Taking the example stated in the previous article, The Problem of Knowledge, it is clear that the philosopher has a right to question the validity of the spontaneous convictions of man and to investigate their claim to truth and certainty. Just as it is necessary to examine the foundations of the ordinary man's views on nature and physical phenomena, so philosophy needs to lay bare the ultimate grounds and reasons of man's knowledge and spontaneous convictions, in order to see whether why will survive the test of critical examination in the light of reason. If they survive, then they will be so much the firmer, since they will rest upon a scientific foundation; if they are disproved, they must be discarded as obsolete and irrational, the same as many naive and unscientific ideas of a bygone age regarding physical phenomena and their causes.
Man is a part of nature, and his knowledge is also a phenomenon of nature; as such it should be analyzed and examined in its origin, development, and truth-value, to see whether it really gives us a true interpretation of the world around us and can lead us to a well-reasoned certitude. For that is the purpose and function of philosophy: to investigate and demonstrated the ultimate grounds and reasons of things.
To the ordinary man nothing seems simpler than his knowledge; but to the philosopher the problem of knowledge is by no means so simple as it seems. The speculative mind of the philosopher discovers a multitude of knotty questions which puzzle him sorely and for which he would fain find a solution. He is not at all sure that the spontaneous convictions and beliers of the ordinary man deserve the credence accorded them. Science has disillusioned man regarding many of his century-old notions and convictions; and science itself has gone through many battles of conflicting opinions and hypotheses, reversing its conclusions in more than one instance. It is, therefore, no idle question to ask:
· What can we know?
· How far can the mind of man reach?
· Is valid knowledge really attainable?
· Is truth objective?
· Can we be absolutely certain about anything?
The inductive sciences, such as physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, biology, physiology, and anthropology, are all based on ideas, principles, and laws derived from the objects and operations of nature, and the knowledge acquired in and through these sciences is almost entirely the result of sense-experience and experiment. Even the deductive sciences like arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus are based on the ideas of quantity derived from space and number in material nature.
The science, therefore, depend upon the validity of sense-perceptions and intellectual concepts to guarantee the foundations upon which they rest. Science, after all, is a body of universally applicable truths, formulated by the intellect as the result and expression of innumerable inductions and deductions. The value of sciences will, therefore, necessarily remain in doubt until philosophy has given a satisfactory account of truth, certainty, and the ultimate validity of human knowledge in general. Thus it is imperative to vindicate the validity of knowledge both from the empirical and intellectual side, because science is the combination of both these phases.
No comments:
Post a Comment