This philosophical study focuses on the possibility, inference, and theoretical position of scien... more This philosophical study focuses on the possibility, inference, and theoretical position of scientific knowledge with a critique of Popperian and Lakatosian ideas in regards to the scientific procedure, after a comprehensive investigation of the fundamental skeptical arguments of philosophy having the potential to undermine the establishment of scientific knowledge along with a threat to human knowledge altogether. Albeit the Agrippan Problem, at first, seems to threaten the possibility of not only scientific knowledge, but human knowledge entirely, it can be solved in concur with the examination of Cartesian skepticism through the constitution of an ontological ground upon which reality is constructed; this allows to set basic beliefs— human knowledge is possible. Subsequently, espousing realist and materialist scheme of reality, in parallel with basic beliefs posed by the scheme, renders the survey of scientific knowledge possible, by virtue of the reliance upon sensory experience. Nevertheless, the attack of inductive skepticism against the scientific methodology by repudiating inductive inferences in science casts a shadow over the possibility and inference of scientific knowledge. Yet, the existence of certain, verified, and irrefutable hypotheses evidently shows the possibility of and by the use induction to some extent, revealing the impossibility of falsifiability and applying deductive reasoning demonstrate the inference of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, within a theoretical framework wherein verified hypotheses —scientific knowledge— are positioned in the hardcore and updatable hypotheses are located in the protective belt, more systematic and comprehensive inferences and more accurate predictions can be made.
Dianoia: The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College, 2022
This philosophical study attempts to provide a cogent solution to the debate between rationalism ... more This philosophical study attempts to provide a cogent solution to the debate between rationalism and empiricism by defending the empiricist standpoint. Although Kantian conception of knowledge, in a way, proposes a reconciliation of these two schools of philosophy by rendering human mind a prominent element in the formation of knowledge along with sensory data acquired from the external world on the grounds of an elucidation within the a priori-a posteriori and analytic-synthetic dichotomies, this understanding, indeed, brings about groundless ideas and contradictory results after observing the emergence of the incompatibility between the suggestions of this theory and some occurrences in the world. Yet, analyticity and the knowledge of the self, seemingly, jeopardize our conclusions that are in favor of empiricism by indicating the self-evident existence of a priori knowledge in the way they are known. Nevertheless, after ascertaining that analyticity which fundamentally resides in the realm of logic, in fact, stems from syntheticity like other principles of logic, and that the knowledge of the self arises in the presence of experience, these aspects that cause difficulty in our investigation can be resolved: after all, we can argue that analyticity and a priority are not possible, and hence, the philosophy which represents the only way to have knowledge is empiricism in the existence of syntheticity and a posteriority. In parallel, it can be concluded that the knowledge of the external world possessed through common-sense appears as self-evident in accordance with the self-evident property of the self, and all laws of nature and all logical or mathematical laws, rules, and principles, in the absence of analyticity and a priority, can be known within the synthetic a posteriori framework through the scientific method in which the principle of unfalsifiability is used in congruence with an examined structure or scale of reality.
This philosophical study focuses on the possibility, inference, and theoretical position of scien... more This philosophical study focuses on the possibility, inference, and theoretical position of scientific knowledge with a critique of Popperian and Lakatosian ideas in regards to the scientific procedure, after a comprehensive investigation of the fundamental skeptical arguments of philosophy having the potential to undermine the establishment of scientific knowledge along with a threat to human knowledge altogether. Albeit the Agrippan Problem, at first, seems to threaten the possibility of not only scientific knowledge, but human knowledge entirely, it can be solved in concur with the examination of Cartesian skepticism through the constitution of an ontological ground upon which reality is constructed; this allows to set basic beliefs— human knowledge is possible. Subsequently, espousing realist and materialist scheme of reality, in parallel with basic beliefs posed by the scheme, renders the survey of scientific knowledge possible, by virtue of the reliance upon sensory experience. Nevertheless, the attack of inductive skepticism against the scientific methodology by repudiating inductive inferences in science casts a shadow over the possibility and inference of scientific knowledge. Yet, the existence of certain, verified, and irrefutable hypotheses evidently shows the possibility of and by the use induction to some extent, revealing the impossibility of falsifiability and applying deductive reasoning demonstrate the inference of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, within a theoretical framework wherein verified hypotheses —scientific knowledge— are positioned in the hardcore and updatable hypotheses are located in the protective belt, more systematic and comprehensive inferences and more accurate predictions can be made.
Dianoia: The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College, 2022
This philosophical study attempts to provide a cogent solution to the debate between rationalism ... more This philosophical study attempts to provide a cogent solution to the debate between rationalism and empiricism by defending the empiricist standpoint. Although Kantian conception of knowledge, in a way, proposes a reconciliation of these two schools of philosophy by rendering human mind a prominent element in the formation of knowledge along with sensory data acquired from the external world on the grounds of an elucidation within the a priori-a posteriori and analytic-synthetic dichotomies, this understanding, indeed, brings about groundless ideas and contradictory results after observing the emergence of the incompatibility between the suggestions of this theory and some occurrences in the world. Yet, analyticity and the knowledge of the self, seemingly, jeopardize our conclusions that are in favor of empiricism by indicating the self-evident existence of a priori knowledge in the way they are known. Nevertheless, after ascertaining that analyticity which fundamentally resides in the realm of logic, in fact, stems from syntheticity like other principles of logic, and that the knowledge of the self arises in the presence of experience, these aspects that cause difficulty in our investigation can be resolved: after all, we can argue that analyticity and a priority are not possible, and hence, the philosophy which represents the only way to have knowledge is empiricism in the existence of syntheticity and a posteriority. In parallel, it can be concluded that the knowledge of the external world possessed through common-sense appears as self-evident in accordance with the self-evident property of the self, and all laws of nature and all logical or mathematical laws, rules, and principles, in the absence of analyticity and a priority, can be known within the synthetic a posteriori framework through the scientific method in which the principle of unfalsifiability is used in congruence with an examined structure or scale of reality.
Uploads
Papers by Burak Arıcı