One of the big questions emerging from the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is what exactly it means to know something at all. While advanced AI models can present the appearance of knowledge and understanding, scratching below the conversational surface shows that these models severely lack the capacity for what philosophers have considered knowledge.
The study of how we can know things at all is called epistemology, and the fundamental way a person makes sense of the world is through the mind. Even when we learn about things outside of our mind, the operations where learning happens take place in our mind.
The mind uses logic for these operations to work. Technically, logic is non-scientific. This is not because logic goes against science, but because logic precedes science. Science, along with every other discipline, needs logic in order to work. Aristotle recognized three fundamental rules in order for this operation to occur.
Aristotle’s Principles of Logic
The first principle Aristotle recognizes is the law of identity: Something is what it is (x = x). This may appear too obvious, but that is the point. It is a first principle because it needs to undergird everything built upon it. Without this first law, knowing what anything is is impossible.
This is an especially important principle because of how often one encounters principio principii, the “arguing in a circle” fallacy. This logical fallacy essentially restates the original premise of an argument as the conclusion in different words. For example, I cannot prove to you that a square is a four-sided equilateral closed polygon. That is already its definition.
The second principle Aristotle gives is the law of noncontradiction: Something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same manner. This principle is sometimes misunderstood as not allowing for “middle ground” or “gray area” between absolutes – such as hot and cold or white and black. Actually, the principle of non-contradiction is not saying hot and cold can both be present in warm, it is more like saying the water is both 90 degrees and “not 90 degrees” at the same time. This contradiction makes the concept of 90 degrees meaningless.
Third, Aristotle gives the principle of excluded middle: For any given proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true. This is Aristotle’s way of saying “let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’” (Matthew 5:37).
Now, the tricky part about this law is the phrasing of the proposition. Most people are uncomfortable with a simple yes or no. If a situation is complicated, then distinctions are necessary. Necessary distinctions draw more truth out of a question, not evading a yes or no. Distinctions do not necessarily break Aristotle’s law of excluded middle. They are surgical incisions with the double-edged sword that cuts “between soul and spirit” (Hebrews 4:12).
One necessary distinction has to do with the degree something exists. This is the distinction between actual and potential. Like the law of non-contradiction, something cannot be and not be at the same time, yet warm water seems to be both hot and cold. The distinction is the actuality and potentiality in the water. It is actually 90 degrees, it is potentially 89 or fewer degrees as well as 91 or more degrees. It is both hot and cold, but these words only describe our perception, how something feels to us, anyway. “Warm” does not break Aristotle’s laws, the distinctions only help show them more clearly.
What does it mean to KNOW?
While it is popular to think about, talk about, and argue about what one believes, it is more difficult to examine why one believes it. More difficult is to ask how one knows that those reasons are true. Even more difficult is to ask how one determines the truth of anything at all.
That previous series of questions is not meant to foster doubt or only to create darkness. To ask how one comes to know if something is true should bring about more clarity and even greater certainty about some things.
Without realizing it, many people have issues about the validity of a certain subject, especially if that subject deals with non-material realities like God, angels, or the soul. This is because one might hold assumptions about what one can know and how one knows anything. This is epistemology, the study of how we can know, or even if we can know, what we claim to know.
Even though it is the mind that does the knowing, it uses information that exists outside of the mind in order to move toward thoughts, propositions and conclusions. How one acquires this data is part of the theories of epistemology.
Mike Schramm is a husband and father of seven children. He teaches theology and philosophy at Aquinas High School and Viterbo University. You can find his writing at Busted Halo, Mere Orthodoxy, and the Voyage Comics Blog. He is also the managing editor of the Voyage Compass, an imprint of Voyage Comics and Publishing.
This culture article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal, a project of 1819 News. To comment on this article, please email [email protected].
