Theme 1: Theory of science - Reflection.

I don't really have a lot of experience with philosophy since before, and I really don't think it's that interesting. I have a really hard time understanding discussions about whether or not a table exists or not and if we really can trust that 2+2=4. In my mind this isn't something that needs discussion, the table is there, and yes; 2+2=4. Therefore I think it's a real shame that the lecture and seminars were cancelled this week because from my own perspective it would have been good to get another persons view on this, someone who knows the subject far better than myself, and perhaps a few who likes to discuss these types of questions. With that being said, I read some of the other students blog-posts and I will try to sum up the things I found most interesting below. 

On pretty much every question, the students which blogs I've visited, have somewhat the same idea about what the answer to the different questions should be. The answers are pretty straightforward describing "sense-data is this...", "a proposition is that...", "by a definite description Russell means..". In my opinion, we have a very direct way to attack the questions by finding the "right" answer, explain it and then move on to the next question. But on the other hand the questions are also pretty direct and you could answer them easy without really stating your own thoughts and beliefs. This is, on the other hand, something I think would have come up on the seminar. I don't think I've learnt nearly as much as I would have if the seminar wouldn't have been cancelled.

Even though I stated that philosophy isn't something that I'm used to I kind of liked the discussion about what knowledge really is. From an early age we're taught to question things and the ability for critical thinking is something that I think is really important. How do we know that what we're learning is true? I liked Johan Bäckman's parallel to the fact that we "...once upon a time accept scientific proof that the earth was flat."  

Theme 1: Theory of science

1. What does Russell mean by "sense data" and why does he introduce this notion?

Sense-data is pretty much data about objects that we get from our senses. I could, for example, feel that a table is hard or see that the same table is red. “Red” and “hard” would here be my own sense-data about the table. Other individuals can have different opinions about the table and their sense-data may therefore differ from my own.

I think the term is presented in order for us to understand in what way philosophers think and reason. If the above statement about sense-data is true it would be possible for the table to only exist in my mind. Is it really there and if I leave the room, will it cease to exist? So even though you could doubt the existence of the table, you’re not supposed to doubt your sense-data of it. But since the sense-data differ depending on light, angle etc. how can we ever trust it to be true?

2. What is the meaning of the terms "proposition" and "statement of fact"? How does propositions and statement of facts differ from other kinds of verbal expressions?

As discussed in the previous question, sense-data is individual to each person. So in order to explain an object and its relation to other things, we need to propose how that object is perceived. Russell uses the word “proposition”, in order to explain objects and their relationship to other objects. A statement of fact is then a proposition that a group of people agree upon (but it doesn’t need to be true).

While a proposition depends on my own knowledge of things, and a statement of fact is something more, I think a regular verbal expression differ in the fact that it’s not based on knowledge in the same sense. A statement of fact would also usually be up for debate and need to be proven, something a regular verbal expression usually do not.

3. In chapter 5 ("Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description") Russell introduces the notion "definite description". What does this notion mean?

Russell defines a definite description of the type “so-and-so” and gives the example of “the man with the iron mask”. It is a more concrete description of, in this case, a man, and it makes the possibility of misunderstanding smaller (as long as you are acquainted to all the universals explaining said man).

By further explaining an object you increase the persons knowledge of the object you are describing. Since all our knowledge is either by acquaintance or by description (according to Russell) a more comprehensive explanation would lead to the person understanding the object better either through a) being acquainted to the object and therefor understanding the description or through b) a description of said object.

4. In chapter 13 ("Knowledge, Error and Probable Opinion") and in chapter 14 ("The Limits of Philosophical Knowledge") Russell attacks traditional problems in theory of knowledge (epistemology). What are the main points in Russell's presentation?

In chapter 13 we move forward from what truth- and falsehood is to how we can know something to be either true or false. Is it ever possible to be certain if something is true? And what is knowledge? Russell talks about “true belief” and the fact that it’s easy to mistake belief from truths and that a true belief never can constitute knowledge.

He gives an example of a man who thinks that that the Prime Minister’s last name starts with a ‘B’, which is correct (Bannerman), but if it’s based on the fact that the man thinks the Prime Minister’s name is Balfour, then the truth is based on a false premise. The problem here lies in the fact that the person thinks he has knowledge of the first letter of the Prime Minister’s name