A Very Short Philosophy

Httpsdorshoncomwp Contentuploads202012philosophy A Very Short

Part 1: (3 pages answer) i) Describe the cosmological argument and how it differs from the ontological and teleological arguments for God's existence. Explain its relation to logical positivism, which influenced analytic philosophy of religion. ii) Define Cartesian scepticism and briefly explain René Descartes’ sceptical doubt in his Discourse on the Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. iii) Summarize the conclusion of John Searle’s ‘Chinese Room’ thought experiment and why this challenges ‘functionalism’ in cognitive science. iv) Briefly explain John Locke’s argument for personal identity in Of Identity and Diversity, chapter 27 of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. v) Outline J.S. Mill’s utilitarian ethics focusing on hedonism, the Greatest Happiness Principle, and the comparison between higher and lower pleasures, such as Socrates vs. pigs.

Part 2: (2 pages answer) Critically compare Berkeley’s argument about occasional causes with Malebranche’s version of occasionalism. Then, based on the scenario regarding hypothesis testing, explain the importance of statistical significance, p-values, and errors such as Type I and Type II errors, with a focus on interpreting social science data—particularly comparing differences between Caucasians and Non-Caucasians—and discuss implications for social change.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Philosophy and scientific methodology intersect at various critical junctures, especially when examining arguments for divine existence, questions of epistemic skepticism, models of cognitive function, personal identity, and ethical implications of utilitarian principles. This paper explores key philosophical arguments, scientific hypotheses, and their applications to social science research, providing a comprehensive understanding for critical reflection.

Part 1: Philosophical Arguments and Ideas

The cosmological argument posits that the existence of the universe necessitates a first cause, typically identified as God. Unlike the ontological argument, which argues from the concept of a greatest being, or the teleological argument, which infers divine design from order in nature, the cosmological argument is grounded in causality and contingency. It asserts that everything that exists has a cause, but since an infinite regress of causes is illogical, a necessary first cause—namely God—must exist (Craig, 1994). Logical positivism, emerging in the early 20th century and emphasizing empirical verification, challenged religious arguments, including the cosmological, by deeming many metaphysical claims meaningless if they are not empirically verifiable (Ayer, 1959). This influenced analytic philosophy’s skepticism towards traditional metaphysical arguments but also prompted reformulations and critical engagement with religious language.

Cartesian scepticism refers to René Descartes' methodological doubt, where he questions the certainty of sensory knowledge as a way to attain indubitable knowledge. In Discourse on the Method and Meditations, Descartes entertains doubt about the existence of the external world, the reliability of his senses, and even the existence of his body. Ultimately, he concludes that the act of doubting and thinking proves his existence—“cogito, ergo sum”—as an undeniable truth. However, in the Meditations, Descartes considers whether an evil demon could deceive him about everything; yet, he finds that the very act of doubt confirms his existence as a thinking thing (Descartes, 1641/1999). This sceptical stance underpins his entire epistemological project, emphasizing reason as the path to certain knowledge.

John Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment argues that a system following syntactic rules (like a computer program) does not genuinely understand language or possess mental states; it merely simulates understanding. The conclusion is that functionalism—claiming that mental states depend solely on causal functions—fails to account for consciousness. Searle argues that while the computer might appear to understand Chinese, it lacks genuine comprehension, undermining the functionalist view that mental states are determined solely by causal roles (Searle, 1980). This challenges the notion that programming alone suffices for consciousness, implying that intrinsic features like understanding are absent in purely functional systems.

Locke’s theory of personal identity centers on consciousness rather than substance. He argues that identity over time depends on the continuity of conscious experience, which allows a person to persist despite changes in physical or psychological features. As articulated in Of Identity and Diversity, Locke suggests that it is the sameness of consciousness—such as memory—that constitutes the self (Locke, 1689/1975). This account emphasizes psychological connectedness as the foundation of personal identity, rejecting the idea that the persistence of a particular substance, such as a “finite spirit,” is necessary for personal survival.

Mill’s utilitarianism upholds hedonism—the pursuit of pleasure—as the ultimate moral goal. The Greatest Happiness Principle states that actions are right if they promote happiness and wrong if they produce the opposite. Mill also distinguishes higher pleasures (intellectual, moral) from lower pleasures (bodily, sensual), asserting that it is better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than an satisfied pig (Mill, 1863). This hierarchy underscores that qualitative differences in pleasures matter; intellectual and moral satisfactions have greater moral value than mere sensual pleasures, aligning with the utilitarian goal of maximizing not just pleasure, but higher-quality pleasures that confer greater fulfillment and human excellence.

Part 2: Critical Evaluation of Philosophical Positions and Statistical Methodology

Berkeley’s theory of occasional causes posits that God sustains the regularities of nature, intervening temporarily as “occasional causes” to maintain the order we observe. He sees this as compatible with a rational understanding of divine intervention, emphasizing continuous divine activity as necessary for the persistence of natural laws (Berkeley, 1710). In contrast, Malebranche’s occasionalism radically attributes causal efficacy solely to God, denying any genuine causal interaction between created substances. He claims that when we observe one thing causing another, it is simply God’s intervention—the created objects are causally inert (Malebranche, 1680). While Berkeley affirms a cooperative divine role in maintaining observable regularities, Malebranche’s explanation emphasizes divine intervention as the only true causal power, leaving the causal agency of creatures as illusory.

The hypothesis testing scenario involving social inequality research underscores critical statistical concepts. The p-value measures the probability of observing data as extreme as the sample data under the null hypothesis; a small p-value indicates evidence against the null, suggesting a significant difference in socioeconomic status between groups (Frankfort-Nachmias et al., 2020). However, misinterpretations of p-values are common; they do not quantify the probability that the null hypothesis is true, nor do they measure the size or importance of an effect (American Statistical Association, 2016). Type I errors occur when a true null hypothesis is incorrectly rejected (false positive), while Type II errors happen when a false null is incorrectly accepted (false negative). Recognizing these errors is vital for accurate interpretation.

In social science research examining racial differences, statistical significance signifies that observed disparities are unlikely due to chance, but does not imply practical importance. Large sample sizes can detect trivial differences as statistically significant, which may not justify policy changes. Conversely, small samples may overlook meaningful effects. Therefore, researchers must consider effect sizes and confidence intervals, assessing whether differences are practically relevant. The implications for social change depend on not just statistical significance but on the real-world impact of findings, such as informing policies to reduce inequality.

Conclusion

The interplay between philosophical reasoning, scientific hypothesis testing, and social implications highlights the importance of critical engagement with arguments and data. Understanding divergent views on causality, personal identity, and morality allows for nuanced perspectives in both philosophy and empirical research. Recognizing the limits of statistical tools like p-values underscores the responsibility of researchers to interpret data meaningfully, avoiding overreliance on statistical significance alone. Ultimately, integrating philosophical insights with rigorous scientific methodology fosters more responsible and impactful scholarship aimed at advancing knowledge and social betterment.

References

• Ayer, A. J. (1959). Language, truth and logic. Dover Publications.
• Berkeley, G. (1710). A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge. (J. D. Campbell, Ed.). Oxford University Press, 1710/1999.
• Craig, W. L. (1994). The Kalam cosmological argument. Macmillan.
• Descartes, R. (1999). Meditations on first philosophy (J. Cottingham, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1641)
• Locke, J. (1975). An essay concerning human understanding (P. H. Nidditch, Ed.). Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1689)
• Malebranche, N. (1680). The search after truth. M. Smith (Trans.), Open Court Publishing.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417-457.
• American Statistical Association. (2016). Statement on statistical significance and p-values. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–131.
• Frankfort-Nachmias, C., Leon-Guerrero, A., & Davis, G. (2020). Social statistics for a diverse society (9th ed.). Sage Publications.