Epistemology (merged with figo and thamrong)

figo

tq seribulan...

seribulan

nasi tambah...

apa itu ilmu...hakikatnya...asalnya...falsafahnya...
mengetahui apa yg diketahui sebenarnya....guna akal
yang sejahtera dan pencerapan pancaindera...alat2 membantu
pencerapan....melalui pemerhatian alam juga...tahu apa itu ilmu/
berita yg blh dipercayai....

thamrong

Epistemologi : Falsapah Pengetahuan.

Kemajuan peradaban manusia moden tidak dinapikan bersandarkan ilmu epistemologi. Sering digunnakan tetepi kurang yang mengatahui apakah maksudnya.
Apa itu epistemologi?
Epistemologi adalah kajian asas-asas dan sifat-sifat pengetahuan itu sendiri. Kajian epistemologi menjurus(focus)kapada kaedah-kaedah untuk memperolehi pengetahuan. Ilmu epistemologi dewasa ini berteraskan kapadan perdebatan antara dua doktrin rationalism dan empiricism, atau pengetahuan itu ujud bersandarkan cara priori atau posteriori.

Empiricism: pengetahuan didapati melalui pengalaman sendiri atau pehak kedua.
Rationalism: pengetahuan boleh didapati melalui dalil-dalil fikiran atau akal.

Pertanyaan-peretanyaan  asal dalam ilm epistemologi ialah:

Apakah yang boleh kita tahu?
Bagimana pengetahuan itu boleh ditahu?
Mengapa sesuatu itu bolah ditahu dan yang lain itu tidak?
Macam mana pengetahuan itu boleh diraih?
Adakah ilmu pengatahuan itu possible?
Adakah pengetahuan itu pasti?

Ramai para ilmuan atau tokoh falsapah telah menyumbang kapada subjek ini termasuk Ren

thamrong

Mengapa epistemologi itu penting?

Epistemology itu penting kerana ia adalah fundamental pada cara kita berfikir termasuk; bagaimana hendak mendapat pengatahuan; bagaimana mengunnakan deria-deria (five senses) untuk mencapai pengetahuan; bagaimana untuk membina konsep dalam otak.

Epistemologi tidak statik tetapi ianya sesautu yang dinamik.Contohnya tata pemikiran ayah kita dipengaruhi dengan logik Cartesian ( algebra dan geometrik). Dewasa ini ditokok dengan logik Boolean Algebra, graf theory, higher order differential equation dan z-transformation dll. Dari segi kemanusiaan ia merangkumi persepsi tentang moral, etika dan pengadilan.

Epistemologi masuk kelandasan baru apabila timbulnya era 'Renaissance' yang menutup tirai zaman kegelapan di Europah. Dominasi dan supremasi gereja atas ilmu pengatahuan hanchur. Timbul pula  aliran pemikiran yang bergantian dan tidak bercanggah iaitu rationalism dan empiricism......

Rationalism dan empiricism adalah dua cara dan kaedah epistemologi yang maseh unggul hingga hari ini. Timbulnya kaedah in kerana perkembangan sain di Europah.Apa bezanya?:hmm::hmm::stp::stp:

1. Empiricism : kita boleh tahu sesuatu apabila kita mengalaminya(ada experience}- pengetahuan posterriori yang kita dapati kerana bersandarkan kapada pengalaman yang sudah berlaku;contohnya air menjadi beku kalau disejukkan dan menjadi wap  kalau direbus;

2. Rationalism: pengetahuan boleh didapati melalui hujah atau dalil-dalil akal dan tidak bersandar kapada pengalaman- pengetahuan priori kerana ia bermaksud sebelum. Contoh garisan lurus adalah jarak yang terdekat di antara dua titik atau semua bentuk tiga segi mempunyai jumlah sudut 180 darjah.



[ Last edited by thamrong at 23-1-2006 11:46 PM ]

thamrong

Plato dan Aristotle adalah pengasas epistemologi.

Apakah berbezaan diantara kedua-keduanya?
Untuk menjawab soalan ini elok dikita lihat lukisan berikut:



Di sini Pluto menunjuk kelangit yang bermaksud pengatahuan yang absolute adalah merupai 'form' atau 'idea' sahaja. Tidak munkin dan mustahil bagi kita dapat gambarkan tetapi boleh difahami sabagai konsep sahaja. Maka Plato adalah seorang Rationalist.

Aristotle adalah seorang saintist dan pengetahuan boleh dicapai dengan cara saintifik dan ujian fisikal i.e. fisik dan bioloji dll. Maka Aristotle adalah seorang Empiricist

thamrong

[size=-2][size=-2][size=-2][size=-2]Epistemologi- Emmanual Kant mengabungkan fahaman Empiricism dan Rationalism.
The Roman Catholic Church began losing its grip on Europe during the Age of Enlightenment (耮e d'閏laircissement). Instead of relying on divine revelation or papal authority about what is real and what is true, how to get to knowledge, people were beginning to break away, to come up with their independent theories.

Well, at this time, two opposing approaches emerged. One faction of philosophers thought the best way to get to real reality is to perceive it. They were the empiricists. The other faction thought the best way to get to real reality is to understand it with reason and logic. They were the rationalists.

The empiricists pointed to all kinds of problems with rationalism. Hume said it was always inconclusive. Just because something happens a thousand times in a row, it doesn't mean it's going to happen the next time. So, that kind of knowledge is only an illusion to be maintained by the ignorant. However, the rationalists pointed to all kinds of problems with empiricism. Descartes pointed out that he often sees hallucinations and dreams he is awake. He can't be sure that what he perceives is real. He could be fooled. So, he searched his mind for an argument which didn't rely on perception and came up with "I think, therefore I am." This argument is conclusive because he has to exist in order to contemplate about his existence.

Still, the empiricists maintained that this rationalism is all just mental, like imagination. It isn't real.

Back and forth they argued until Kant came along and said. "Wait a minute, boys. Perhaps we can't really get to real reality, but we do perceive and reason. Perhaps what we perceive is like the raw data which must be processed through our reason to become a finished product, our best representation of real reality, truth, objective knowledge." This is a paraphrase of what he actually said, but the point is he combined both empiricism and rationalism and saved philosophy and science from being ripped apart by this schism between the empiricists and rationalists.

Now, philosophy progressed and lots of other things happened, but we still shy away from saying we can know things absolutely. We can, however, have a high degree of certainty that laws of physics will hold. We can have high degrees of certainty that if our heads get chopped off, we will die. So, we are rather safe in making predictions based on those high degrees of certainty. We don't have to wait until we know everything absolutely in order to live on the best information we have.

thamrong

EPISTEMOLOGY means different thing to different people. There is no simple answer and can be mind-boggling, however, I found a simple definition which I would like to share with you all.

EPISTEMOLOGY is the branch of philosophy that deals with this subject of knowledge. Epistemologists generally recognize at least four different sources of knowledge:

INTUITIVE KNOWLEDGE takes forms such as belief, faith, intuition, etc. It is based on feelings rather than hard, cold "facts."

AUTHORITATIVE KNOWLEDGE is based on information received from people, books, a supreme being, etc. Its strength depends on the strength of these sources.

LOGICAL KNOWLEDGE is arrived at by reasoning from "point A" (which is generally accepted) to "point B" (the new knowledge).

EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE is based on demonstrable, objective facts (which are determined through observation and/or experimentation).

thamrong

I am bringing this topic which has been left in the closet far too long. Any takers

thamrong

MOD tolong gabungkan topik Epistemologi dengan topik ni. Thanks

manakautau

Knowledge........dari perkara yg tak tahu......jadi tahu..........

thamrong

Dalam perbahasan topik ini elok sekali kalau kita anggap maksud  Ilmu (knowledge) sama dengan Epistemoloji. I personally prefer to use the term Epistemology in this discussion. Back to basic;
Epistemology bermaksud Ilmu Pengatahuan. Berasal gabungan dua perkataan Greek, iaitu episteme maksud ilmu dan logo yang ber maksud sains atau kajian. Perinitis kajian ini ialah bermula dari zaman Greek kuno.Ia mengutarakan perbincangan tentang persoalan apakah itu ilmu, apakakah sifat-sifat ilmu itu yang boleh diangap benar dan boleh diterima (bukan dongengn atau mimpi buta) dan bagaimana menjustifikasikan sasuatu ilmu yang diperolehi. Kajian ini juga merangkumi usha saperti mentafsirkan bentuk ilmu, syarat-syarat memperolehi ilmu ( perlu bersandarkan logik), batasan ilmu dan juga batasan justifikasi yang dibuat.
Soalan yang sering ditanya ialah saperti: Apakah itu ilmu? Apakah kriteria atau sifat ilmu? Bagaimana seseorang itu mengetahui sesuatu? blah blah...maaf otak sudah jem

[ Last edited by  thamrong at 29-7-2007 11:47 PM ]

Knowledge is the consequence of time, and multitude of days are fittest to teach wisdom.

zenita

Knowlege is a combination of theories, skills and observation. When people ask you about politics, more of the info you gain from reading and observation. Knowledge is more of theories i would say but you cant become expert with theory alone. especially IT (sorry cant help it im in IT line ) its a mix of both i would say. there are a few friends of mine who know IT better than me, a BSc Hons degree holder. it's not a shame, really.. cos the thing we learnt in college thought us more than what theory & technical skills about. throughout my career, i learn that having a positive attitude is the key to success.. no matter how skillful you're, if you're not good with people, you are not going anywhere.

skills can develop over time. theories can be gained thru reading but positive attitude isnt something that everyone can do.

There抯 only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that抯 your own self.

thamrong

It normally refers in philosophy as epistemology, the study of knowledge and belief ( I believe I am in Malibu beach drinking soda with a blond). Here we try to understand what knowledge and belief are and the nature of truth( again truth keeps croping up...). The challange is to identify the differences between justified and unjustified true belief ( Plato keeps saying that the bowling scoreboard  is an abberation ...not the real score) or reason and unreasonable belief.Plato merely said ' all true knowledge must be justified. He left the issue open without any footnote.
However, it was Descartes after 1200 years later establish the methodology and the tools. He is the father of mordern philosophy who freed philosophy from the schackle of religious philosophy( theosophy). Famouse for his tag line 'cogito ergo sum: I think therefore I am'. He was the proponent of the rationalist school that true knowledge only eminate from priori. However, his theory was challanged by the British empiricisms (John Locke, Berkeley and Hume) who assert that true knowledge can only be acquired through experiments.

Agul

Done.

thamrong

Originally posted by Agul at 2-8-2007 11:49 PM
Done.

Das ist sehr gut mein Moderator! Vielen Dank.( That is very good mod! Many thanks)

Agul

Achtung!


Gross and Wunderbar...

hamizao

I had said:

Someone had told me that to understand this, revelations would have to be processed both by the mind AND the "hati". In this context I am using the same word "hati" as a representative of the seat of the 6th sense. At this point in my search, I reckon that the understanding/justification  would manifest in something that you would "feel"  e.g. the feeling of inner peace, enlightenment. ..........Could that be faith??  :hmm:

Further, I am also told that  it is processed first by the "hati" and then the mind/brain. I am still wondering  how the "hati'/liver does this. Any takers?

thamrong

Originally posted by hamizao at 3-8-2007 12:17 AM
I had said:


Further, I am also told that  it is processed first by the "hati" and then the mind/brain. I am still wondering  how the "hati'/liver does this. Any takers?

Hamizao darling! Apa lah u ni! Hati tu bukannya chicken liver. Maksudnya 'rasa' atau intuition.

hamizao

Originally posted by thamrong at 3-8-2007 12:24 AM

Hamizao darling! Apa lah u ni! Hati tu bukannya chicken liver. Maksudnya 'rasa' atau intuition.

Just that my ustad previously kept on saying like that ..............why didn't he use 'intuisi ' ke...  So in the end I tuang je kelas dia.

[ Last edited by  hamizao at 4-8-2007 04:14 PM ]