So you thought you knew everything there is to say about knowledge huh? Well chances are you're right but in case you aren't the Armchair Philosophy Podcast is here to help. Sort of. In the second half of this podcast, we tackle the Problem of Induction, as well as analyze what sort of knowledge can be trusted when it comes to different forms of knowledge intake. This is a great episode and we really appreciate your listening to it because it really did take a tremendous effort from everyone involved, and I think you can see the effort in what we show off here.
Click the player below to listen and don't forget to share with your friends and comment away!
Armchair Philosophy Podcast Ep.003 : Knowledge Part 2
Click the player below to listen and don't forget to share with your friends and comment away!
Armchair Philosophy Podcast Ep.003 : Knowledge Part 2
Subscribe to us on YouTube!
Hey guys, great show! This episode was particularly exciting for me because I was just discussing the problem of induction my philosophy class. So problem of induction is a problem of justification, and I don't think anyone disagrees as to its value regarding its usefulness--especially with scientific progress, of which induction has been central. I think the more important problem is the following: Induction works, but we run into many problems when we try to justify it (i.e the problem of making a generalization based a number of particular observed instances and claiming that it is knowledge). Therefore the dilemna is that induction seems pretty important as a method of knowing things about the world, but if we cannot justify induction--then is it really knowledge? I think that's why it still remains a problem, precisley because induction is so useful to us and yet we cant seem to justify it! So in response to Alessandro, I think that its usefulness is not enough to address the problem, or even show that it is a pseudo-problem. Do correct me if I misunderstood your argument! Also Im really glad you brought up knowledge as being defined by its usefulness. Is the usefulness of something really enough to count as knowledge? Because it got me thinking that there are a lot of things I like to study about the world that are not very useful, but nonetheless people tend to agree that such things are valuable knowledge. For example, I love studying about art, but art is not valuable because it is useful to us...otherwise its only value would be for decorative functions ( which would be a very shallow approach to art history). But anyway, that is a whole other story. Im just really glad you brought that point up because it always gets me to think about the criterion for knowledge and why the process of even asking these questions is all that valuable in the first place. I mean is it really useful, and how? Keep up the good work guys, and I look forward to your next episode.
ReplyDelete