ARISTOTLE AND MODERN DAY SCIENCE- ALABI MARTIN
THE NOTION OF KNOWLEDGE
According to the dictionary of philosophy, knowledge is the confident understanding of a subject, potentially with the ability to use it for a specific purpose. The Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy discusses the aspect of philosophy that concentrates on the study of knowledge to be the branch of philosophy which deals with the nature and extent of human knowledge.
Another definition of this subject matter is found in the New Encyclopedia Britannica which holds that epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy; its subject matter concerns the nature, origin, scope and limit of human knowledge. It is the task of the epistemologists therefore to refute and justify cognitive claims. Hamlyn aptly defines epistemology as the branch of philosophy which is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, its preoccupation and basis and the general reliability of claims to knowledge.
The question here is why should there be a discipline such as epistemology? Aristotle posited an answer to this question when he said that philosophy begins with wonder. Nearly all human beings wish to comprehend the world they live in, and many of them construct theories of various kinds to help them make sense of it. Many aspects of the world defy easy explanation, however, in general terms; knowledge is claimed to be justified true belief. Different theories of knowledge try to spell out justified in different ways, and then the problem arises to the fact that how justified can a belief be to be true.
Another definition of this subject matter is found in the New Encyclopedia Britannica which holds that epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy; its subject matter concerns the nature, origin, scope and limit of human knowledge. It is the task of the epistemologists therefore to refute and justify cognitive claims. Hamlyn aptly defines epistemology as the branch of philosophy which is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, its preoccupation and basis and the general reliability of claims to knowledge.
The question here is why should there be a discipline such as epistemology? Aristotle posited an answer to this question when he said that philosophy begins with wonder. Nearly all human beings wish to comprehend the world they live in, and many of them construct theories of various kinds to help them make sense of it. Many aspects of the world defy easy explanation, however, in general terms; knowledge is claimed to be justified true belief. Different theories of knowledge try to spell out justified in different ways, and then the problem arises to the fact that how justified can a belief be to be true.
ARISTOTLE’S THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Aristotle is sometimes referred to as a “this worldly” philosopher whereas Plato is sometimes called an “other worldly” philosopher. Plato placed the idea of acquiring knowledge from the world of forms while Aristotle has its source of knowledge from senses. This distinction becomes very important when we turn to their disagreement concerning Plato’s theory of the forms where Aristotle finds at least three problems with Plato’s realm of the forms:
The first problem is that Plato, in an attempt to explain reality, unnecessarily postulates a whole new world that also needs an explanation. The second problem is that Aristotle is interested in explaining the world as a changing world- Plato’s Forms do not change so they cannot help in explaining the phenomena of change in the empirical world. While lastly, Plato confuses the human ability of abstraction with the independent existence. As humans we can generalize and find common features common to objects such as red things but that does not mean that there exists somewhere something called redness
Aristotle’s epistemology was opposed to the theory of Plato his teacher and direct ancestor in philosophy. He negated Plato’s idea of the world of Forms and posed the theory of sense perception as the gradual process of acquiring knowledge. He argues that Plato’s forms cannot appeal to the theory of recollection and also that Aristotle must come up with a theory that is consistent with his Metaphysical beliefs. Aristotle believes the objects of the real existence are the ones that we encounter through our sense perception which later emerge as the theory of empiricism.
For Aristotle, “knowledge is a process”. Humans, according to Aristotle, do not acquire knowledge all in one moment, but rather by means of a process. This process can be analyzed into four different steps. Induction is the process that we undergo to arrive at knowledge. The first step is called the perception which is the acquisition of information through the senses. The second step is memory which is the ability to retain the perceptions in the mind. Some animals as well as humans have memory. The third step is experience. By experiencing perceptions many times in conjunction with memory we form what is called experience. The fourth is knowledge; this entire process is called the process of induction. When we are able to understand the universal or the essence of things through this process our experience becomes knowledge. Aristotle refers to the human mind or Nous as the ability to form a universal from the particular experiences that we have through sense perception and memories. His epistemology brings us to the aspect of intelligence as it establishes humans to be more superior to other creatures, hence the process of induction is a rational part done by humans alone.
Wisdom is therefore more than any kind of knowledge obtained from the sensory objects and the qualities. This means that none of the senses can be seen as wisdom, but gives most authoritative knowledge of particulars. Though they do not tell us ‘why’ of anything, for instance, why fire is hot, but only say that it is hot. It is even more than the knowledge obtained from the repeated experiences. It is similar to that of the scientists who starts by looking at something, then repeat this sense experiences, and finally go beyond sense experiences by thinking about the causes of the objects of their experiences. Though it must have been said already that science is different from art, but the point we are trying to bring out here is that, according to Aristotle, ‘all men suppose what is called wisdom to deal with the first causes and the principle of things; so that, as had been said before, the man of experience is thought to be wiser than the possessors of any sense perception whatever, the artist wiser than the man of experience, the master- worker wiser than the mechanic, and the theoretical kinds of knowledge to be more of the nature of wisdom than the productive. Clearly then, wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes. He was able to deal with many of the sciences as there are definable areas of investigation. In addition, there is another science, the first philosophy, or what we now called ‘metaphysics’ which goes beyond the subject matter of the other sciences and is concerned with the first principle and causes. These first principles and causes are true foundation of wisdom, for they give us knowledge, not of any particular object or activity but rather knowledge of true reality.
In a sure way we have acquired the knowledge of the original causes, for we claim to know something only when we think we recognize its first cause, and these causes are spoken of in four senses. One is the substance which is the essence, because the ‘why’ is reducible to the definition, and the ultimate ‘why’ is a cause and principle; in another, the matter or substratum, in a third the source of the change and in the fourth the cause oppose to this, the purpose and the good which can be regarded as the end of all generation and change.
Aristotle is sometimes referred to as a “this worldly” philosopher whereas Plato is sometimes called an “other worldly” philosopher. Plato placed the idea of acquiring knowledge from the world of forms while Aristotle has its source of knowledge from senses. This distinction becomes very important when we turn to their disagreement concerning Plato’s theory of the forms where Aristotle finds at least three problems with Plato’s realm of the forms:
The first problem is that Plato, in an attempt to explain reality, unnecessarily postulates a whole new world that also needs an explanation. The second problem is that Aristotle is interested in explaining the world as a changing world- Plato’s Forms do not change so they cannot help in explaining the phenomena of change in the empirical world. While lastly, Plato confuses the human ability of abstraction with the independent existence. As humans we can generalize and find common features common to objects such as red things but that does not mean that there exists somewhere something called redness
Aristotle’s epistemology was opposed to the theory of Plato his teacher and direct ancestor in philosophy. He negated Plato’s idea of the world of Forms and posed the theory of sense perception as the gradual process of acquiring knowledge. He argues that Plato’s forms cannot appeal to the theory of recollection and also that Aristotle must come up with a theory that is consistent with his Metaphysical beliefs. Aristotle believes the objects of the real existence are the ones that we encounter through our sense perception which later emerge as the theory of empiricism.
For Aristotle, “knowledge is a process”. Humans, according to Aristotle, do not acquire knowledge all in one moment, but rather by means of a process. This process can be analyzed into four different steps. Induction is the process that we undergo to arrive at knowledge. The first step is called the perception which is the acquisition of information through the senses. The second step is memory which is the ability to retain the perceptions in the mind. Some animals as well as humans have memory. The third step is experience. By experiencing perceptions many times in conjunction with memory we form what is called experience. The fourth is knowledge; this entire process is called the process of induction. When we are able to understand the universal or the essence of things through this process our experience becomes knowledge. Aristotle refers to the human mind or Nous as the ability to form a universal from the particular experiences that we have through sense perception and memories. His epistemology brings us to the aspect of intelligence as it establishes humans to be more superior to other creatures, hence the process of induction is a rational part done by humans alone.
Wisdom is therefore more than any kind of knowledge obtained from the sensory objects and the qualities. This means that none of the senses can be seen as wisdom, but gives most authoritative knowledge of particulars. Though they do not tell us ‘why’ of anything, for instance, why fire is hot, but only say that it is hot. It is even more than the knowledge obtained from the repeated experiences. It is similar to that of the scientists who starts by looking at something, then repeat this sense experiences, and finally go beyond sense experiences by thinking about the causes of the objects of their experiences. Though it must have been said already that science is different from art, but the point we are trying to bring out here is that, according to Aristotle, ‘all men suppose what is called wisdom to deal with the first causes and the principle of things; so that, as had been said before, the man of experience is thought to be wiser than the possessors of any sense perception whatever, the artist wiser than the man of experience, the master- worker wiser than the mechanic, and the theoretical kinds of knowledge to be more of the nature of wisdom than the productive. Clearly then, wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes. He was able to deal with many of the sciences as there are definable areas of investigation. In addition, there is another science, the first philosophy, or what we now called ‘metaphysics’ which goes beyond the subject matter of the other sciences and is concerned with the first principle and causes. These first principles and causes are true foundation of wisdom, for they give us knowledge, not of any particular object or activity but rather knowledge of true reality.
In a sure way we have acquired the knowledge of the original causes, for we claim to know something only when we think we recognize its first cause, and these causes are spoken of in four senses. One is the substance which is the essence, because the ‘why’ is reducible to the definition, and the ultimate ‘why’ is a cause and principle; in another, the matter or substratum, in a third the source of the change and in the fourth the cause oppose to this, the purpose and the good which can be regarded as the end of all generation and change.
THE RELEVANCE OF ARISTOTLE’S EPISTEMOLGY TO THE GROWTH OF MODERN DAY SCIENCE
Aristotle, in his first book of the metaphysica, he asserts:
“All men by nature desire to know”
This Aristotle’s position in his early thoughts brings us to this magnificent show of intellectualism in its present growth of knowledge which is presently acknowledged to be science. This science of course has graduated from its mere position of analyzing the cosmos and its foundations to the creations of such advancement with the epoch to machines.
The philosophical foundations of the modern work of artificial intelligence have been developed for some years. Although the moral and cultural issues raised by artificial intelligence are both interesting and important, our introduction is more concerned with Artificial intelligence intellectual heritage. The logical starting point for such a history is the genius, Aristotle, or as Dante in the Divine Comedy refers to him, ‘the master of them that knows’. Aristotle wove together the insights, wonders, and fears of the early Greek tradition with the careful analysis and disciplined thought that were to become the standard for some modern science.
In his metaphysics, he began with the statement “all men by nature desire to know”. Aristotle developed a science of things that never change, including his cosmology and theology. More relevant to artificial intelligence, however, was Aristotle’s epistemology or analysis of how humans know their world, as discussed in his Logic. He referred to logic as the instrument (organon) because he felt that the study of thought itself was at the basis of all knowledge. He was able to investigate, in his Logic, whether certain propositions can be considered to be true because they are related to the other things that are known to be true. Thus, if we know that all men are mortal, and that Socrates is a man, then we can conclude that Socrates is mortal. This argument is an example of what Aristotle referred to as syllogism using the deductive form modus ponens. Although the formal axiomatization of reasoning needed another two thousand years for its full flowering in the works of Frege Gottlob, Bertrand Russell, among others, its root may be traced to Aristotle.
According to Prof. Patrick Byrne, Aristotle may have favored eternal truths over experimentation, but the ancient Greek Philosopher had more in common with today’s scientists than is widely believed. Byrne also departs from the traditional thinking to explore the ties between Aristotelian and modern scientific thought which are usually regarded as fundamentally as odds with each other. Byrne also believes that the followers of Aristotle saw science as a means of deducing eternal truth. So, he said for them, there was nothing new under the sun.
So, for Aristotle, the most fascinating aspect of nature is change. In his physics, he defined his philosophy of nature as the study of things that change. He distinguishes between the matter and the form of things; a sculpture is fashioned from the material bronze and has the form of a human. Change occurs when bronze is molded to a new form. The matter or form distinction provides a philosophical basis for modern notion such as symbolic computing and data abstraction. This had exposed the connection between the modern day science and its source which is the Aristotle’s epistemology
Aristotle, in his first book of the metaphysica, he asserts:
“All men by nature desire to know”
This Aristotle’s position in his early thoughts brings us to this magnificent show of intellectualism in its present growth of knowledge which is presently acknowledged to be science. This science of course has graduated from its mere position of analyzing the cosmos and its foundations to the creations of such advancement with the epoch to machines.
The philosophical foundations of the modern work of artificial intelligence have been developed for some years. Although the moral and cultural issues raised by artificial intelligence are both interesting and important, our introduction is more concerned with Artificial intelligence intellectual heritage. The logical starting point for such a history is the genius, Aristotle, or as Dante in the Divine Comedy refers to him, ‘the master of them that knows’. Aristotle wove together the insights, wonders, and fears of the early Greek tradition with the careful analysis and disciplined thought that were to become the standard for some modern science.
In his metaphysics, he began with the statement “all men by nature desire to know”. Aristotle developed a science of things that never change, including his cosmology and theology. More relevant to artificial intelligence, however, was Aristotle’s epistemology or analysis of how humans know their world, as discussed in his Logic. He referred to logic as the instrument (organon) because he felt that the study of thought itself was at the basis of all knowledge. He was able to investigate, in his Logic, whether certain propositions can be considered to be true because they are related to the other things that are known to be true. Thus, if we know that all men are mortal, and that Socrates is a man, then we can conclude that Socrates is mortal. This argument is an example of what Aristotle referred to as syllogism using the deductive form modus ponens. Although the formal axiomatization of reasoning needed another two thousand years for its full flowering in the works of Frege Gottlob, Bertrand Russell, among others, its root may be traced to Aristotle.
According to Prof. Patrick Byrne, Aristotle may have favored eternal truths over experimentation, but the ancient Greek Philosopher had more in common with today’s scientists than is widely believed. Byrne also departs from the traditional thinking to explore the ties between Aristotelian and modern scientific thought which are usually regarded as fundamentally as odds with each other. Byrne also believes that the followers of Aristotle saw science as a means of deducing eternal truth. So, he said for them, there was nothing new under the sun.
So, for Aristotle, the most fascinating aspect of nature is change. In his physics, he defined his philosophy of nature as the study of things that change. He distinguishes between the matter and the form of things; a sculpture is fashioned from the material bronze and has the form of a human. Change occurs when bronze is molded to a new form. The matter or form distinction provides a philosophical basis for modern notion such as symbolic computing and data abstraction. This had exposed the connection between the modern day science and its source which is the Aristotle’s epistemology
RESPONSES TO ARISTOTLE’S EPISTEMOLOGY
Haven looked at the Aristotle’s theory of knowledge; we can see that knowledge can be obtained through the sense experience into the intellect. But for some scholars, this approach to knowledge is faulty, so they were able to come out with their own approach to knowledge. For the Skeptics, they reaffirm what the Stoics had said, that our knowledge comes to us from our experience or sense perception, all the more reason to doubt the adequacy of all knowledge because our senses gives us different information about a particular object at a different time and under different circumstances. This implies that the knowledge should not be based on the sense experience because this sense experience might be deceptive or might not give us the actual fact. For instance, the sense can perceive fresh bitter leaf, when someone first put it into his or her mouth, it will taste bitter but after some seconds, it will be perceived to be sweet. The question now is that the sense first presented it to be bitter, so, why sweet now? This is what the skeptics are saying that the sense perception cannot be seen as the basis to our knowledge because it may perceive a particular thing in different ways. In response to this, St. Augustine, after his conversion responded to the skeptics challenges by saying that human reason does indeed have certainty about various things. Specifically that human is absolutely certain of the principle of contradiction. We know that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. Things are in the process of change. So, with this principle, we can be certain that there is either one world or many worlds. For Augustine, the mind is not hopelessly lost in uncertainty.
Furthermore, for Kant, he believed that we possess a faculty that is capable of giving us knowledge without an appeal to experience. He agreed with the empiricists in a way that our knowledge begins with experience, but he added that though our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience. He furthered that ‘all our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason. So, he believed that we have our knowledge directly from the faculty of rational judgment, and therefore, a priori, and not from sense experience. This is where his theory of rationality begins from. We can see that Kant’s critique to Aristotle’s epistemology is bias in a way that he dwells on the rationality, that is, without sense experience. He had forgotten that it is the object that the sense perceives that is been transferred to the intellect, which will then lead to rationality. For instance, Descartes method, he was able to perceive his existence through his sense that was why he was able to rationalize on it, which led him to his cogito. So, for any thought to be carried out, there must be experience which will be the basis for rationality.
John Locke, in his contribution, was able to respond to the approach of Kant by saying that knowledge is restricted to the ideas, not Plato’s ideas or forms but the ideas that are generated by objects we experience. This means that he traces all knowledge of any substance back to sensory experience. He also believed that there are no innate ideas and he considered this approach innateness as dangerous because it could take people off from the use of their own reason and judgment. So, nothing happens in the intellect which had not been tested or passed through the senses. So, for Locke, whatever the intellect has must have been achieved through the sense experience.
Also, Thomas Aquinas, who also appreciates Aristotle and was influenced by the approach of Aristotle, believes that the human mind knows what it does through its confrontation with the actual concrete objects. The mind is able to grasp what is permanent and stable within sensible things. When we sense a thing or person, we know their essence, that is, tree or man, even though they are in the process of change. So, for him, the intellect sees the universal in the particular thing. So he concluded that there can be no knowledge without sense experience, for nothing will be in the intellect that was not first in the senses.
Haven looked at the Aristotle’s theory of knowledge; we can see that knowledge can be obtained through the sense experience into the intellect. But for some scholars, this approach to knowledge is faulty, so they were able to come out with their own approach to knowledge. For the Skeptics, they reaffirm what the Stoics had said, that our knowledge comes to us from our experience or sense perception, all the more reason to doubt the adequacy of all knowledge because our senses gives us different information about a particular object at a different time and under different circumstances. This implies that the knowledge should not be based on the sense experience because this sense experience might be deceptive or might not give us the actual fact. For instance, the sense can perceive fresh bitter leaf, when someone first put it into his or her mouth, it will taste bitter but after some seconds, it will be perceived to be sweet. The question now is that the sense first presented it to be bitter, so, why sweet now? This is what the skeptics are saying that the sense perception cannot be seen as the basis to our knowledge because it may perceive a particular thing in different ways. In response to this, St. Augustine, after his conversion responded to the skeptics challenges by saying that human reason does indeed have certainty about various things. Specifically that human is absolutely certain of the principle of contradiction. We know that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. Things are in the process of change. So, with this principle, we can be certain that there is either one world or many worlds. For Augustine, the mind is not hopelessly lost in uncertainty.
Furthermore, for Kant, he believed that we possess a faculty that is capable of giving us knowledge without an appeal to experience. He agreed with the empiricists in a way that our knowledge begins with experience, but he added that though our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience. He furthered that ‘all our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason. So, he believed that we have our knowledge directly from the faculty of rational judgment, and therefore, a priori, and not from sense experience. This is where his theory of rationality begins from. We can see that Kant’s critique to Aristotle’s epistemology is bias in a way that he dwells on the rationality, that is, without sense experience. He had forgotten that it is the object that the sense perceives that is been transferred to the intellect, which will then lead to rationality. For instance, Descartes method, he was able to perceive his existence through his sense that was why he was able to rationalize on it, which led him to his cogito. So, for any thought to be carried out, there must be experience which will be the basis for rationality.
John Locke, in his contribution, was able to respond to the approach of Kant by saying that knowledge is restricted to the ideas, not Plato’s ideas or forms but the ideas that are generated by objects we experience. This means that he traces all knowledge of any substance back to sensory experience. He also believed that there are no innate ideas and he considered this approach innateness as dangerous because it could take people off from the use of their own reason and judgment. So, nothing happens in the intellect which had not been tested or passed through the senses. So, for Locke, whatever the intellect has must have been achieved through the sense experience.
Also, Thomas Aquinas, who also appreciates Aristotle and was influenced by the approach of Aristotle, believes that the human mind knows what it does through its confrontation with the actual concrete objects. The mind is able to grasp what is permanent and stable within sensible things. When we sense a thing or person, we know their essence, that is, tree or man, even though they are in the process of change. So, for him, the intellect sees the universal in the particular thing. So he concluded that there can be no knowledge without sense experience, for nothing will be in the intellect that was not first in the senses.
Comments
Post a Comment