Hass1010 Revision - W1 9 W14

KEY: Green + Red = Arguments - for and against, Light Yellow = Counter- response, Blue, Yellow = Key
Info
KEY FOR PDF FILE: 2 cột, cột 1 = key info + argument for, cột 2 = argument against
WEEK 1: INTRODUCTION – PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING

What is Philosophy - Does not have a specific subject matter.
- About everything.
- Often questions the assumptions that lie behind other
disciplines and kinds of knowledge.
- Uses arguments, reasons and evidences to evaluate
answers to philosophical questions.
Philosophical Skepticism - Helps uncover reasons for beliefs -> rest on good
Doubting what we think we “foundations”.
know to be true
Plato Allegory of the Cave - Outlines what Plato thinks is the role of philosopher and
how philosopher should think about reality.
Part 1 – The Prisoners

Literal Meaning Philosophical Meaning
- Prisoners in the cave - According to Plato, we
only the one wall and are just like prisoners.
nothing behind. - Shadows = experience
- Behind is fire and of material world.
puppets cast shadows - We think our
on the wall. perceptions are real.
- Prisoners only perceive - Our ignorance and fear
shadows, name them stop us from seeing
and learn behavioral things truly they are.
patterns.
Part 2 – Freedom from the Cave

- One prisoner is - We are accustomed to
released. take what we currently
- He is shown to the real believe to be true.
world but does not - We prefer familiars
believe them -> and afraid of
believe shadows are unfamiliar -> hard to
more real. change beliefs.
- Seeing the real world - After a while, we
hurts his eyes but it realize the truth.
gradually adjust and 🡺 Reality is composed of
he can see with the Forms and these can
light from the sun only be known
(ultimate truth). through reason which
Info
brings light on the

truth.
Part 3 – Return to the Cave

- After the release, he - People mistake
feels compassion for material world for
people in the cave. reality.
- Returns and tell them - Philosopher is
the truth. compassionate and
- People get angry as want to share their
they did not see it with knowledge.
their eyes. - But people are hostile
- Therefore, think that unless see for
he has gone mad. themselves -> requires
questioning and
critical analysis.
Plato’s Forms - What we see with our senses is not the real world, only
imperfect shadows.
- Reality is composed of the Forms, which are perfect,
singular, immaterial and beyond space and time.
- There exists are perfect Form for every object.
- Forms can only be grasped using reason, not experience
in material world.
Arguments Evaluations
Info
1. E.g. Form of Beauty: Whether

2. or not it is beautiful?
- Distinction between - YES
particulars and ● Need another
universals. Form of
- Particulars have Beauty-2 to
“something in explain why it
common” = participate is beautiful
in one universal. 🡺 Infinite regress of
- This universal MUST Forms.
exists something - NO
over-and-above. ● If the Form of
🡺 These are Forms and Beauty is not
there are Forms for beautiful itself
anything comes in 🡺 Why beautiful things
group. are beautiful? No
longer need to be
exist.
3. Imperfection A. There are Perfect

- All instances of Instances
“equality” in the world - Atoms are small and
are never perfectly we can say they are
equal. equal from experience.
🡺 Cannot come from
Counter-Response
experiences.
- Atoms have different
- HOWEVER, there is the
states (energies) ->
concept of equality
might not be perfectly
(different from equal
equal.
things themselves) =
- Atoms are in different
perfect and singular,
spaces -> not perfectly
can know without
alike.
experience
B. Does it imply Forms?
- There exist ideas of
the Forms in minds but
do not pick out
anything that actually
exists.
- Kant: We are born with
certain metaphysical
categories
(“conceptual
Info
schemes”) that we use

to make sense of
sensory experiences.
Counter-Response
- Kant’s theory only
assumed that our
minds are equipped
with conceptual
schemes.
- It is unlikely that we
once existed in the
immaterial realm with
perfect Forms but it
explains how we got to
know them in the first
place.
Info
WEEK 2-3: PHILOSOPHY IN VIETNAM

Worldviews - Give meaning and direction to an individual’s life.
🡺 Influences behavior and include ethical and normative dimensions
Daoism Dao (way) - Source of everything exists and guiding

Incorporates force behind change.
both - Can only be known through intuitive
philosophical insight and can be improved by meditative
theory and practice.
religious 🡺 A good life is natural and in harmony with
practice the Dao.
Ziran (naturally or by - Problems arise because of artificial

itself) distinctions and judgements about the
world.
- Follow judgements -> ritualistic behavior ->
do not live up to full potential and obstruct
the working of the Dao within us
Wu Wei (action without - Involves a sort intuitive or instinctual form

effort) of action that connects us to
non-conceptual parts of ourselves.
🡺 Make decisions more spontaneous,
effective and in harmony with the Dao.
Zhuangzi’s Butterfly - He was dreaming of him being a butterfly.

Dream - Awaken, he believes he is a man.
- BUT, how does he knows that he is not a
butterfly dreaming of being a man?
🡺 Questioning our ability to know certainly
what we are experience is the way things
are.
🡺 Absolute knowledge is impossible
Zhuangzi and Plato Plato: Zhuangzi:

- Knowledge of - No absolute,
the world is only knowledge
uncertain. related to a
- Only knowledge perspective.
of Forms is real. - The only
- Absolute for ultimate source
everyone. of truth is the
Dao.
Info
Daoism in Vietnam - Entered during the first Han invasion

around 111 BCE.
- Chinese government made study of
Daoism and Confucianism an essential part
of the imperial examination system.
Daoism today - Therapeutic and artistic practices and feng

shui.
Buddhism Origins - Siddhartha Gautama born in Lumbini

around 563 BC.
- 300 years later, King Ashoka made
Buddhism official religion of India.
Siddhartha - His father wanted him to be his heir but a

hermit prophesized that he would either
become a great king or great religious
leader.
- His father kept Siddhartha inside the
palace.
- He became bored and curious ->
persuaded chariot driver to take him out.
🡺 Saw many things that he had no
knowledge of.
The Four Sights 1. An Old Man: All humans get old and
cannot escape it.
2. A Sick Man: All humans get sick and
cannot escape it.
3. A Corpse: All humans die and cannot
escape it.
4. A Holy Man: There is another way and
suffering can be defeated.
Ascetic Wondering - He decided to become wandering holy

person.
- Try to ascetic practices to free himself from
suffering.
- Starve himself to realize it will only cause
illness and no insight.
🡺 Decided on a “middle way” between
extremes of pleasure and hardship.
Enlightenment - Enlightened to the truth of dependent

origination.
- He has no fixed essence or soul.
Info
- His existence is conditioned on other

factors.
- After enlightenment -> Buddha.
Basic Beliefs The Three Marks of Existence

1. Annica: Everything is impermanent and in
a constant state of change.
2. Anatta: Nothing has a fixed essence or
immanent self
3.
4. Dukkha: Everything is unsatisfactory, it
cannot be a source of everlasting
happiness.
The Four Noble Truths

1. Dukkha: All life involves suffering.
(Symptom)
2. Tanha: The cause of suffering is
attachment. (Diagnosis)
3. Nirodha: If attachment ceases, so too will
suffering. (Prognosis)
4. Magga: Attachment can be eliminated by
following the Eightfold Path. (Treatment)
The Noble Eightfold Path

- Train and cultivate to remove attachment.
- 8 components (virtues) for people to strive
to develop in the lives
Buddhism in Vietnam - Mahayana entered in 2-3 centuries AD

from China.
- Theravada entered from Cham & Khmer in
15th and 18th century.
- Mahayana – North, Theravada – South.
Tran Nhan Tong - Defended Vietnam from Mongolian

invasion.
- Abdicated the thrown to practice
Buddhism.
Info
- Retreated to Yen Tu in 1299, built

monastery Ngu Duoc and fouded Truc Lam
Zen.
Syncretism - Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism play different roles in peoples

Believing or lives.
combining more
than one
philosophy or
worldview
Info
WEEK 4: METAPHYSICS – MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

Metaphysics - Concerned with determining what kinds of things really
exist, what is the ultimate nature of reality, where the
world comes from and what is the relationship of our
mind to the world.
What is reality made of? - “WHAT IS THE WORLD MADE OF?”

- Philosophers ask this to find the most basic kind of
substance from which everything is made.
Monism (only one basic stuff from everything is made):

Materialism vs Idealism
Materialism - Materialists agree on:
The only kind of thing that ● Matter is mind-independent
exists is matter. Everything else ● There are no immaterial or supernatural entities
is made of modifications of or objects.
matter. ● The mind emerges from matter and its
interactions.
Early Materialism Ancient Greece

- Thales – believed that everything is ultimately made of
water (influenced from different states of water)
🡺 Went against – supernatural Gods create everything.
Wang Chong
- Live in era when superstitions governed people’s lives.
- Against supernatural beliefs like ghosts and omen (e.g.
thunder is fire and heat in the sky instead of anger of
Heaven)
Modern Materialism The Enlightenment

- Significant impact on science, society, politics, ethics and
challenged organized religion.
- Attempted to explain origin and nature of the world &
man’s purpose with scientific terms and no appeal to
supernatural God.
Marx and Engels

- Applied materialism to explain the history of mankind
(economic and social structures).
- History can be explained as “matter in motion” (starting
with biological evolutionary theory and leading to
humans and their societies) -> Use this to preduct
emergence of socialist society.
Info
Arguments of Materialism Support Against

1. The success of Science 1. The Argument from
- Explain and predict the Quantum Mechanics
natural world referring - Quantum phenomena
only to matter and do not always follow
laws of nature. deterministic laws –
🡺 Matter is the only small particles exist in
thing exists and uncertain state until
supernatural measured or observed.
explanations fail
because they are false.
2. The Argument from 2. The Argument from

Consistency Mind
- Perceptions are - Mind is subjective and
consistent with the seems to defy a purely
past and others. physical description.
- The universe is in order - Descartes: Mind
and consistent. behaves differently.
🡺 Caused by an orderly Ideas and thoughts
and consistent are invisible and don’t
material world and have a fixed location
people agree with in space and time.
each other about their - It OK to doubt the
perceptions. realistic of perception
but CANNOT doubt the
3. The Argument from
existence of
External Cause
perception
- Perceptual experiences
themselves.
are uncontrollable.
🡺 Cause of perception
must come from
something outside,
and must continue to
exist even when I’m
not around.
Idealism - Idealists agree on:

Only kind of thing that exists is ● The existence and properties of the world are
mind. Everything else is made mind-dependent or mentally constructed.
up of modifications of mind. ● The existence of material objects is an illusion
and probably false.
Info
● There is only one kind of substance: spirit, ideas

or “mental substance”.
Early Idealism Plato

- The material world is not reality but merely a shadow or
reflection of the real world.
- The real world is made of Forms (immaterial and
everlasting) and can be known by mind.
Mahayana Buddhism
- Because we are only aware of our mental
representations, we mistake for things existing outside
of the mind.
- Idea of “store-consiousness” which contains all the seeds
and consequences of actions.
Modern Idealism Hegel (“subjective” idealism) (contrasting with Berkeley’s

“objective” idealism)
- Reject finite quantities that are essential for materialism.
- All ideas consist of infinite value (e.g. morality and God).
- Everything is ultimately made of “Spirit”, transforming to
“Absolute Spirit” -> no more distinction between subject
and object.
Arguments of Idealism Support (Berkeley’s) Against

1. The Argument from 1. Illusions and
Perceptual Variation Hallucinations
- Colours cannot exist - Sometimes we
inside objects external misperceive things.
to the mind. - If all there is is
- Different people perception -> cannot
perceive different be wrong or material
colour within the same reality to correspond
object at the same to.
time. - Hallucinations – no
🡺 Colours must only object corresponds to
exist in mind. our perception but
very real.
2. The Veil of Perception 2. The Continued

Argument Existence of Objects
- How do we know - If nobody observes an
matter causes our object, we have good
perception? reason for believing
Info
- Matter cannot be that it continues to

directly apprehended exist.
by the mind – the only 🡺 How to explain this if
thing we can objects are nothing
apprehend are our but perception?
perceptions.
🡺 Can never get beyond
the “veil of
perception”.
3. The Master Argument

- Materialists says that
there are
mind-independent
objects that exist when
nobody is thinking of
them.
- HOWEVER, an object
could still be
conceived in the mind
as we imagine (e.g.
imagine a tree by itself
in the forest)
Response to the Master

Argument
- Russell: Berkeley’s
argument rests on:
(I) The activity of
conceiving it
(II) The content of
what we are
conceiving
- It is possible to
conceive of an object
unconceived.
🡺 No consistency!
Dualism: The Best of Both - The nature of matter is extension – or to take up space.
Worlds? - The nature of nature is thought – to reason and form
beliefs.
Info
- It is needed for both to be exist because consciousness is

something that cannot be reduced to physical matter
and laws.
E.g. Mary knows everything about colour but can only
experience the world in black and white.
Info
WEEK 5: METAPHYSICS – CAUSATION

Causation - The world change in an orderly way.
- Know what object or event causes another one is
extremely important to survive and manipulate the
world around us.
The Common-sense View - Not every event causally connects to each other.
Two events causally connected
when one even has the power
to produce another
Necessary Connections - If the cause happens, the effect MUST happens in
someway that makes the occurrence of the effect
necessary.
- There must exist real metaphysical tie “over and above”.
🡺 Explain neatly the difference between causal and
non-causal factors. BUT DO THEY REALLY EXIST?
Hume’s Empiricism - Our mind has to kinds of objects:

● Ideas
● Impressions – immediate sensory experiences of
outside world or inner reflection.
🡺 Impressions leave ideas, ideas are fainter copies of
impressions and can combine with imagination to form
new ideas.
Our Idea of Necessary - This cause-effect relation underpins much of our

Connection knowledge of the natural world.
- The idea of cause-effect relation is confused
- There is a necessary connection between 2 events. BUT
does this idea correlate to any impression?
1. Sensory Impressions Between Events Themselves

- E.g. One billiard ball striking another and causing it to
move.
● All we get are impressions of movement – one
ball moves and hits another -> another moves.
● There is never an impressions of a power, force
or necessary connection between them.
🡺 They seem entirely “loose and separate” from each
other.
2. If repeat observation of cause and effect pairs provides

the impressions of necessary connection
Info
- Only have the idea of necessary connection between

events that are similar.
- First encounter does not form idea of necessary
connection.
🡺 If a single observation cannot bring necessary
connection, there is nothing more a repeated
observation can achieve.
Hume’s Positive Account - Repeat observation of events creates a “principle of

association” – seeing one event, the mind anticipates
the pair.
🡺 Gives out the feeling of expectation. This is an
impression of reflection which we feel and produces its
own idea.
🡺 This is the source of necessary connection. We mistake
the origin and think it comes from sensation.
The Regularity Theory - Causation is nothing more than two objects or events
constantly conjoined – if the first occurs, so does the
second. (eliminates necessary connections)
🡺 A causes B if, and only, every A is followed by B.
Arguments Against Regularity 1. Accidental vs. Causal Relations

Theory - There are examples of constant conjunction between
events that are not causal.
- E.g. Arrange 2 clocks so one always strikes right after the
other – but the two do not have causal conjunction.
2. Leads to Skepticism
- Regularity without causation is possible
- Experience of regularity and causal connections are the
same.
🡺 We can never really know that two events are causally
connected.
3. The Problem of Singular Causes

- Possible for causal connection to happen once but still
be an example of genuine causation.
- E.g. Big Bang
Armstrong’s Return to - All properties can be (i) real and natural (universals) or
Universals (ii) created by us and our minds.
- There are properties of universals that universals
themselves possess.
Info
🡺 Natural necessity “N” – explains why some events are

causally connected.
Natural Necessity N - E.g. Red, blue, yellow can be properties of objects but
also have properties of “primary colors”
- Universal N is a relational property.
● If 2 universals F and G are related by N(F,G)
⇨ If F exists, G exists. F occurs, G must occur.
⇨ Provides the necessary connection and power of
one event to “bring about another”.
Arguments of Necessity Strengths Against

Theory 1. Explain the difference 1. Natural Necessity has
between genuine and No Power
accidental regularities. - What is N and how
Real causal relations does it have the power
have objects whose or force to make two
properties instantiate events constantly
N. conjoined?
- Armstrong admits N is
less than logical
necessity but the
nature is unknown.
2. N is something that 2. N is not Observable

can be inferred as an - N cannot be detected
inference to explain, like protons, electrons
avoid charge of or particle colliders.
causation is 🡺 Existence of N should
unknowable. not be posited on
scientific grounds to
explain regularity.
3. Explain single causal 3. The Infinite Regress

event, as long as there Problem
is a relation of N - Universals exist
between this event immanently in the
and the universe -> particulars that have
causal relation. them.
- E.g. Particular X
instantiates the
property F-ness. How
does it do this? Since
many universal
instantiate, it is also an
Info
universal (IR). And this

universal keeps
instantiate
🡺 Infinite regress of
universals.
Info
WEEK 6: KNOWLEDGE AND ITS CONDITION - THE JTB ACCOUNT

Epistemology
Concerned with the nature of knowledge
Knowledge as true belief - Philosophers asking: “What is knowledge” having in
mind knowledge of facts or how things are.
- Knowledge involves having a belief that corresponds to
facts or state of affairs.
⇨ S believes that P and S believes that P is true -> S knows
P.
Knowledge as Justified True Plato on Knowledge (Meno) What is justification?

Belief (Descartes)
- Knowledge and true - Justification is having
belief can be as useful. as a reason of
- Knowledge is more evidence for believing
valuable as it is more that something is true.
“stable” than true - How much justification
belief (less likely to be is needed? Do you
given up upon need to be certain? Do
receiving new you need absolute
information). proof?
- What tethers true 🡺 This is a high
beliefs is a justification benchmark for
for believing it. knowledge
- JTB definition of - The only thing
knowledge: Descartes know for
Justification, Truth, certain is that he is
Belief thinking.
🡺 Descartes: “I think,
therefore I am”
Gettier Cases Example 1 Counterexample

“Is Justified True Belief - Imagine 2 people - Jones sees the
knowledge?” going to the interview entailment between (i)
- Assume statement: (i) and (ii) -> believe in
“Jones will get the job the truth of (ii)
and Jones has 10 coins - Result: Smith gets the
in the pocket”. job and coincidently
- Implies: (ii) The man has 10 coins in his
who will get the job pocket
has 10 coins in his 🡺 Belief in statement is
pocket. both true and
justified.
Info
🡺 Although having a
justified belief that
(ii), he does not know
it.
The Lesson of Gettier Cases 🡺 JTB is insufficient for knowledge

- However, disagree on what more is needed in order for a
person to know.
Externalism - Problem with JTB: Understand justification as internal

What matters for knowledge is relation between “reasons” and “belief” -> fails to
the relationship between a exclude luck and coincidences from Gettier cases.
person’s belief and the external - The relationship has to be connected in a right kind of
world. way to exclude false and lucky true beliefs.
The Causal Theory Arguments against Causal

Theory
- Causal theory of The Problem of Abstract and
knowledge” by Alvin Mathematical Knowledge
Goldman: A person - There are things that
knows that P provided are just known alone.
their belief is caused 🡺 How to understand the
by the fact that P. knowledge of these?
- Gettier case: Smith Do numbers exist in
belief in (ii) is not the mind and cause
caused by this fact -> belief?
wrong causal pathway.
Fake Barn Cases
🡺 S knows that P | P is
- It is possible for a fact
true, S believes that P,
to cause belief and still
and S’s belief that P is
fail to be a case of
caused by the fact or
knowledge
state of affairs that P.
Example: A person is
perceiving a barn whilst that
barn is surrounded by many
other fake barns. The person
could get lucky arriving at the
real barn, still, does not have
the knowledge.
Reliabilism Arguments against Reliabilism
- True belief that was The Generality Problem
arrived at using a - How to specify the
reliable method (e.g. method of belief
calculator and expert formation?
Info
testimony), where a Example: Fake Barn Cases

method is reliable if it - Method 1: “perception
tends to produce true in general”
beliefs most of the 🡺 Deliver judgement that
time. the person knows
🡺 S knows that P | P is (incorrect)
true, S believes that P, - Method 2: “perception
and S’s belief that P is in the fake barn
the result of a reliable country”
belief-forming method. 🡺 Right judgement but
- Reliabilism has the overly artificial
potential to unify all
The Lottery Problem
different sources of
- Jack buys 1 lottery
knowledge
with probability
🡺 Solve Gettier and Fake
1/1,000,000 and forms
Barn cases: Gettier –
the belief that he will
false assumption ->
not win.
not reliable; Fake Barn
- Suppose that he does
– unable to
not win. -> Did he
differentiate real barns
know this will happen.
from fake barns
🡺 According to
reliabilism, the answer
is YES according to
probability.
The Reliable Clairvoyant

- Reliabilism is
epistemology
irresponsible and
knowledge requires
more than reliability.
- Suppose Viet has 100%
reliable clairvoyance
power to detect where
the president is at time
T and form a belief
that the president is in
New York.
- HOWEVER: Viet does
not know he has
powers and does not
Info
know where is belief

came from.
Info
WEEK 7: EPISTEMOLOGY – DEFINING SCIENCE

Why Science Matters? - People believe it a most reliable source of knowledge.
- Calling something scientific -> greater claim to the truth
- E.g. medicine, expert testimony, environment
Demarcation Problem - Task of providing a definition that separates scientific

method from non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods
of inquiry.
Solutions to Demarcation Inductivism

Problem: Francis Bacon
1. Inductivism - During his time, science carried out influenced by
Aristotle’s dualist metaphysics: every object has both
material and non-material form.
- Francis is both materialist and empiricist (knowledge
arrive from sensory).
🡺 Francis Bacon believed that instead of reflection on
nature’s immaterial “Forms”, scientists should rigorously
observe behaviors in nature. = method of
“interpretation” (contrast with Aristotle’s “anticipation)
The Idols of the Mind

- Bacon argued that anticipation (using logic and
anticipation) was inferior because it was subject to “Idols
of the Mind”:
● Idols of the Tribe: Human minds tend to project
their own nature, idea and first impression onto
reality.
● Idols of the Cave: Individual prior beliefs and
preference shape judgement.
● Idols of the Marketplace: How interactions with
others lead to adopting others belief.
● Idols of the Theatre: How commonly held shared
beliefs become established and resist change
Crooked Mirror Analogy

- Our minds are not “black slates”.
- The mind is like a “crooked mirror”: some information
gets in, but distorted by existing ideas.
🡺 THERE IS A SOLUTION FROM BACON
Induction Method
Info
- Involves making repeat observations and processes a

universal generalization that the observed pattern will
continue in the future.
- Bacon’s 3 aspects to induction:
E.g. “All As are Bs”
● Method of Agreement: Every observed A is B.
● Method of Difference: Every case of non-A is a
case of non-B.
● Method of Variation: Where A and B are
quantitative, changing A value will change B
value.
Problems for Inductivism

1. Crucial Experiment
- Actual science sometimes only need single observation
to make a scientific hypothesis instead of many.
2. The Role of Unobservables

- Protons and electrons are not directly observable and
cannot be inferred using Bacon’s inductive methods.
3. The Problem of Induction

- Might not be a reliable guide to the truth.
- Any attempt to prove it on basis of experience
presupposes the reliability of induction
🡺 Arguing in a circle.
Solutions to Demarcation The Vienna Circle

Problem: - Aim to provide a logical foundation for science and hope
2. Logical Positivism to make scientific method as rigorous and clear as
mathematics.
- Part of project: Defining what made a statement
meaningful or “cognitively significant”.
The Verification Principle

According to the logical positivists, a statement S is cognitively
significant if either it is a logical truth (true by definition) or its
truth can be empirically verified using our senses.
- If statement involves unobservable terms, meaning is
given by observable consequences that can be
empirically verified.
- Only disciplines make cognitively significant sentences
should be called “scientific”.
The Hypothetical-Deductive (H-D) Method

Info
- A theory is “scientific” if it is testable, and testable

theory can make empirically verifiable predictions.
- Deduction used to infer testable predictions.
- If predictions are true, theory provide positive
confirmation of the theory.
E.g. All dogs have 4 legs – Rex is a dog – Rex has four legs
Problems of Logical Positivism
1. The Problem of Irrelevant Conjunction
- Can make any statement scientific (even not verifiable) if
add to it some testable component
E.g.: “There is an immaterial soul and the earth has one moon”
2. The Problem of the Ravens
- H-D method allow strange evidence
E.g. All ravens are black – All non black things are non-ravens,
shoe is non-raven, THEREFORE, SHOE IS NON-BLACK.
3. The Verifiability Principle is Unscientific
- The truth of verifiability principle is not itself verifiable.
🡺 Not cognitively significant but that means we should not
believe that it is true according to logical positivism.
- It would counter logical positivism if basis for science
was based on metaphysical and non-scientific claim.
Solutions to Demarcation Against Inductivism and Verification

Problem: - Believe induction cannot provide positive reasons for
3. Falsificationism believing a universal statement is true.
- Believe verification principle fails to work for statements
of universal scope. E.g. All swan are white (We cannot
see all swans or sure about it)
The Context of Discovery and Justification

- Inductivism fails for recognize a distinction between
discovery and justification in science.
- Any method can discover science but “conjecture and
refutation” method can test theories.
Conjecture and Refutation

- One negative instance is enough to know the statement
is false. E.g. By observing a black swan can refute “all
swans are white”.
🡺 A discipline is scientific if it makes falsifiable claims and
abandons theories in the face of negative tests.
Problems for Falsificationism

Info
1. No Grounds for Belief

- If a theory passed many attempts at refutation, it has
ben “corroborated” rather than “confirmed”.
- HOWEVER, there is no ground for believing the theory is
true -> no rational ground for preferring it to other
theories.
2. The Duhem-Quine Problem

- A generalization itself does not make falsifiable claims –
only in conjunction with “auxiliary hypotheses”
- Meaning that when a negative result is found, it does not
imply that the generalization is false.
- Any of the auxiliaries could be false -> can be used to
shield generalization from falsification.
Info
WEEK 9: SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY – KUHN’S SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS

Rational Models of Science - Inductivism, Logical Positivism and Falsification
● Disagree: What makes a theory scientific.
● Agree: There is a method unique to science and it
is one explains why science is successful.
- Take scientists “closer to the truth” and scientists can
follow the method to confirm their theories.
Assumptions behind (i) Foundationalism (ii) Realism

rational models
- 3 layers approach: - There exists a
Empirical observation -> mind-independent
Method -> Theory. world that can be
● Empirical known and science
observations: can tell if is true or
assumed that approximately true
they are things about it.
objective and can - Science can tell both
be agreed by all observable and
scientists. unobservable things.
● Method: test a - Commit to scientific
theory to provide progress: progress
knowledge of steadily towards the
facts. truth -> amount of
● Theory: anyone truth uncovered
follow the grows.
method will
arrive at the
same conclusion.
Implications Anti - Foundationalism Anti – Realism
- Paradigm determines not - Science does not

only the meaning of progress slowly by
words but also which providing a greater
methods to use and the true picture of the
nature of empirical data world.
and observation. - Science progress in
- Primitive observation “circles” based on
does not start at the different paradigms.
bottom. The meaning of The success of each
word, for e.g. “mass” paradigm is explained
depends on the theory
which influences
Info
observation and by problem solving

evidence. ability, not truth.
🡺 Paradigms explain which
theories are proposed as
well as which
observations justify their
acceptance.
Thomas Kuhn’s Historical - Believed that scientific change is understood.

Approach - Argued that philosophers tended to provided overly
simple account.
- Argued that scientists often rewrite past scientific
discoveries with modern terminology that obscures their
differences.
🡺 Philosophers and scientists are equally bad.
Kuhn’s Account: An - Science progress in a cycle with specific periods:

Overview (Pre-Science), Normal Science, Puzzle Solving, Crisis,
Draws philosophical lessons Revolution, Paradigm shift.
from his study of scientific
Normal Science
change to reject all rational
models of science - Usual activities: making experiments, taking
measurements, writing papers
- Central to normal science: Paradigm – shared set of beliefs
by a group of scientists
- Students spend much time learning paradigm for their
field from lectures, textbooks and “exemplars”
Puzzle Solving
- Job of scientists is to apply paradigm to aspects of nature
that we still don’t understand.
- HOWEVER, the are puzzles that cannot be solved -> pile up
until a crisis emerges.
Anomalies
- Emerge during puzzle solving and these are puzzles that
cannot be solved easily by paradigm.
Crisis
- When one or more anomalies emerge.
- During this period, scientists begin to disagree on how to
move forward.
- Some scientists might try to “save it” from anomalies.
- Others questions the paradigm itself.
Info
Revolution
- New explanation of the phenomenon wins and forms basis
for new paradigm in science.
- Fierce competition between rival theories.
- Scientists try to convince others of the superiority of their
new theories (may not fit the “rational model”)
Paradigm Shift
- When a paradigm wins out a revolution
- New theories forms part of the new paradigm
- Requires lots of infrastructure: textbook, instruments,
ways of thinking.
- Next generation only get taught the new paradigm.
Incommensurability
- Scientists and paradigms work around are
incommensurable after a revolution.
- Means no common measure and it has two dimensions
Semantic incommensurability Methodological

incommensurability
Terms and categories deployed Methods, epistemic principles
by different paradigms have a and what counts as “evidence”
different meaning. also change with the paradigm.
The Theory-Ladenness of - It is possible to observe the same set of sensory data in
Perception different ways, it is not possible to see them both at the
What we see is affected by same time -> “gestalt switch”.
our prior beliefs
Evaluating Kuhn’s Account Evaluation Kuhn’s Response
The Concept of “Paradigm” is - Redefining paradigm in
Vague his second edition,
- Kuhn used it at least 21 using “paradigm” in 3
different ways in the different senses:
“Structure of Scientific ● (i) community
Revolutions” -> cannot structure
adequately evaluated. ● (ii) shared
🡺 May lead to invalid on constellation of
reasoning beliefs
● (iii) exemplars
of
puzzle-solving.
Info
- In each case, he is
specific about the
meanings.
Theories are - Scientists compare each

Not-Incommensurable other’s theory from the
- Scientists holding own paradigm. This
different paradigms can claims from two
compare and separate paradigms
understand rival cannot have the same
theories. meaning.
- - Causal theories of
reference beg the
question in favour of
realism by
presupposing a
mind-independent
world.
The No Miracles Argument for - For a paradigm to be

Progress accepted, it must not
- Science is successful at only solve anomalous
making accurate puzzles but also
predictions. previous paradigm’s
- Each new scientific puzzle (which is solved).
theory provides much - Then, progress of
greater predictive and “puzzle solving” ability.
technological success = History of science often
contains greater truth gets written from the
than the previous perspective of the
theory existing paradigm which
gives a distorted picture
of linear improvement.
Info
WEEK 14: ETHICS AND INDUSTRY 4.0

The 4th Industrial Revolution
Increased automation of industry and manufacturing using digital smart technologies.
Robots - Programmed to fulfill a certain role
- Scientists are working on multi-functional robot and can
work with little ongoing human input
Robots in Society - Good for the 3Ds: Dull, Dirty and Dangerous jobs
- Enhance or support human action.
Humanoid Robots - Most general functioning, have a high degree of

Intended to work closely with autonomy and artificial intelligence
humans: service, education
and entertainment
Robots in the Workplace Advantages Ethical Issues
- Carry out jobs more Problem 1: Unemployment
quickly and cheaply -> - Robots are becoming
creating greater value. more sophisticated ->
- Carry out jobs more why hire human?
safety -> minimizing
Response
risks to human.
- This allows people to
- Maintain productivity
train to do more
meaningful work
(robot maintenance
and engineering).
Problem 2: Dangerous
- Complex programming
-> easy for something
to go wrong.
⇨ People being killed by
robots (e.g. Robotic
arms in factory
assembly lines).
Response
- Other kinds of
industrial activity are
also unsafe.
- Given robots replace
human in dangerous
jobs, may improve
safety overall.
Info
Problem 3: Over-Reliance
- Result in gradual loss
of skills and knowledge
in certain sectors.
⇨ Fragile and less able to
response if there is any
problem with robots
Robots for Companionship

and Care Advantages Applied Ethics: Confucianism
Care and provide companions - Proved to be effective - One aspect of develop
for sick elderly (e.g. Paro helps in reducing loneliness ren is xiao (family
with dementia and loneliness) and some symptoms duty).
of dementia in elderly. - According to
- Let nurses and doctors Confucious, a virtuous
to attend more serious person hornors
concerns. parents by caring for
- Let elderly’s children them in old age &
to have peace of mind providing for their
after long working means.
hours. ⇨ If use robots to do
these tasks, is that
abandoning
responsibility and
being immoral as the
individual not
practicing xiao?
The Salaryman Reply Response to Confucian ethics Counter – Response

- Using robots is not - Salarymanignores
different from using self-development
doctors and nurses. aspect of practicing
- We already use tools rituals in
and machines to fulfill Confucianism.
duties. - “rital without
- Robots are expensive reverence, or
so children have to mourning without
work to purchase grief” lacks proper
robot -> still practicing virtue
xiao
Info
⇨ Not the development

or expression of
proper virtue
Autonomous and Self-learning - More flexible and traditional ones, can “think on the
Robots spot” and provide novel, creative solutions.
🡺 Unpredictable
- Impossible for developers to predict exactly on the
behavior.
🡺 Potential risks to humanity
The Control Problem - Main issues:

Program autonomous robots ● Lack of universally agreed ethical principles.
that reduce potential harm to ● Computational problems in programming robots
individuals and society to satisfy principles.
The Three Laws of Robotics Strengths Problem 1: Exception

1. The robot may not - Place human welfare - The laws do not grant
injure a human being and happiness above robot permission to
or, through inaction, all. prevent harm from
allow a human being 🡺 Make it impossible to occurring
to come to harm. obey orders or - E.g. Person A try to set
2. A robot must obey the preserve itself that are off the bomb,
orders given it by harmful to humans. however, due to the
human beings except first law, it could not
where such orders harm A.
would conflict with the
Response
1st Law.
- Asimov developed
3. A robot must protect
“0-rule”: “A robot may
its own existence as
not harm humanity, or,
long as such protection
by inaction, allow
does not conflict with
humanity to come to
the 1st or 2nd Law.
harm”
Problem 2: Ambiguity
- Laws are to ambiguous
and hard to apply for a
real machine.
- Robot cannot sense
“harm” in a person.
🡺 Difficult to program
robots to Asimov’s
laws.
Info
Problem 3: Unknown
Consequences
- Consequentialist
theories: predicting
consequences that will
come from an action
- A robot might follow
the command but
does not know that its
action could harm
people.

Hass1010 Revision - W1 9 W14

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hass1010 Revision - W1 9 W14

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KEY: Green + Red = Arguments - for and against, Light Yellow = Counter- response, Blue, Yellow = Key

WEEK 1: INTRODUCTION – PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING

Part 1 – The Prisoners

Part 2 – Freedom from the Cave

brings light on the

Part 3 – Return to the Cave

1. E.g. Form of Beauty: Whether

3. Imperfection A. There are Perfect

schemes”) that we use

WEEK 2-3: PHILOSOPHY IN VIETNAM

Daoism Dao (way) - Source of everything exists and guiding

Ziran (naturally or by - Problems arise because of artificial

Wu Wei (action without - Involves a sort intuitive or instinctual form

Zhuangzi’s Butterfly - He was dreaming of him being a butterfly.

Zhuangzi and Plato Plato: Zhuangzi:

Daoism in Vietnam - Entered during the first Han invasion

Daoism today - Therapeutic and artistic practices and feng

Buddhism Origins - Siddhartha Gautama born in Lumbini

Siddhartha - His father wanted him to be his heir but a

Ascetic Wondering - He decided to become wandering holy

Enlightenment - Enlightened to the truth of dependent

- His existence is conditioned on other

Basic Beliefs The Three Marks of Existence

The Four Noble Truths

The Noble Eightfold Path

Buddhism in Vietnam - Mahayana entered in 2-3 centuries AD

Tran Nhan Tong - Defended Vietnam from Mongolian

- Retreated to Yen Tu in 1299, built

Syncretism - Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism play different roles in peoples

WEEK 4: METAPHYSICS – MATERIALISM AND IDEALISM

What is reality made of? - “WHAT IS THE WORLD MADE OF?”

Monism (only one basic stuff from everything is made):

Early Materialism Ancient Greece

Modern Materialism The Enlightenment

Marx and Engels

Arguments of Materialism Support Against

2. The Argument from 2. The Argument from

Idealism - Idealists agree on:

● There is only one kind of substance: spirit, ideas

Early Idealism Plato

Modern Idealism Hegel (“subjective” idealism) (contrasting with Berkeley’s

Arguments of Idealism Support (Berkeley’s) Against

2. The Veil of Perception 2. The Continued

- Matter cannot be that it continues to

3. The Master Argument

Response to the Master

- It is needed for both to be exist because consciousness is

WEEK 5: METAPHYSICS – CAUSATION

Hume’s Empiricism - Our mind has to kinds of objects:

Our Idea of Necessary - This cause-effect relation underpins much of our

1. Sensory Impressions Between Events Themselves

2. If repeat observation of cause and effect pairs provides

- Only have the idea of necessary connection between

Hume’s Positive Account - Repeat observation of events creates a “principle of

Arguments Against Regularity 1. Accidental vs. Causal Relations

3. The Problem of Singular Causes

🡺 Natural necessity “N” – explains why some events are

Arguments of Necessity Strengths Against

2. N is something that 2. N is not Observable

3. Explain single causal 3. The Infinite Regress

universal (IR). And this

WEEK 6: KNOWLEDGE AND ITS CONDITION - THE JTB ACCOUNT