Evolutiivinen epistemologia



William Whewell ja induktioiden konsilienssi
Ernst Mach ja Moritz Schlick: naturalismi
Miksi ihminen tavoittelee tietoa? Schlickin tieto-opillinen
hedonismi: ihminen tavoittelee mielihyvää, tieto tuottaa
mielihyvää, ja mielihyvää tunnetaan asioista jotka ovat
lajille hyödyllisiä!
– "The explanation of this riddle will indicate the place occupied by
cognition in relation to other human activities...the solution of the
problem must of necessity lie in the province of biology". Knowledge
in general contributes towards "the preservation of the individual and
the species". The drive for knowledge undoubtedly falls under this
general principle: "In its origin, thinking is only a tool for the selfmaintenance of the individual and the species, like eating and drinkin,
fighting and courting."
Sir Karl

Popper: "our knowledge consists, at every
moment, of those hypotheses which have shown
their (comparative) fitness by surviving so far in
their struggle for existence" (Popper, 1972: 261).
Miksi evoluutio?

naturalistinen selitys tiedolle
– Harkinnan ja päättelyn mekanismit edistävät paremmin
sopetumista ympäristöön kuin tyypillisiin tapauksiin
kohdentuva automaattinen assosiaatio: "Natural adaptation
has brought it about that a creature receives pleasure from
everything that is useful to his kind, or required, that is, for his
self-preservation and propagation” (Schlick)

opit, ideologiat, teoriat ja paradigmat: yksilöitä
– yksilöillä ei olemusta, vain genealogia

henkisten ominaisuuksien ja kykyjen evoluutio
– "I postulate that we are innately disposed to value those kinds
of beliefs and systems of beliefs which are biologically useful
to us:" (Brian Ellis, 1988, 147)
S tietää että p joss p on tosi,
hyvin perusteltu uskomus?


totena pitäminen on toiminnan edellytys epävarmuus halvaannuttaa - pragmatistit
hyvä perustelu?
– kausaalinen havaintoteoria, kausaalinen päätösteoria
– tieteen menetelmä ja uskomusten oikeuttaminen

tosi?
– kausaalinen havaintoteoria ja reliabilismi
– Putnam ja Boyd: de facto totuus (likimain) selittää
instrumentaalisen menestyksen
– totuuden korrespondenssiteoria ja verifikaatioteoria
Evolutionaarisen
epistemologian ongelmia


valinnan kohde: yksittäiset uskomukset tai
uskomusjärjestelmät
aikaskaala: uskomukset tulevat ja menevät,
perimä muuttuu hitaasti
– maa on pannukakku -geeni?
– antikommunismin kulturgeeni?
– oliko Einstein mutantti?


selittämisen ongelma: olemassaolo-,
kompetenssi- ja vastuuväitteet
paras selitys ja vaihtoehdot: nature vs. nurture
– oppiminen ja opettaminen
Darwinilainen tiede


ihminen ei voi paeta biologiaansa
valinnan kohde
– ei yksittäiset uskomukset tai uskomusjärjestelmät vaan:
– kognitiivinen kyky ja rationaalisuusperiaatteet
– tiedolliset arvot (Ruse): luolamies ja fyysikko ovat samassa
episteemisessä veneessä, koska heillä on yhteiset
epigeneettiset säännöt


ulottuu myös tieteeseen: luonnonvalinnan
kirjaimellinen strategia
järjen viekkauden moderni muoto
Lycan 1985: Epistemic
Value (Synthese 64)






"a very plausible reduction of epistemic value to
value of a naturalistically more tractable sort". L.
gives five rules of theory preference.
1. Other things being equal prefer T1 to T2 if T1
is simpler than T2,
2. If T1 explains more than T2
3. If T1 is more testable than T2,
4. If T1 leaves fewer messy unanswered
questions behind (especially if T1 itself raises
messy unanswered questions) (note: must be
T2 raises messy ....)
5. If T1 squares better with what you already
have reason to believe than T2.
Why is simplicity rather
than byzantine complexity.

Lycan this why has the force of asking "Why it is
good or utile or desirable for us to use those
canons". The answer comes from biological
evolution. Suppose that mother nature designed
our belief-forming apparatus. "When Mother
Nature started in on higher brain functions, She
had left herself only a comparatively small space
within our skulls and limited materials with which
to fill it... These machanisms would have to
achieve great efficiency at some cost in reliability
in detail. This is why it is plausible to
hypothesise that
Mother Nature

1. Mother Nature would have built us to prefer
simpler hypotheses to complex ones.
– because simple h's are more efficient to work with, and 2)
because complexities incur greater risk of error. 3) Simplicity
itself is a form of efficiency: "The point of obtaining simple
and unified hypotheses in science is to achieve plentitude of
result (in the way of data explained and results predicted) with
parsimony of means." L: not based on any prior
metaphysical belief that nature is simple: "Simplicity in
particular is a desired feature of the transaction for the reason
I have mentioned, not itself a belief or assumption of any sort.
(p. 148).

2. Mother nature would have built us to prefer
hypotheses of greater explanatory power to
narrower ones..
More of Mother Nature


3. Mother Nature would not have wanted to waste storage
space because beliefs are primary guides to action
4. Mother Nature would build us to prefer neater systems
of beliefs to messy ones full of pathways that lead
nowhere.
–


because belief systems are maps or charts.
5.
Mother nature would not want us to change our minds
capriciously and for no reason.
"Our five hypotheses about the choices that would be made
by a skilful and benevolent mother nature should sound
familiar. In effect, they predict that when we are in top
epistemic form we will operate according to the canons of
theory preference gestured at in section 1. Whatever more
detailed rules we are in fact wired to use, I should think that
some such evolutionary reason will be available that will
answere the question why we are wired in that way."
(Lycan 1985, p. 149)