Human Knowledge”, and “Dialogue between Hylas and Philonous.” Berkeley’s philosophy is
referred to as ‘immaterialism.” He was critical of Locke’s theory of knowledge. He disagreed
with Locke that physical objects exist independently of being perceived. Whatever we know to
exist, we know only through sense perception and it exists only in so far as it is being perceived.
Thus whatever we experience is an idea in the mind. Berkley erroneously equated the act of
sense perception with ideas. For him, sense perception is idea.
Since whatever is perceptible with the senses is an idea in the mind, it follows therefore that
there are no material object as such, that is, matter does not exist. Everything in the world is an
idea in the mind of the perceiver and it exists only in so far as it is perceived. This leads to
solipsism2. According to Berkeley, the world consists of two things, namely;
1. Those which actively perceive, sense, and experience – subjects of perception
2. Those which are actively perceived, sensed and experienced – objects of perception.
According to him, the mind is that which makes knowledge possible – to be is to be perceived.
Physical objects – table, trees, chairs etc, are nothing other than collections of sensible qualities.
These sensible qualities are classified as ideas and as such their existence depends on their being
perceived by an active mind, whether finite or divine mind.
Berkeley however, agreed with Locke that the subject of our knowledge is ideas not material
things in themselves. But what ideas? They differ: Locke says that they are separate from things
but represent them in our minds. Berkeley on the other hand says that they not separate from
things. They are things. Ideas are things and things are ideas in the mind.
Berkeley rejects Locke’s theory of material substance. He agrees with Locke however that we do
not perceive substance, we only perceive qualities. According to Berkeley, for anything to exist,
it must be perceived by the mind. The essential thing here is that the human mind is very
important. However, the problem in this theory is the problem of the mind. Where is the mind?
In the final analysis, he argues that physical objects are nothing than collection of sensible
qualities as ideas and as such their existence depends on their being perceived.
NB. Rationalists will talk about innate ideas while empiricists will talk about sensible qualities.

 18/11/10

 David Hume

David Hume has been described as a thorough going empiricist. In fact, he is said to have
pursued empiricism to its logical but disastrous conclusion. This is mainly because he denied
2
Solipsism is the belief that the only thing somebody can be sure of is that he or she exists, and that true
knowledge of anything else is impossible.

9
 ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY
Lecturer: Dr Olatunji Oyeshile - 08035751891

causation. Immanuel Kant also asserted that it was Hume’s devastating critique of causation that
woke him from his dogmatic slumber. Hume presented the theses that what we are aware of is
divided into two; namely:
1. Impressions and
2. Ideas.
He believed that what makes the difference in the two consists in their degree of liveliness.
Impressions according to him are livelier than ideas. Hume agrees with Berkeley’s theses that we
perceive ideas in our mind but he disagrees with the thesis that if we do not perceive these ideas,
they are perceived by God.
According to him, impressions are the content of the mind in perception while ideas make up
imagination. It is obvious that Hume agrees with Locke on relations of ideas and he disagrees
with the non-empirical doctrine in Berkeley. But like Berkeley, Hume also denied the existence
of anything behind impression and that every simple idea is a copy of corresponding impression.
Hume’s theory of knowledge is sceptical because according to him, there is no justification for
the claims made on the basis of the conclusion we arrive at based on inductive evidence. Hume’s
critique of causation is part of the attempt by him to show that knowledge gained through the
senses cannot be conclusively established. He is of the opinion that the fact that we have been
observing two things happening together does not necessarily mean that those two events or
things will always occur together. For instance, if event A, say the striking of a match against a
match-box, has always been followed by event B, lightening, we cannot conclude that this event
will always happen in this way.
Hume says that it is possible to have event A without being followed by event B. This is because
a change in the course of nature is not inconceivable. Hume likens causation to constant
conjunctions and not a logical necessity or necessary connection. He is of the opinion that we
have psychologically constituted our minds to see things happen in one way rather than the other.
With this analysis, Hume rejects causation and induction 3. It should be noted that Hume still
gives primacy to the knowledge acquired through sense experience but his main claim is that this
knowledge clams cannot be verified conclusively in experience.
 25/11/10

 Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), was a German idealist philosopher and he took it upon himself to
resolve the conflict between the rationalists and the empiricists on the question of our claim to
knowledge of the external world. Kant’s major contribution consists in his synthesis of the
3
Induction (logic), in logic, process of drawing a conclusion about an object or event that has yet to be observed or occur, on the
basis of previous observations of similar objects or events. For example, after observing year after year that a certain kind of
weed invades our yard in autumn, we may conclude that next autumn our yard will again be invaded by the weed; or having
tested a substantially large sample of coffee makers, only to find that each one of them has a faulty fuse, we conclude that all the
coffee makers in the batch are defective. In these cases we infer, or reach a conclusion based on observations. The observations
or assumptions on which we base the inference—the annual appearance of the weed, or the sample of coffee makers with faulty
fuses—constitute the premises or assumptions.

10
 ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY
Lecturer: Dr Olatunji Oyeshile - 08035751891

positions of the empiricists and the rationalists. He did this by synthesising reason and
experience. Kant’s position was largely influenced by his critique of metaphysics. He was of the
opinion that what had passed as metaphysics earlier on were claims that were irreconcilable,
untenable and unsustainable because these claims went beyond sense experience. Hence such
metaphysical claims are apt to lead to skepticism.
Kant sought to show that if metaphysics, which serves as the basis science is given up then
science will be in jeopardy. He therefore taught what is called Copernican Revolution in
philosophy to put metaphysics on the secure path to science. What Kant did was to select the
plausible aspects from both the doctrines of empiricism and rationalism and bind them together
into a coherent whole to account for our knowledge. He upholds the empiricists’ conviction that
only sense experience can provide us with the material for our judgement but he refuses to accept
that formless and meaningless chaos of our sensation which by itself alone cannot provide the
universality of necessity of our scientific judgement.
Kant agrees with Descartes that the mind has an essential role to play in formulating statements
which are necessarily true but he disagrees with him in that he does not accept innate ideas
which have not somehow originated in experience. Kant also shares some views with Hume
relating to the fact that some knowledge claims go beyond sense experience. He however
disagrees with Hume on his diverstating critique of causation. To Kant, if Hume’s critique of
causation is allowed to go unchallenged, it will undermine the foundation of our scientific
knowledge.
Kant started his solution to the rationalist’s and empiricist’s debate by positing the question:
“How are synthetic a priori judgements possible?”
 2/12/10

In other to answer this question, we have to make subtle distinction between analytic and
synthetic propositions, and a priori and a posterior knowledge. An analytic statement according
to Kant is a statement that attributes to its predicate nothing more than is conceptually contained
in the subject, for instance:
 A triangle is a three sided figure.

 A bachelor is an unmarried man

A synthetic proposition on the other hand is the opposite of analytic propositions in the sense that
the subject term is not synonymous with the predicate term. In other words, the predicate term
adds something to the subject; for example:
 A book is on the table
 Dr. Oyeshile is in the class.

We can say therefore that there are marked differences in both types of propositions. For
instance, the denial of analytic proposition will lead to self-contradiction – a bachelor is an
unmarried man. To know whether an analytic statement is true, all we have to do is to analyse
the terms contained in it. Synthetic propositions on the other hand are dependent on experience

11
 ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY
Lecturer: Dr Olatunji Oyeshile - 08035751891

or verification for their truth. They are therefore contingent propositions (dependent
propositions).

A priori truths or knowledge are the truths that are necessary. A truth is knowable, a priori, if it
will necessarily hold true for all cases, today, tomorrow and forever; for instance the assertion:

 A person cannot be in two places at the same time.

 A blue car is blue
 A black bag is black.
These truths are independent of sense experience, in other words, they are self-evident and need
no further investigation by further experience. On the other hands, any statement that we do have
to test to see if it holds for future cases is a contingent statement which is knowable only
aposteriori, for instance the statement:
 There is a phone in my bag.
From the distinction made above, it seems apparent that analytic and a priori propositions belong
to the same class while synthetic and a posteriori are more or less the same. However, Kant
shows that a priori knowledge has larger scope than we tend to attribute to it. It is largely with
the a priori concept that Kant proffers solution to the rationalists/empiricists conflicts.
According to Kant, both a posteriori and a priori elements are essential in cognition. He believes
that thoughts without content are empty and perception without concept is blind. Kant says that
even though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that all arises out of
experience.
 An argument that proceeds from cause to effect is called an a priori argument; deductive
reasoning is therefore a priori. Statements, whose truths or falsity can be deduced without having
recourse to experience or experiments are also a priori statements.

 Reasoning which proceeds from effect to causes; which deduce general rules by looking
at patterns is called a posterior reasoning. A statement whose truth can only be found out by
experience is also called a posterior.

 Criticism of Foundationalism

The aim of foundationalism is unrealistic and indeed impossible. This is because by nature man
is prone to mistakes and he can never have any guarantee of absolute certainty in knowledge. it is
highly improbable that man can ever have any guarantee against error in his effort to acquire
knowledge. Nor can there be any system of knowledge that would be immune from error,
criticism and skepticism.
If we examine closely the foundationalist’s theories of Descartes and Hume, we would observe
that both laid emphasis on intuition as the foundation for knowledge and the guarantee for
certainty. The pertinent question here however, is, “how can objective certainty in knowledge be
founded on subjective intuition?” “What is the guarantee that whatever is subjectively perceived

12
 ADVANCED EPISTEMOLOGY
Lecturer: Dr Olatunji Oyeshile - 08035751891

clearly and distinctly must be true?” “How possible and realistic is Husserl’s transcendental
ego?”
Thus foundationalism as an attempt to discover principles and systems for certain knowledge
that is immune from error or criticism, is a futile endeavour because neither criticism nor error
can be eliminated from human knowledge so long as the human nature of man lasts for “to err is
human.”
 13/1/2011

 Quine’s Naturalised Epistemology

Quine’s naturalised epistemology attempts5 to legitimatise human knowledge claim through the
scientific experimental method. Quine, though an empiricist, nevertheless believes that the
search for a foundation of knowledge is a misguided venture which cannot be realised.
Why is it a misguided venture?
This is because human beings are contingent, historical, cultural and biological beings whose
abilities are limited in time and space. Due to this, he proposed a naturalised epistemology.
According to Quine, the traditional task of epistemologists has been to place science on a solid
foundation thereby making science to ultimately rest on empiricism. Also all our learning and or
meaning of words must ultimately rest on sensory evidence. According to him, “a stimulation of
the sensory receptors is all the evidence anybody has had to go on, ultimately, in arriving at his
picture of the world.”
Epistemology therefore, going by Quine’s analysis, falls under a chapter in psychology which is
part of natural science and it studies natural phenomenon which is a physical human subject.
This human subject is accorded certain experimentally controlled input and in the fullness of
time, the subject delivers an output which is a description of the three dimensional external world
(present, past and future) and its history. What Quine wants us to do through naturalised
epistemology is to study the relationship between the meagre input and the torrential output.
While the old epistemology attempts to contain science, the new epistemology is subsumed
under science. This new epistemology removes the issues of priority of epistemology to other
disciplines. Quine is also of the view that once we move away from observational sentences,
meaning ceases in general to have clear application to single sentences and to that extent,
epistemology merges with psychology as well as linguistics and this in effect, blurs the
distinction between analytic and synthetic proposition.

13