Knowledge and Science
1. Introduction
2. Science
3. Methodological Empiricism
4. Experiential Empiricism
5. Rationalism
6. Kant s  Copernican Revolution
1. Introduction
This module is devoted to the issues of science and knowledge. Where does human
knowledge of the world originate from? How can scientific theories be verified?
What distinguishes the methods of science from other disciplines? How is science
different from literature, the arts or religion? What is the difference between a cor-
rect explanation and an incorrect one? In this section, we will examine the philoso-
phy of science and epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge.
Knowledge is an integral element of all forms of awareness. Traditionally, when we
discuss knowledge we mean acquired knowledge, which is the result of experience
or the process of learning and science. The theory that maintains that a newly born
child s mind is like a clean slate is known as empiricism. It holds that all human
awareness (the acquisition of knowledge) proceeds from the five senses (awareness
of the external world) as well as introspection which is the analysis of all mental proc-
esses (awareness of the internal world).
Empiricism is always placed in opposition to rationalism and nativism. The advo-
cates of rationalism maintain it is the mind which constitutes the ultimate source of
all knowledge. Furthermore, it claims that awareness exists independently of experi-
ence. Nativism on the other hand, assumes the existence of in-born features or innate
ideas in the human mind (an example of nativism is Plato s idealism).
The subsequent sections in this module will provide definitions of science and falsi-
fication, experiential empiricism whose main interest is the inquiry into the origin of
awareness. We will also discuss methodological empiricism which maintains that true
awareness is always preceded by prior experience. Examples of this are Descartes
rationalism and the transcendental aesthetics (epistemology) of Kant.
2
2. Science
Science is generally seen to be the most valuable and most effective way of becom-
ing aware of the world around us as well as predicting future events. Indeed, science
has been the catalyst for the development of civilisation and for the discoveries of,
amongst other, medicine and tools.
Not all discoveries, however, have brought benefit to mankind and it is science that,
to a greater extent, has allowed man to become the master of the world of nature.
The scientific method proceeds from the idea that before we support any proposition
we must first undertake a selection of appropriate tests and a detailed observation
of their results. This method is thus based on the rigorous and impartial collection
of data, experimentation and the correct (logical) generalisation of results that stem
from the collected data. The goal of science is to present objective results that can be
corroborated by anyone at a future date through the repetition of the experiment.
The above-stated method is associated also with the belief in the value of inductive
reasoning. Induction is a form of reasoning based on the drawing of general conclu-
sions from individual premises and instances as well as the drawing of general con-
clusions based on observation and experimentation. For example, the observation of
various species of mammal may lead us to suggest that all mammals are viviparous
(give birth to live young).
The opposite of induction is deduction, reasoning in which the conclusion is only
true if all particular instances are also true. An example of deductive argumentation
is a syllogism, a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two proposi-
tions that each share a term with the conclusion, and that share a common or middle
term not present in the conclusion, for example, Humans are mammals; every mam-
mal is viviparous; every human is viviparous.
Within deduction, the truthfulness of the premises guarantees the truthfulness of the
conclusion. Although inductive reasoning is built upon genuine premises, the con-
clusions need not be truthful. For example, the above-mentioned statement drawn
from inductive reasoning that all mammals are viviparous is an incorrect conclusion
because there are in fact mammals that do lay eggs (the duck-billed platypus and
porcupine) hence are not viviparous.
The value of induction is greater when more examples are considered and our con-
clusion is less general as only one contradictory example is required to bring down
our hypothesis.
An attempt at overcoming the weaknesses of induction as a scientific method was
the method of falsification as proposed by Karl Popper (1902 - 1994). He claimed
that a key factor was to firstly distinguish science from pseudo-science (for example,
alchemy or astrology). What is more, he laid claim that no one had yet managed to
rationally justify the value of inductive reasoning because it is not possible to form
a universal law from a very large number of individual instances and premises, for
example, the existence of a very large number of white swans that can be observed in
the world has no bearing and cannot justify the conclusion that all swans are white.
For this reason Popper turned to deduction which  tests a theory. A detailed, de-
duced statement be posited from a theory and then this statement can be experimen-
3
tally tested. The basic characteristic of a scientific theory is that it can be negated
through experiment. If we demonstrate that a theory is false then it must either be
rejected or altered. In this light, it is obvious that general statements which purport
to be scientific theories are easier to falsify than uphold.
At the same time, if no possible observation can falsify the theory which is under
analysis we can safely say that it cannot be a scientific hypothesis. For example the
statement,  It will snow tomorrow or it might not is in no way scientific because
there is no event that could possibly disclaim it. However,  It rains on every first
Friday of the month in A
ódz
 fulfils the requirements of a scientific prediction. If
it rains in the specified period then the theory is confirmed, however, only one in-
stance of it not raining on a first Friday of the month is needed to negate (or falsify)
the statement.
Accordingly, as scientists we must firstly begin with a theory and then conduct ob-
servations. This means that science develops through a process of trial and error. A
scientific theory must therefore be falsifiable and must allow for the advancement of
successive predictions.
Does falsification explain completely the progress of science? As we know, few em-
pirical facts supported Copernicus heliocentric view in the 16th century and even in
the beginnings of the 20th century many astronomers ignored the fact that Mercury s
orbit does not correspond to Newtonian mechanics. If all scholars were to act in
accordance with Popper s claims many of science s great theories would have to be
rejected. Falsification does not adequately explain many significant turning points in
the history of science.
It was as late as the 1960s that the American philosopher, Thomas Kuhn (1922 -
1995) proposed an approach that allowed for the rejection of the irregularities of
history found within the methodology of pure science and its claims. He focused to
a much greater extent than Popper on the social and institutional conditioning of the
scientific method and found that science functions within the framework of a system
of basic assumptions, a paradigm. Science, he claimed, consistently goes through ex-
ceptional and revolutionary phases when an old paradigm is refuted and, following
a short period of rivalry between the two, is replaced by the new one.
The existence of a paradigm (a system of rules) which is accepted by a scientific
community distinguishes a science from a non-science. When a new aspect of reality
is discovered through experimentation and does not comply with the afore-stated
paradigm it is initially treated as an unessential anomaly. However, if more evi-
dence is found and more contradictions appear this leads to the emergence of a new
paradigm that can explain these new facts and discoveries. Steadily, more scholars
begin to reject the old paradigm substituting it with the new one. This process is
commonly known as scientific revolution. Thus, science evolves by a sequence of
successive paradigmatic leaps.
An interesting view of science was posited by the US philosopher Paul K. Feyerabend
(1924 - 1994) who wrote about the sterile and problematic nature of many theories
that claim to be complete and consistent systems and fully encompass and compre-
hend reality. He noticed that the confrontation of scientific theories with experi-
ential data led to dogmatism because the facts that these scientists draw on are not
unbiased in the face of a tried and tested theory, furthermore, in the face of other
theories may not even be regarded as facts.
Therefore, Feyerabend whole-heartedly defended  theoretical pluralism claiming
that a water-tight assessment of a theory must not only stand up to the results of
experience but also to other alternative theoretical assumptions. Consequently, we
cannot reject an idea merely because it does fit into the rationalist canon of science.
4
Therefore, the rejection of canon and paradigms is a condition of progress and de-
velopment:  Without chaos there is no science. Without greater rejection of reason
there is no progress .
5
3. Methodological Empiricism
The theory which attempts to explain knowledge in terms of our sensory experienc-
es is called empiricism. Its beginnings can be found in Ancient philosophy however,
classical empiricism began in the modern era within British philosophy which was
concerned with all things temporal and practical. In 17th century England, people
began to understand the advantages stemming from the possibility of controlling
and influencing the environment and nature.
One of the first representatives of empiricism was Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626). He
claimed that the search for truth is the greatest good. Truth is of value because it
allows us to better our lives. Our concern should therefore be knowledge that is use-
ful, that can give man authority over the world through which he can rule the world
around him and create his own history.
The history of mankind is a history of progress. Bacon noticed that progress is nei-
ther gradual nor continual but science (which should help life) often becomes sepa-
rated from progress sinking into futile endeavour full of speculation and falsity.
Therefore science needs to be fundamentally reformed and a new technique de-
signed that can carry the most basic of principles and be infallible. He was to chart
the map of knowledge.
He was puzzled as to why one often falls victim to falsehood on the road to truth.
According to Bacon this takes place due to the fact that we are all too eager to trust
reason which let loose cannot be afforded such trust. A particular property of the
human mind is the creation of illusions that cause our judgements to veer from the
truth. He called these the idols of the mind (from the Greek eidolon  apparition , from
eidos  form, shape ). In his Novum Organum Bacon described four such idols:
The first, idols of the tribe are associated with man s very nature i.e. that which is
typical of the whole human race. Man is prone to uncritically trusting reason which
in reality deforms the world around us. Furthermore,  Human understanding is like
a false mirror, which, receiving rays irregularly, distorts and discolours the nature of
things by mingling its own nature with it . (Bacon, Novum Organum: XLI)
The idols of the cave are associated with what is idiosyncratic:  For everyone (be-
sides the errors common to human nature in general) has a cave or den of his own,
which refracts and discolours the light of nature, owing either to his own proper
and peculiar nature; or to his education and conversation with others; or to the
reading of books, and the authority of those whom he esteems and admires; or to
the differences of impressions, accordingly as they take place in a mind preoccupied
and predisposed or in a mind indifferent and settled; or the like . (Bacon, Novum
Organum: XLII)
 The spirit of man (according as it is meted out to different individuals) is in fact a
thing variable and full of perturbation, and governed as it were by chance. Whence it
was well observed by Heraclitus that men look for sciences in their own lesser worlds,
and not in the greater or common world . (Bacon, Novum Organum: XLII)
The idols of the market place are caused by the fact that we use language:  The ill and
unfit choice of words wonderfully obstructs the understanding. Nor do the defini-
tions or explanations wherewith in some things learned men are wont to guard
and defend themselves, by any means set the matter right. But words plainly force
6
and overrule the understanding, and throw all into confusion, and lead men away
into numberless empty controversies and idle fancies. (Bacon, Novum Organum:
XLIII)
The language that we use on a day-to-day basis can itself be the source of errors that
obstruct the road to knowledge. The use of ambiguous concepts and hollow terms
can cause scientific discussion to transform into no more than futile dispute.
The fourth and final, the idols of the theatre are associated with various philosophical
doctrines. These idols,  have immigrated into men s minds from the various dog-
mas of philosophies, and also from wrong laws of demonstration. All the received
systems are but so many stage plays, representing worlds of their own creation after
an unreal and scenic fashion. Nor is it only of the systems now in vogue, or only of
the ancient sects and philosophies, that I speak; for many more plays of the same
kind may yet be composed and in like artificial manner set forth; seeing that errors
the most widely different have nevertheless causes for the most part alike. Neither
again do I mean this only of entire systems, but also of many principles and axioms
in science, which by tradition, credulity, and negligence have come to be received.
(Bacon, Novum Organum: XLIV)
As we can see, the idols of the theatre are associated with the unwavering belief in
traditional forms of authority. In this view, what is important is not that something
was said but by whom it was said. If Aristotle said  the world is flat then his author-
ity forced this view to be accepted and established for hundreds of years.
These idols are the result of the defective nature of our mind; awareness of their
existence should force us to find remedies. Furthermore, Bacon noticed that the
 clearing away of idols should be based on experience, or to be more precise experi-
ment i.e. the purposeful planning of particular processes and creation of necessary
conditions in which it can operate.
The scientist should also use induction. This approach should not however be purely
reduced to generalisation. The traditional (and flawed) approach Bacon termed in-
duction by enumeration as it  enumerates particular instances which support a theory.
He felt it should be replaced with induction by elimination in which we begin with two
or more contradictory hypotheses, general statements that explain a particular state.
The scientist then looks for individual instances that will refute successive hypoth-
eses eventually leading to one. This eliminative screening will bring the true theory.
Nowadays we know that even this method of induction is by no means perfect. It is
simply an idealised approach because the initial number of potential theories can be
practically infinite.
Bacon s belief in the power of science was expressed most fully in his The New
Atlantis depicting a utopian vision of a rationally-oriented society governed by
scholars and philosophers. This was to be a world free of politics, politicians and
political institutions, a world in which knowledge should not serve the interests of
the individual (or his glorification), the interests of those in power or serve to hold
others in contempt. It should only serve  the needs of life .
Such admirable words were not followed through by Bacon himself who thanks to
his shrewdness and cunning became His Majesty s Lord-Chancellor, Viscount of
Saint Albans and Baron of Verulam and a favourite of the King. He was accused of
bribery and fined and sentenced to imprisonment.
The empirical method elaborated by Bacon was doubtless an important catalyst for
the subsequent turbulent progress of science and radical reform of the scientific
procedure. Interestingly, the great spokesman of science was himself dilettante in
approach, not knowing the works of either Galileo or Kepler and rejecting outright
7
the heliocentric theory of Copernicus.
However, Bacon died like a true scientist. His last winter was spent studying how
snow and low temperatures can preserve meat from the processes of decay. The ex-
periment was successful and the meat remained fresh however the great empiricist
never had the chance to try the meat. He caught a chill, came down with a fever and
shortly died.
8
4. Experiential Empiricism
The empiricism previously discussed was characterised by its methodological nature.
Francis Bacon claimed that there is no true knowledge without experimentation and
observation. Without the corroboration of facts we can but err. Thus this theory had
a normative and methodological character.
In opposition to methodological empiricism we find experiential empiricism which is
associated with the belief that all knowledge, all opinions and all theories whether
they or correct or true come from experience. This characterised the theory put
forward by John Locke (1632 - 1704).
For Locke, the greatest problem was that of epistemology. In his An Essay concerning
Human Understanding he conducts a systematic reflection of the origin of human
ideas and human knowledge. He writes:
 Every man being conscious to himself that he thinks; and that which his mind is
applied about whilst thinking being the ideas that are there, it is past doubt that men
have in their minds several ideas, such as are those expressed by the words white-
ness, hardness, sweetness, thinking, motion& and others: it is in the first place then
to be inquired, How he comes by them?
I know it is a received doctrine, that men have native ideas, and original characters,
stamped upon their minds in their very first being. This opinion I have at large ex-
amined already; and& I have shown whence the understanding may get all the ideas
it has; and by what ways and degrees they may come into the mind; for which I shall
appeal to every one s own observation and experience.
All ideas come from sensation or reflection. Let us then suppose the mind to be,
as we say, white paper [tabula rasa], void of all characters, without any ideas: How
comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store which the busy and
boundless fancy of man has painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence
has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from
Experience. In that all our knowledge is founded; and from that it ultimately derives
itself. Our observation employed either, about external sensible objects, or about
the internal operations of our minds perceived and reflected on by ourselves, is that
which supplies our understandings with all the materials of thinking. These two are
the fountains of knowledge, from whence all the ideas we have, or can naturally
have, do spring.
The objects of sensation one source of ideas. First, our Senses, conversant about
particular sensible objects, do convey into the mind several distinct perceptions of
things, according to those various ways wherein those objects do affect them&
Secondly, the other fountain from which experience furnisheth the understanding
with ideas is, the perception of the operations of our own mind within us, as it is
employed about the ideas it has got; which operations, when the soul comes to
reflect on and consider, do furnish the understanding with another set of ideas,
which could not be had from things without& But as I call the other Sensation, so
I Call this Reflection, the ideas it affords being such only as the mind gets by re-
flecting on its own operations within itself. (Locke: An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding)
9
Therefore according to Locke, experience is the source of all ideas. However, ideas
are observations gained either though sensation or through reflection. It is worth
noting here that in Ancient times experience was equated with only sensory knowl-
edge. We might say then that the Ancient form of experiential empiricism was simply
sensualism.
Locke also takes into consideration a situation in which a perceiving subject itself be-
comes an object of perception. He claimed that there is no innate knowledge. Some
17th century philosophers maintained that the rules of logic precede and permit the
existence of concrete knowledge and what is more, they can be found in the mind
from birth.
Can innate science and knowledge exist in the mind? In order to answer such a ques-
tion Locke claimed that one should simply observe the development of a child. If the
rules of logic are known to it from birth then they would not only be accessible to
all people but would be the first object of thought.
As is commonly known, it is more than likely that infants do not while away their
time contemplating the fundamentals of logic. It would seem a highly unlikely sce-
nario when we acknowledge the fact that even the average university student has
problems with logic&
Locke rejected the platonic understanding of the idea as an independent of our
awareness and something towards which awareness must work. According to Locke,
we only directly know ideas and not things. Ideas, not things, are the starting point
of all knowledge. The ideas which manifest themselves in our mind as the represen-
tation of things have a twofold nature.
They can have either  primary (objective) qualities or  secondary (subjective) quali-
ties . For example, the idea of expansion and the idea of colour. Extension is the
property of a given thing whereas colour is the result the of action of this thing on
our eyes. Attributes like extension, solidity, shape, motion are all inseparably con-
nected with these things themselves and exist objectively.
We can also mention features which do not exist in things themselves but are only
capabilities that evoke certain sensations, for example, colour, sound or taste. This
is easier to understand if we realise that the world around us is neither colourful
nor tasteful as it is only our (subjective) reactions that cause us to experience, or not
experience the world in this way.
As well as the above-mentioned simple ideas, Locke also posited the concept of com-
pound ideas which are formed in the mind by combining simple ideas. This takes
place when certain simple ideas begin to co-occur and we begin to regard them as
the representation of one particular thing giving it one general term, for example,
dog, man, chair etc. Whenever the term is later heard, this combination of simple
ideas is  reproduced in the mind.
Knowledge is thus the ability to see if something is in agreement or disagreement
in relation to ideas. For example, a mathematical or ethical idea does not refer to
anything more than itself and thus it does not have to conform to what is external.
Its knowledge proceeds from what is intuitively obvious or from evidence.
Locke s epistemology can be seen as a forerunner to both the Enlightenment and
Liberalism. According to Locke, the human mind does not always perceive concepts
without error or difficulty, for example, the concepts of infinity, eternity or divinity.
For this reason, he made a clear distinction between science and theology (which
belongs to the sphere of faith, not knowledge). Therefore, no religion should be
discriminated against or be placed in a privileged position above others. A person s
religion (whatever it may be) should be of a private and personal nature.
10
In his A Letter concerning Toleration he claimed that every person belongs to two
societies: a civil and a religious. The problem of intolerance and prejudice stems
from the two societies not being clearly defined and kept separate from each other.
Furthermore, not distinguishing the two can have detrimental effects on civil society
as well as our individual hope of salvation. What is more, Locke s idea of the hu-
man mind being like a  clean slate at birth was the affirmation of egalitarianism, the
belief in the natural equality of people.
The political views of John Locke will be dealt with in depth in the final module con-
cerning political philosophy however it is noteworthy to mention the inconsistency
of his theories in relation to how he lived his life. It is not widely known that John
Locke, the great egalitarian was a member of the Board of Trade and Plantations (in
the Colonies), a capital investor in slaves and the author of a pamphlet on the just-
ness of Black Slavery.
11
5. Rationalism
In the ongoing dispute over the origin of knowledge, rationalism was seen as an op-
position to empiricism. In other words, rationalism was an approach which hailed
the power and possibilities of the human mind and the need for it to govern all our
actions
The approach that maintains the mind is the prime source of all knowledge inde-
pendent of all experience is nativism (a form of rationalism claiming everything is
innate). This can be juxtaposed against the followers of Locke s experiential form of
empiricism disclaiming the innateness of knowledge and maintaining that at birth
the human mind is like a white sheet of paper or a clean slate (tabula rasa). Nativists
believed that certain ideas and truths are innate and can be found within the mind at
birth. This view was upheld by Plato who believed that before joining with the body
the soul has a direct insight into the ideal world of truths and thus all knowledge
is innate. Learning and education is a process of recollection or anamnesis where
a person recalls what the soul once knew in the ideal world prior to joining with
body.
If we take note of the scientific method of acquiring knowledge, then what stands in
opposition to Bacon s methodical empiricism is hypothetico-deductive rationalism or
apriorism, an approach put forward by René Descartes (1596 - 1650).
Descartes appealed to the reason of a thinking individual; he claimed optimisti-
cally that,  Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed.
Furthermore, if common sense does not employ the correct method it will not go
far. The source of this approach and evidence of this stance can be found in the
disillusionment Descartes suffered during his education in a scholastically-oriented
school.
He believed that a simpleton is closer to the truth than a scholar for the mind of
the latter is encumbered by the weight of useless knowledge and faith in recognised
authority and false systems. Why is it that one believes Plato was closer to the truth
than Aristotle, or that the truth rests with Saint Thomas and not Saint Augustine?
Perhaps all these systems are false and contradict each other? Perhaps it is wiser not
to unwaveringly hold with one system but to question all? Descartes addressed his
 new philosophy to those people free from tradition who might trust reason and
reject everything that can possibly be questioned.
For Descartes, indisputable knowledge must be clear and distinct and arrived at
independently. Therefore, he claimed the perfect model of science should be math-
ematics, an example of a science which can be arrived at by one s own reasoning.
A science is not something which is taught but that which can be learnt oneself.
Descartes attempted to formulate a water-tight scientific method of knowledge based
on mathematics and a process of methodical, deductive questioning.
In his Meditations on The First Philosophy Descartes writes:  I shall proceed by set-
ting aside all that in which the least doubt could be supposed to exist, just as if I had
discovered that it was absolutely false; and I shall ever follow in this road until I have
met with something which is certain, or at least, if I can do nothing else, until I have
learned for certain that there is nothing in the world that is certain. Archimedes, in
order that he might draw the terrestrial globe out of its place, and transport it else-
where, demanded only that one point should be fixed and immoveable; in the same
12
way I shall have the right to conceive high hopes if I am happy enough to discover
one things only which is certain and indubitable.
I suppose, then, that all the things that I see are false; I persuade myself that nothing
has ever existed of all that my fallacious memory represents to me. I consider that
I possess no sense; I imagine that body, figure, extension, movement and place are
but fictions of my mind. What, then, can be esteemed as true? Perhaps nothing at
all, unless that there is nothing in the world that is certain . (Descartes, R. 1997 Key
Philosophical Writings. Wordsworth Classics)
Cartesian philosophy proceeds from a radical form of scepticism. It questions the
value of sensory knowledge as the senses constantly deceive us and cannot be trust-
ed. Descartes noted that we are not capable of discerning waking from sleep and
everything around us could all be a delusion. Perhaps an  evil genius exists who
constantly deceives, drawing us into error. Then such an indisputable science as
mathematics could even be questioned.
The only thing we can possibly be certain of is the fact that we doubt, that we ques-
tion. The act of questioning cannot itself be questioned. If we doubt, it follows then
that we are thinking and if we think, we are, we exist, hence, the famous Cartesian
formula of cogito ergo sum,  I think therefore I am . Thought is that which cannot
be separated from man and it is only thought that is necessarily part of our being.
According to Descartes, man is a  thinking thing that can comprehend, affirm,
deny, feel and also question. The basis of philosophy is therefore reason itself or ra-
tio (Latin:  reckoning ,  reason ), hence rationalism. Descartes philosophy was inno-
vative in that it broke with previous philosophical approaches whose starting points
were to be found in the reality that lies beyond the scope of the mind and reason.
Individual self-awareness is seen as an Archimedean point, the foundation of all per-
ceptive reflection. Even if we turn to the external world, we only actually become
aware of our mental states and intellectual operations. Not only does Descartes
claim that the knowledge gained through the mind is more certain than knowledge
gained through the senses but he demonstrates that only through the concepts of
the mind can one thing be isolated from another. Even if a thing has been changed
or transformed, it is only the mind that can recognise and comprehend it. Descartes
noticed that his approach threw up the question of the relationship between the in-
nate ideas in our minds and the world in which we live. In an attempt to solve this
problem, he introduced the concept of God into his philosophy:
He writes:  But of my ideas, beyond that which represents me to myself, as to which
there can be no difficulty, there is another which represents a God& By the name of
God I understand a substance that is infinite [eternal, immutable], independent, all-
knowing, all-powerful, and by which I myself and everything else, if anything else
does exist, have been created. Now all these characteristics are such that the more
diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of proceeding from me
alone; hence, from what has already been said, we must conclude that God neces-
sarily exists.
It only remains to me to examine into the manner in which I have acquired this idea
from God; for I have not received it through the senses, and it is never presented
to me unexpectedly, as is usual with the ideas of sensible things when these things
present themselves, or seem to present themselves, to the external organs of my
senses; nor is it likewise a fiction of my mind, for it is not in my power to take from
or to add anything to it; and consequently the only alternative is that it is innate in
me, just as the idea of myself is innate in me.
And the whole strength of the argument which I have here made use of to prove
13
the existence of God consists in this, that I recognise that it is not possible that my
nature should be what it is, and indeed that I should have in myself the idea of a
God, if God did not veritably exist - God, I say, whose idea is in me, i.e. who pos-
sesses all those supreme perfections of which our mind may indeed have some idea
but without understanding them all, who is liable to no errors or defect [and who
has none of all those marks which denote imperfection]. From this it is manifest that
He cannot be a deceiver, since the light of nature teaches us that fraud and decep-
tion necessarily proceed from some defect . (Descartes, R. (997 Key Philosophical
Writings. Wordsworth Classics)
Descartes, whilst examining the content of our consciousness, stated that within the
mind we can find the concept of a perfect being. Furthermore, we are not the cause
of this concept. Our  questioning and imperfect minds cannot be the cause of a
most perfect being as the effect cannot be more perfect than the cause.
The existence of the idea of God in our minds is evidence for his actual existence
outside our consciousness. Since God is perfect he cannot purposefully lead us into
error. He cannot be an  evil genius who deceives us as this would mean he is both
a cheat and a liar. Therefore in the final analysis, intuition and the authenticity of
the senses can be ultimately trusted. If we claim (i.e. establish) that a good Creator
exists then we can also establish that agreement between our intellect and the world
which surrounds us i.e. everything that appears to us as clear and certain is undoubt-
edly true.
As can be seen, Descartes maintained it was enough to call upon reason in order to
find certainty and truth. He claimed that by beginning with our cogito, via deduc-
tion, we are able to build a complete vision of the world and science. However, it
appeared that it was difficult to build a consistent criterion of truth on the basis of a
perfect God as there are things within him which cannot in anyway be understood
or  touched by the mind.
The world is not as clear and transparent to the mind as one would have expected as
it is not even able to fully comprehend itself. An attempt to solve this dilemma can
be found in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
14
6. Kant s  Copernican Revolution
In this section we will discuss a revolutionary theory that was based on the radical
reorientation of the way previous scholars had conceived the processes of acquiring
knowledge. The theory was so ground-breaking that it was compared to the revolu-
tion that Nicolaus Copernicus caused within astronomy. The creator of this theory
was Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804).
Kant endeavoured to amend Descartes rationalistic dogmatism which attempted to
give a scientific foundation to metaphysics. Through a rejection of sensuality from
action that both comprehends and is rationalistic, Cartesian dogmatism left itself
open to criticism from empiricists. This led Kant to ask the age-old questions of how
it is possible to gain knowledge and what the relationship is between the perceiving
subject and the perceived object as well as what faculties within the subject can be
credited with perception of the object.
According to Kant, in order to satisfactorily answer these questions a synthesis of
rationalism and empiricism must be undertaken. In all objective perception there is
a coming together of sensory and rational representations, images and concepts that
can be compared and verified.
In the introduction to The Critique of Pure Reason he writes:  When Galilei experi-
mented with balls of a definite weight on the inclined plane, when Torricelli caused
the air to sustain a weight which he had calculated beforehand to be equal to that
of a definite column of water& a light broke upon all natural philosophers. They
learned that reason only perceives that which it produces after its own design; that
it must not be content to follow, as it were, in the leading-strings of nature, but must
proceed in advance with principles of judgement according to unvarying laws, and
compel nature to reply its questions. For accidental observations, made according
to no preconceived plan, cannot be united under a necessary law. But it is this that
reason seeks for and requires.
It is only the principles of reason which can give to concordant phenomena the va-
lidity of laws, and it is only when experiment is directed by these rational principles
that it can have any real utility. Reason must approach nature with the view, indeed,
of receiving information from it, not, however, in the character of a pupil, who lis-
tens to all that his master chooses to tell him, but in that of a judge, who compels the
witnesses to reply to those questions which he himself thinks fit to propose. To this
single idea must the revolution be ascribed, by which, after groping in the dark for
so many centuries, natural science was at length conducted into the path of certain
progress. (Kant, I. 1781 The Critique of Pure Reason)
Accordingly, Kant claims that it is not a thing itself that dictates the manner in which
it should be approached but science, through its investigations, should approach the
thing. According to Kant, the scientist must use the laws of reason as his starting
point upon which he later bases his experiments. Hypotheses are only considered
objective if they are confirmed by experience and experiment. This is the most ap-
propriate method due to the fact that while reason creates the general concept of
a thing, the senses provide individual conceptions. Knowledge is an active process.
Reason is not limited to the retention of facts, which are provided by the senses but
also connects and interprets these facts creating a vision of the world.
Kant speculated also as to whether our conceptions contain other factors. He came
15
to the conclusion that they do exist and are a priori forms of sensibility, that is space
and time thanks to which all matter of sensory experience can be ordered and given
meaning.
For this reason, matter does not exist for us exist other than within the process of
reflection. The world we see around us is viewed through  spatio-temporal specta-
cles and we endow the world with space and time i.e. space and time are not em-
pirical experiences and are not related to experiences in the external world but the
opposite, all external experiences assume the existence of the conception of space
and time.
Space and time cannot be erased from our thoughts. We can conceive of an absence
of an object but this  absence is always in terms of space, we cannot conceive of an
absence of space itself. In the same way, we cannot imagine  redness in itself , we
are always forced to imagine a red dress, a red plane or surface. Consequently, our
conceptions are always organised spatially.
A parallel phenomenon can also be witnessed here where our understanding of all
conceptions is ordered temporally, that is, within the present, past or future. Space
and time are consequently human forms of sensibility as they belong to us, to the
subject who perceives the world i.e. they are understood a priori, before any experi-
ence.
Space and time are pure intuitions which we are not comprehend directly; we are
able to comprehend anything, even in abstraction, without their presence. They
are subjective, an inseparable condition of our consciousness forming our observa-
tions and conceptions. Furthermore, these categories allow for the comprehension
of an object or phenomenon in its unity as a result of the cause and effect principle
because causality is also an a priori category of the mind which we project onto the
world around us.
In completing his  Copernican revolution , Kant claimed that a perceived object
must conform to the perceiving subject. Moreover, a priori forms of knowledge ex-
ist only in the act of viewing and understanding. In other words, sensibilities do not
result from experience but are revealed through experience.
According to Kant, our dispositions therefore explain the existence of such universal
and necessary sciences as mathematics that are constructed of synthetic a priori prop-
ositions and do not stem from experience but expand and constitute new knowledge.
This is possible because the object of mathematics are form of sensibilities: the basis
of geometry is a pure conception of space whereas arithmetic is a pure conception
of time.
As previously mentioned natural science should also begin with synthetic a priori
propositions and through experimentation the science should  coerce nature into
providing answers to particular questions prior to experience.
Our sensory experiences and sensations together with our a priori observations and
categories of the mind form the very scope of scientific knowledge. Due to this fact,
Kant believed metaphysics can in no way fall within this domain. We cannot, for
example, scientifically prove the existence of a substantive soul in the same way that
we cannot establish the existence of God or the universe.
The outcome of this is that there can be no rational psychology, rational theology
or rational cosmology. Nevertheless man is not merely a perceiving being nor is he a
scientist merely awaiting conclusive evidence about the world surrounding him. It is
therefore necessary for him to create metaphysics and turn his mind towards the ul-
timate questions. Thus the mind creates, in turn, the idea of the soul as the complete
internal experience, the idea of the universe as the complete external experience,
16
and God as the foundation of all experience.
What is more, Kant believed that as a moral being man must go beyond the bounds
of science. The world of science is a world governed by necessity and determinism
but in order for morality to exist freedom must also. Without freedom man cannot
be the object of moral judgement thus there is a clear distinction between knowledge
and morality. As Kant wrote,  It is necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make
room for faith.
Kant s ideas concerning the question of morality will be discussed in the following
module.
17
Glossary
A priori - that which precedes all experience; the opposite a posteriori which relates
to that which is acquired through or after experience.
Anamnesis - according to Plato a process where we get to know the world around us
through recollection whereby the human soul recalls what was once known in the
ideal world prior to joining the body.
Deduction - a method of reasoning that proceeds from the inference of particular
instances by reference to a general law.
Empiricism - the theory that all knowledge derives from experience.
Epistemology - the philosophy of knowledge and the analysis of its methods as used
in science.
Falsification - the theory that claims a key factor that distinguishes science from pseu-
do-science is not the fact that it gives a well-supported hypothesis but that the hy-
pothesis can be rejected through experimentation. The scientific method allows for
the ready formulation of hypotheses which then undergo rigorous tests.
Induction - a method of reasoning that proceeds from the inference of a general law
from particular instances.
Rationalism - a theory based on reason, a belief that independent reason has a great
role in the acquisition and explanation of knowledge.
Syllogism - deductive reasoning in which there is one conclusion and two propositions,
for example,  All Humans are mortal; Socrates is a human; Socrates is mortal .Index
18