The theory of error is basically treated in specific fields of application such as epistemology, philosophy of science and theories of formalized systems. Error in philosophy refers to something false that appears true in the field referred to by the judgment or assessment and then generates an inherent contradiction. Central importance in the more general philosophical thinking are theories related to 'fallibilism' by Peirce (who asserts that error is possible in every phase of the research), and the reflection of Popper for whom science is based not on truth, on episteme, but on falsifiable conjectures; this restates the same sense of the error, since the scientific progress is nothing more than overcoming of errors, by means of the critical examination of previous theories.
The common definition of error is to consider true what is false or false what is true, but philosophers have taught us that one "mistake" is not just a "blunder", but something that invests more radically our existence: the error appears as one of the figures of thought that invests more areas of human knowledge, able to meet basic concepts as "opinion", "blame", "pain" and "happiness". From Plato to Augustine, from Descartes to Heidegger, the greatest philosophers have challenged the idea of failure to pierce the veil of Maya that hides the truth. To none of them the ‘truth’ is totally revealed, nevertheless the prospects that have been offered are impressive. Error is not the ‘negative’ of reason, but a decisive impetus for the evolution of intellect and life.
In other passages of literature consulted, there is a meaning that indicates that error is: "departure’ from the truth, from right, from the norm, and the like." What are the causes of this separation? How it stands? It is distinguished from concepts apparently neighbors as "false", "wrong"? Even certainty and opinion are distinguished from truth. But they can be true. Certainty is a presumption of truth that is based on the subject rather than the object; on the contrary, opinion is an approximation to the truth that is based on the object rather than the subject. Both can not be correct but give certainty an higher probability of truth than to an opinion. In moral terms, "error" is synonymous with "guilt". Then, it implies an intentional and volitional act together with the cognitive one.
Referring now to the scientific field and starting from the Aristotelian conception for which the error is due to a unique nature, as a contradiction of the first logical-metaphysical principle of identity. Every mistake of a scientific or practical nature is due to that source. Thus, every error placing on such a design of originality, could not be tolerated by the philosopher, who saw in it one of the worst opponents to the enhancement of knowledge. The divorce of science from metaphysics, of practice from theory, had to change that conclusion? It seems so.
As for the philosopher error is the intellectual evil to be avoided, to feel even impossible given the principles and the correct method of reasoning from the principles, or deny it the dignity of existence as mere deprivation of truth, therefore of reality, conceptual and much more physical; for the scientist, who considers the principles as hypotheses, who proceeds by experiences, experiments and attempts, error becomes the usual interlocutor of the cognitive process, it takes, as probability, dignity mate of the truth; it is an inevitable step in the ascent to the discovery, so that many have considered the scientific progress in the name of falsification, or rather science progresses not when a new theory has emerged, but when a theory is refuted.
Starting from the assumption of probability, the causes of error can be traced to: "I, lack of evidence; II, lack of capacity to use them; III, lack of will to see them; IV, the wrong measures of probability.
Kant, in Logic, takes back the error to action, not felt, of sensitivity on the intellect; improperly, the appearance of truth (the probable), is mistaken for the truth itself. The problem is therefore not the 'being' of the error (which resides only in the judgment), but knowing it is produced in the knowing subject, as a spontaneous tendency "we are dealing with a natural and unavoidable illusion, which is based on principles, subjective, and exchange them for objective ".
After Kant, in the romantic and idealistic philosophies the error is not regarded as 'negative' because the very negation is regarded as a phase of a dialectical process and therefore of the development of the ‘real’.
Locke founded the theory of judgment not on the real but on the probable; in chp. 20 of Book IV we find expressed the concept that " error is not a fault of our knowledge, but a deception of our judgment that gives its assent to what is not true."
Starting from the assumption of probability, the causes of error can be traced to: "I, lack of evidence; II, lack of capacity to use it; III, lack of will to see it; IV, the wrong measures of probability. " In Spinoza, however, by reducing the distinction between will and reason, and losing sense the opposition between freedom (of the will) and necessity (of reason), the error is attributed to "lack of knowledge", that is ignorance; its nature is accidental, tied to opinion, because knowledge is "knowledge of the essence."
Kant, in Logic, brings back error to action, not felt, of sensitivity on the intellect; improperly, the appearance of truth (the probable), is mistaken for the truth itself. The problem is therefore not the 'being' of the error (which resides only in the judgment), but knowing why it is produced in the knower, as a spontaneous tendency: "we are dealing with a natural and unavoidable illusion, which is based on principles, subjective, and exchange them for objective ".
In other words, it takes the form of error, any judgment or assessment that contravenes the criterion accepted as valid in which judgment refers, or to the limits of applicability of the criterion itself. Unlike lies and sophistry, error is an unconscious failure of the mind in reaching the truth, and can be realized in the logical-epistemological field s well as in the morality sphere. In the classical theories and up to Kant, the error is traced or to a defect in the application of logical rules or to the use of improper faculty or cognitive functions, such as will or sensitivity. Moreover, these options solve the empirical problem of the genesis of error that would remain open in the idealistic perspective, in which error is present in the consciousness, that already feels it as such.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science