In order to receive credit for these assignments (in general) you must do a number of things:
1. Have a post of at least 150 words on topic.
2. Contain one citation.
3. Include the password I drop in the audio lectures
3. It must use one of the WRAITEC ( The goodthinker’s toolkit) letters as a tool to prompt yourself.
How does one use WRAITEC? It is rather straightforward; pick one of the letters (such as R for reasons) and focus on the reasons for Aristotle making this or that claim. Any letter can be used, but be sure to be clear which it is you are using (at least for these first couple weeks of class).
Zoe Macrae ‘s post:
Hume proposes a very compelling argument that opposes the concept of inductive logic. There is almost always a scientific reason for any event, behaviour, or pattern that has occurred or been observed, but Hume’s problem of induction highlights that these theories are merely assumptions that cannot be used to confidently predict the future. On the other hand, James’ theory of pragmatic knowledge suggests that unhelpful or irrelevant information is of no concern. LAMPLIGHT. However, this suggests that curiosity and a passion for knowledge is not encouraged. For example, knowing the mechanics of an object may not be helpful but that doesn’t make the information any less interesting or valuable to the individual. Although both Hume and Descartes’ theories of epistemology are based on scepticism, I agree more with Hume’s explanation of the limitations of applying our knowledge compared to Descartes’ initial questioning of what we actual know. I appreciate that Hume (and James) at least acknowledges that we know more than our own existence and so I find his and James’ approaches better than the traditional ones.
Annabelle Gunn ‘s post:
While Hume and James have very different ideas of epistemology, there are some similarities between the two. While Hume seems to have a more extreme version of Descartes’ beliefs, James seems to be into his own world of epistemology. Although, they would slightly intertwine with the idea that we, as humans, only believe what we’re told, or want to know. That being said, I have to strongly believe in both, but find Hume to be intriguing, just as last week I found Descartes to be compelling. In regards to the question about the squirrel and the tree, I do believe it is entirely based on perspective. Although, one could argue that we, as a society, believe anything an authorative figure/government tell us. Comparing this idea to that of the moon rotating around the earth, and then around the sun, I personally believe this can be boiled down to a matter of scientific opinion. As Hume believes that we cannot know anything for sure, and be a skeptic, about anything we do not know from definite experience of a subject as a whole. Hume supports this argument withe the statement, “And as the first imagination or invention of a particular effect, in all natural operations, is arbitrary, where we consult not experience; so must we also esteem the supposed tie or connexion between the cause and effect, which binds them together, and renders it impossible that any other effect could result from the operation of that cause.” I think this can be applied to the tree and the squirrel, and then the earth/sun/moon. None of us have personally sat back and watched the moon rotate the earth, and then watched us rotate the sun from an outside perspective. None of us can feel/see that motion. Yet, it is assumed through science that this is the overwhelming opinion. I personally find it interesting to look at the idea of the flat earth theory. Like Descartes says, and also along with Hume, we must be skeptic about these ideas since we have not personally seen them. While there is evidence that the earth is a globe, very few humans have supposedly seen the earth from outerspace. Nowadays, we have telescopes, cameras, videos, etc, and use these as proof of this evidence. Although, I think it is very important that we as a society explore the other side of things. This is also why I agree with James; the questions we do not ask will never be answered. If we, as a society, always assume were being told the truth about things we have never personally seen, how can we know its true?