Analysis Of Descartes Meditations 1 And Blackburn's Think

1333 Words3 Pages

Initial answer: My initial answer is to the question of whether scientific knowledge should be based on observations is yes, observations are to be the basis of all scientific knowledge.
Philosophical context: I shall use Descartes’ Meditations 1 and Blackburn 's “Think” to discuss the question and my initial answer. In Meditations 1, Descartes sets out to destroy all preconceived notions from his childhood and establish a new foundation for the sciences -- a lasting foundation and explores methods of doubt to his own senses and how to deal with them properly.
Objection 1 to my initial answer: In Mediations 1, Descartes states that sometimes senses deceive us, so for all we know is that they always deceive us. This being the case he suggests …show more content…

As Blackburn says, dreams are not as coherent as everyday life, they are shakier. Similar to this, Descartes says that dreams are like a painting. Objects could look like they are real; made in the fashion of those in the waking world, so therefore they have to be real giving a basis for scientific observations. These corporeal objects give rise to concentrations of science such as astronomy, medicine, physics, that use the observations that could seem doubtful if we are to take the dreaming argument into consideration without allowing for the fact that dreams must be based on waking life, and others, such as mathematics and geometry, are still unquestionable no matter if you try to base the dream off of reality. As Descartes says, “where I am awake or asleep, two and three added together are five.” Taking all of this into consideration, whether or not one is dreaming some science still remains, meaning observations are still viable in scientific knowledge. So my answer that you may use observations with care and thorough study still holds true, because even in a dream state there is still rational mathematics and science based off of reality. Along with these facts, many dream states can be recognizable through their slight disillusionment from everyday life, leading to one to realize they are asleep (lucid dreaming), which is not …show more content…

He claims “cogito, ergo sum,” meaning I think, therefore I am. By saying this Descartes shows that in order to be thinking you must exist and therefore are not the puppet of an Evil Demon. As said by Keith Crome in his essay on the Evil Demon, “as Descartes observes, for all that there is an all-powerful and cunning deceiver dedicated to constantly deceiving he cannot bring it about that I am nothing, because it is indubitable that if I am deceived, I exist.” This just points to the fact that in order to be controlled and realize the fact you must actually have to be real. And to that point if there were to be an evil demon controlling all our actions, why would he allow for the doubt that we are in charge that gives rise to the theory itself? If it was truly in control, wouldn’t we go about life never questioning whether or not we are real? In relation to my initial answer, the evil demon does not change much, because either he is or he isn’t, and there is no certain way to know. All we have for certain is “I think, therefore I am” to prove that we are thinking beings and that is enough to contradict the Evil

Open Document