Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and Theory of science

As an introduction to the course Theory and Method in Media Technology I will here present a discussion on the works “Theatetus” by Plato and “The Critique of Pure Reason” by Kant. Both texts discuss the nature of sciences, understanding and production of knowledge. Although written centuries apart they share similarities in their fundamental standing points. My discussion is meant to explain these standing points and the complexity of collecting information/data in scientific studies.

In the work “Theatetus” Plato introduces us to the complex, philosophical discussion of the concept “knowledge”. We follow the conversation of Socrates, Theaetetus and Theodorus . As the discussion starts Theaetetus presents arts, crafts and sciences as knowledge but Socrates dismisses this and demands a more specific definition, stating that Theaetetus is not defining knowledge, but only putting it in different contexts – which is not the nature of a true definition. Speaking to geometricians it can be assumed that Socrates is seeking a way to generalize the logic of knowledge, in the same way as the logics of geometry are able to be generalized. In response to this Theaetetus presents his idea “Knowledge is perception” which is similar to Protagoras statement “Man is the measure of all things”. This theory is based on man’s senses and perception of an object’s appearance. Perception is however not to be confused with knowledge, as senses are only instruments in understanding and knowing what is presented to them. Each organ can only perceive one form of sensations (e.g. eyes can only see - not smell) and does not communicate with each other – therefore man perceive sensations through each organ in order for the mind (and soul as the philosophers romantically calls is sometimes) to collect the information and reflect about what has been perceived. To say man perceives information with the senses would, according to Socrates, mean that the perceptions would not reach the mind, and without the minds capability of reasoning, not be “transformed” into knowledge. Organs can only see the object as they are, but it is the mind that through reasoning can see additional attributes e.g. five being an odd number and two being an even, sameness and differences etc. Reasoning and reflections are gained through education and experience, and only then man is able to possess knowledge.

Moving on, if we are to compare this idea of “knowledge” to modern empiricism, it is appropriate to initially extinguish the most characteristic traits of empiricism. Empiricism believes in collecting data externally, in the surroundings of man – what cannot be visually (or with any other sense) proven, cannot be at all as it relies entirely on the six senses and their perceptions of objects. Empiricism do not believe in reflections of the soul – or as Socrates and his company would call it: the mind. In other words, empiricism and the results given by it’s studies would be dismissed as knowledge by the philosophers as it does not study the object further than just percept it’s appearance.

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant is discussing logic and the use of cognition in the study of sciences. In order to answer Kant’s dilemma with cognition and objects it is necessary to initially define the idea of “pure reason” and also distance it from reason only. For instance, as Kant mentions mathematics as purely theoretical cognitions of reason. By being so, it is possible to determine objects and results a priori, without any practical, immediate perceptions of it since the concept of numbers is determined and we can calculate a mathematical problem without having the actual amounts in front of us. Reason is therefore a structured, consistent logic in which man’s cognition can conform to the object. Kant’s critique is not necessarily directed towards reason as much as it is toward the misuse of reason, as it is not appropriate to practice the theory in sciences such as metaphysics that do not follow the same kind of structure and logic. As Kant mentions, cognition that conforms to the object will only reach the appearance of the object, as it only makes use of our senses externally (seeing a shape, hearing a sound etc.) Although this is efficient for some studies and sciences, it does not reach accountable results in sciences such as metaphysics.

Kant is therefore urging for the use of our cognition such as knowledge and reasoning through experiments and experience – these are the main elements for pure reason. By studying the object  and conforming it to our cognition through pure reason it is possible to get a better understanding of the object beyond what is presented through separate senses.