Skip to main content

A Causal Theory of Knowledge II

 




Continuing with our thoughts from yesterday....

What are we saying when we say we know that 45 + 303 = 348?

That depends on what we understand numbers, and arithmetic, to be. 

I think the sensible course is to adopt an operational/pragmatic view of mathematical knowledge according to which it is a shorthand for facts concerning the way the world works. In G.E. Moore's spirit, I might hold up a hand, "here is one hand." Then I might hold up another, :"Here, also, is a hand." Finally, with both of them in my field of sight, I can say, "there are two hands here." 

So we can take 1 + 1 = 2 as settled.

But 45 + 303 might be tedious to prove in that way, with some object other than hands (marbles?). Further, there would be the threat of false refutations. I might lose track of the first marble before I collected the 348th. Then I'd count them all and declare that the real answer to the question must be 347!

A naive empiricism about such matters becomes operationally difficult. 

But my operational answer to the answer might just be that 45 + 303 equals that which a well-functioning calculator will show when that question is posed to it. In this case, when I come up with an answer by using a calculator, I have knowledge of the answer to the question in the same way as I know the answer to the question "what color are the leaves?" 

The workings of the world caused human beings (smarter ones than I!) to design calculators in the way they have. The calculator provides the answer. 

And the third element of the definition of knowledge should be causation, not justification.  I know that 45 + 303 = 348 because it is true, I recognize it as true, and it is the way the world works which both constitutes that truth and causes me to have that belief.





 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more