%!TEX program = xelatex
% miko:title: Philosophy
% miko:summary: A concise guide to philosophy.
% miko:category: philosophy
% miko:type: complete
% miko:origin: ai
% miko:tags: philosophy
% miko:difficulty: undergrad
% miko:keywords: philosophy

\documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,mathtools,bm}
\usepackage[margin=25mm]{geometry}
\usepackage{hyperref}

\title{Complete Philosophy}
\author{Miko-pedia AI}
\date{\today}

\begin{document}
\maketitle
\tableofcontents

\textbf{Overview.} This complete note offers a systematic undergraduate review of philosophy, covering method, logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, philosophy of science, and applied topics including technology and AI ethics. Each section reconstructs central questions, defines technical terms, presents the main positions and their arguments, and identifies canonical thought experiments or texts. The structure follows the traditional curriculum while connecting historical debates to contemporary discussions. Treat this note as a comprehensive map: read it in full for breadth, or isolate sections for targeted exam preparation.

\section{The Methods of Philosophy: Questions, Concepts, and Arguments}
\subsection{Core ideas}

Philosophy begins with perplexity. Unlike empirical sciences that rely on observation and experiment to gather \textbf{a posteriori} knowledge (justified by experience), philosophy heavily relies on \textbf{a priori} reasoning (justified independently of experience) to examine foundational questions about knowledge, reality, value, and reasoning. Historically, the \textbf{Socratic method} (Socrates, 469--399 BCE) used systematic questioning (elenchus) to expose contradictions in beliefs and to refine definitions. Plato (428--347 BCE) deployed dialectic---a structured exchange of arguments and counterarguments---to approach truth. Aristotle (384--322 BCE) formalized logic as the \textit{organon} (tool) of rational inquiry.

Central to philosophical method is the \textbf{analysis of concepts}: breaking complex ideas into simpler constituents to identify necessary and sufficient conditions. A condition $C$ is \textbf{necessary} for a state $S$ iff $S \Rightarrow C$ (you cannot have $S$ without $C$); it is \textbf{sufficient} iff $C \Rightarrow S$ (having $C$ guarantees $S$). 

\textbf{Thought experiments} are hypothetical scenarios used to isolate and test conceptual boundaries or moral intuitions (e.g., Gettier cases for knowledge, the Trolley Problem for ethics). Arguments are reconstructed in premise-conclusion form to evaluate validity and soundness.

Historically, two broad traditions dominated the 20th century: the \textbf{analytic} tradition (Frege, Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein) emphasizing clarity, formal logic, language, and piecemeal problem-solving; the \textbf{continental} tradition (Hegel, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger) emphasizing historical context, lived experience (phenomenology), and systemic critique. Contemporary philosophy increasingly integrates both, while adding \textbf{experimental philosophy} (X-Phi), which uses empirical survey methods to test the reliability of philosophical intuitions.

For review, be able to: define necessary vs.\ sufficient conditions; define a priori vs.\ a posteriori; reconstruct an argument in standard form; identify the conclusion and premises; distinguish deductive from inductive reasoning; explain the Socratic method; describe a thought experiment and its purpose; differentiate analytic, continental, and experimental approaches.

\paragraph{Section summary}
Philosophical method relies on conceptual analysis, formal argumentation, thought experiments, and dialectic to examine foundational issues, often seeking a priori truths. The analytic tradition prioritizes logical clarity; the continental foregrounds historical context; contemporary experimental philosophy incorporates empirical methods. Key tools include necessary/sufficient conditions and argument evaluation.

\section{Logic: Validity, Definition, and Fallacies}
\subsection{Core ideas}

Logic is the systematic study of correct reasoning. A \textbf{deductive argument} aims for logical certainty: it is \textbf{valid} if it is impossible for all premises to be true and the conclusion false simultaneously; it is \textbf{sound} if it is valid and all its premises are actually true. \textbf{Inductive} arguments aim for probability, projecting from observed patterns to unobserved cases. \textbf{Abductive} arguments (inference to the best explanation) infer a hypothesis because it best explains the available data.

Propositional logic studies the logical relationships among whole propositions using connectives: $\lnot$ (negation), $\land$ (conjunction), $\lor$ (disjunction), $\to$ (conditional), $\leftrightarrow$ (biconditional). Truth tables define these operators and systematically test validity by mapping all possible truth-value assignments.

Historically, Aristotle pioneered categorical logic with syllogisms (e.g., All $A$ are $B$). Frege (1848--1925) and modern logicians created predicate logic with quantifiers $\forall$ (universal, "for all") and $\exists$ (existential, "there exists"), enabling the analysis of complex relations and nested quantifiers.

A \textbf{definition} sets the meaning of a term. Types include: stipulative (assigning a new meaning), lexical (dictionary usage), précising (sharpening vague boundaries), theoretical (defined within a scientific framework), and persuasive (smuggling emotive content). A sound definition avoids circularity and ensures the definiens (the defining phrase) is coextensive with the definiendum (the term defined).

\textbf{Fallacies} are persistent errors in reasoning. \textbf{Formal fallacies} violate logical form (e.g., affirming the consequent: $(p \to q) \land q \vdash p$). \textbf{Informal fallacies} involve substantive content errors: \textbf{ad hominem} (attacking the person instead of the argument), \textbf{straw man} (attacking a weakened misrepresentation of the opponent's view), \textbf{appeal to authority} (relying on unqualified figures), \textbf{begging the question} (circular reasoning where the premise assumes the conclusion), and \textbf{hasty generalization}.

Natural deduction systems provide formal rules for deriving conclusions step-by-step. Basic propositional rules include: \textbf{modus ponens} ($(p \to q), p \vdash q$), \textbf{modus tollens} ($(p \to q), \lnot q \vdash \lnot p$), \textbf{disjunctive syllogism} ($(p \lor q), \lnot p \vdash q$), and \textbf{hypothetical syllogism} ($(p \to q), (q \to r) \vdash (p \to r)$). 

\textbf{Example (natural deduction)}. Prove: $(p \to q) \land (q \to r) \vdash p \to r$.
\begin{enumerate}
  \item $(p \to q) \land (q \to r)$ \quad (premise)
  \item $p \to q$ \quad ($\land$-elimination from 1)
  \item $q \to r$ \quad ($\land$-elimination from 1)
  \item $p$ \quad (assumption for conditional proof)
  \item $q$ \quad (modus ponens: 2, 4)
  \item $r$ \quad (modus ponens: 3, 5)
  \item $p \to r$ \quad ($\to$-introduction: 4--6)
\end{enumerate}

For review, be able to: construct truth tables for connectives; translate natural language into predicate logic; contrast deductive validity with inductive strength and abduction; identify and name formal and informal fallacies; define stipulative and lexical definitions; prove a simple sequent using natural deduction rules.

\paragraph{Section summary}
Logic studies correct reasoning via formal and informal systems. Deductive validity guarantees truth preservation; inductive reasoning yields probability; abduction infers best explanations. Classical propositional and predicate logic provide frameworks for evaluating arguments. Fallacies are structural or content-based reasoning errors to be identified and avoided.

\section{Epistemology: Knowledge, Truth, and Skepticism}
\subsection{Core ideas}

Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. The central questions: What is knowledge? What constitutes justification? What are the limits of our cognitive reach? 

Historically, Plato (in \emph{Theaetetus}) analyzed knowledge as \textbf{Justified True Belief (JTB)}: subject $S$ knows proposition $p$ iff (i) $p$ is true, (ii) $S$ believes $p$, and (iii) $S$ is justified in believing $p$. However, Edmund Gettier's 1963 thought experiments shattered this consensus. \textbf{Gettier cases} involve justified true beliefs where truth is achieved merely by luck. For example: Smith sees a clock reading 2:00 and justifiedly believes it is 2:00. It happens to be exactly 2:00, but the clock is broken and stopped 12 hours ago. Smith's belief is justified and true, but not knowledge. 

Contemporary responses to Gettier include: adding a "no false lemmas" condition; requiring a reliable causal connection; or abandoning JTB for \textbf{virtue epistemology} (knowledge is true belief stemming from intellectual virtue) or \textbf{knowledge-first epistemology} (Williamson, arguing knowledge is a primitive, unanalyzable mental state).

\textbf{Justification} debates pit \textbf{Internalism} (justification depends solely on factors accessible to the subject's conscious reflection, like mental evidence) against \textbf{Externalism} (justification depends on factors outside awareness, such as the actual reliability of the belief-forming process, i.e., \textbf{Process Reliabilism}).

The architecture of justification faces the \textbf{regress problem}: if every justified belief requires another, we face infinite regress. \textbf{Foundationalism} (Descartes) posits "basic beliefs" that are self-justifying (e.g., infallible sense data, analytic truths) upon which all else rests. \textbf{Coherentism} (Quine) rejects foundations, arguing that justification arises from the mutual, web-like support among a system of beliefs.

\textbf{Skepticism} challenges whether we can know anything. Descartes's "Evil Demon" thought experiment suggests all empirical experience could be a deceptive simulation. This invokes the \textbf{closure principle}: if $S$ knows $p$, and knows $p$ entails $q$, $S$ knows $q$. If I know I have hands, I must know I'm not a brain in a vat (BIV). Since I can't know I'm not a BIV, I don't know I have hands. Contemporary responses include \textbf{Contextualism} (the standards for "knowledge" shift depending on conversational stakes) and \textbf{Relevant Alternatives Theory} (we only need to rule out plausible alternatives, not radical skeptical scenarios).

For review, be able to: state the JTB analysis; present a Gettier case; distinguish internalism from externalism; explain foundationalism and coherentism; reconstruct skeptical arguments using the closure principle; evaluate contextualist responses to skepticism.

\paragraph{Section summary}
Epistemology examines the nature of knowledge, justification, and skepticism. The traditional JTB analysis fails due to Gettier's epistemic luck cases. Internalism and externalism offer competing views on what makes a belief justified, while foundationalism and coherentism address the structural regress of reasons. Skepticism challenges the possibility of knowledge, generating contextualist and knowledge-first responses.

\section{Metaphysics: Existence, Causation, the Self, and Freedom}
\subsection{Core ideas}

Metaphysics explores the fundamental nature of reality and being. Central questions: What fundamentally exists? How do things persist over time? What is the relationship between mind and body? Do we have free will?

\textbf{Ontology} studies categories of existence. A major historical debate is between \textbf{Realism} (universals like "redness" exist independently of particular red objects, as Plato argued) and \textbf{Nominalism} (only particular objects exist; universals are just names). 
\textbf{Modality} distinguishes ways things could be. A proposition is \textbf{necessary} ($\square p$) if true in all possible worlds (e.g., $2+2=4$); \textbf{contingent} ($\Diamond p$) if true in some but not all. Saul Kripke revolutionized contemporary metaphysics by proving there are \textbf{necessary a posteriori} truths (e.g., "Water is H$_2$O"—discovered empirically, but necessarily true because it designates the same essence in all possible worlds).

In the \textbf{Philosophy of Mind}, the mind-body problem asks how mental states relate to physical states. \textbf{Substance Dualism} (Descartes) argues mind and body are entirely distinct substances. Contemporary philosophers mostly favor \textbf{Physicalism} (the mind is physical). A crucial concept here is \textbf{supervenience}: a set of properties A supervenes on B if there can be no difference in A without a difference in B. Physicalists argue mental states supervene on brain states. 

\textbf{Causation}: David Hume argued we never perceive causal necessity, only "constant conjunction." Modern accounts include the \textbf{counterfactual theory} (David Lewis: $C$ causes $E$ means if $C$ had not occurred, $E$ would not have occurred) and the \textbf{interventionist theory} (Woodward: $C$ causes $E$ if manipulating $C$ changes $E$).

\textbf{Personal Identity}: What makes a person identical across time? \textbf{Psychological continuity} (Locke) grounds identity in overlapping chains of memory and psychological traits. \textbf{Animalism} grounds it in continuous biological functioning. Derek Parfit's \textbf{Fission thought experiment} (a brain split into two identical bodies) challenges identity as a strict 1-to-1 relation, suggesting "survival" or psychological connectedness is what truly matters, not strict identity.

\textbf{Free Will}: \textbf{Determinism} claims every event is necessitated by prior states and natural laws. The debate fractures into three positions: \textbf{Hard Determinism} (determinism is true, so free will is an illusion); \textbf{Libertarianism} (determinism is false, agents have spontaneous causal power); and \textbf{Compatibilism} (determinism is true, but free will exists if actions flow from internal desires without external coercion). Harry Frankfurt's \textbf{Frankfurt cases} involve scenarios where an agent cannot do otherwise (due to a hidden mind-control device that only activates if they try to back out), yet we still hold them morally responsible because they acted voluntarily.

For review, be able to: define supervenience; distinguish necessary from contingent truths; explain Kripke's necessary a posteriori; describe physicalism vs.\ dualism; explain counterfactual causation; describe Locke's memory theory and Parfit's fission; map the free will debate; evaluate Frankfurt cases.

\paragraph{Section summary}
Metaphysics investigates ontology, modality, mind, causation, identity, and free will. Debates span from universals vs.\ nominalism to physicalism vs.\ dualism (using supervenience). Personal identity contrasts psychological continuity with biological theories. The free will debate opposes libertarianism and hard determinism (incompatibilists) against compatibilism. 

\section{Ethics: The Good, Duty, Virtue, and Applied Ethics}
\subsection{Core ideas}

Ethics (moral philosophy) asks: How should we live? What makes actions right or wrong? It divides into \textbf{metaethics} (the fundamental nature of moral language and properties), \textbf{normative ethics} (systematic principles of right action), and \textbf{applied ethics} (concrete moral issues).

\textbf{Metaethics}: Are moral claims objectively true? \textbf{Cognitivism} says moral statements express truth-apt beliefs. Under this, \textbf{Moral Realism} (Plato, G.E. Moore) argues objective moral facts exist. Moore's \textbf{Open Question Argument} attacks naturalism (reducing "good" to natural properties like pleasure) by showing we can always meaningfully ask, "Is pleasure actually good?" Conversely, \textbf{Error Theory} (J.L. Mackie) argues moral statements try to describe objective facts, but since objective values ("queer" properties) don't exist, all moral claims are false. \textbf{Non-cognitivism} (Expressivism) argues moral claims aren't beliefs but expressions of emotion ("Boo to murder!") or commands.

\textbf{Normative ethics} features three main theoretical frameworks:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Consequentialism}: Actions are right iff they produce the best overall outcomes. \textbf{Utilitarianism} (Bentham, Mill) focuses on maximizing aggregate happiness. \textbf{Act-utilitarianism} assesses each individual act. \textbf{Rule-utilitarianism} assesses rules that, if widely followed, maximize utility. \textbf{Thought experiment}: The \textbf{Trolley Problem} tests consequentialist intuitions (killing one to save five) against deontological constraints. A major objection is that utilitarianism can unjustly demand sacrificing innocent individuals.
\item \textbf{Deontology}: Actions are right iff they conform to moral duties, regardless of outcomes. Immanuel Kant argued morality derives from rationality via the \textbf{Categorical Imperative}. Formulations include the \textbf{Universalizability Principle} (act only on maxims you can will as universal laws without contradiction) and the \textbf{Humanity Principle} (treat humans as ends in themselves, never merely as means). W.D. Ross later introduced \textbf{prima facie duties} (e.g., non-maleficence, fidelity) which are self-evident duties that can be weighed against each other when they conflict.
\item \textbf{Virtue Ethics}: Championed historically by Aristotle and revived by Anscombe and Foot, this view asserts actions are right if they are what a virtuous agent would do. It focuses on cultivating moral character (e.g., courage, temperance) to achieve \textbf{eudaimonia} (human flourishing). Virtues are a "golden mean" between extremes of excess and deficiency.
\end{enumerate}

\textbf{Applied ethics} tackles specific dilemmas. Canonical examples include Judith Jarvis Thomson's \textbf{Violinist thought experiment} (arguing that even if a fetus has a right to life, it doesn't have the right to use the mother's body), Peter Singer's \textbf{Drowning Child argument} (utilitarian case that failing to donate to prevent global poverty is morally equivalent to letting a child drown), and biomedical principles (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice).

For review, be able to: define cognitivism, error theory, and expressivism; explain Moore's Open Question Argument; state Kant's Categorical Imperatives; distinguish act- vs.\ rule-utilitarianism; define eudaimonia and the golden mean; reconstruct Thomson's violinist and Singer's drowning child arguments.

\paragraph{Section summary}
Ethics investigates the nature of morality. Metaethics explores the reality and semantics of moral claims (realism, error theory, expressivism). Normative theories provide frameworks for action: consequentialism maximizes good outcomes, deontology adheres to rational duties, and virtue ethics cultivates character for human flourishing. Applied ethics utilizes these frameworks for real-world dilemmas.

\section{Political Philosophy: Justice, Freedom, and Rights}
\subsection{Core ideas}

Political philosophy examines the justification of the state, the distribution of resources, and the nature of liberty and rights. The central question: Under what conditions is state coercion legitimate?

The historical \textbf{Social Contract tradition} attempts to justify state authority by imagining a pre-political "state of nature." Thomas Hobbes (1588--1679) viewed this state as a violent "war of all against all"; rational egoists thus consent to an absolute sovereign (the Leviathan) for security. John Locke (1632--1704) argued humans possess natural, pre-political rights to life, liberty, and property; legitimate government is a conditional trust designed strictly to protect these rights. Rousseau (1712--1778) argued true freedom is achieved only by submitting to the \textbf{general will} of a democratic community.

Contemporary debates center on distributive justice:
\textbf{Egalitarian Liberalism}: John Rawls's \emph{A Theory of Justice} (1971) revitalized the social contract using the \textbf{Original Position} thought experiment. Individuals choose principles of justice behind a \textbf{veil of ignorance} (deprived of knowledge about their race, wealth, talents, or gender). Because anyone could end up at the bottom, rational agents choose: (1) maximal equal basic liberties, and (2) the \textbf{Difference Principle} (social and economic inequalities are permitted only if they maximally benefit the least advantaged).
\textbf{Libertarianism}: Robert Nozick (1974) responded with \textbf{entitlement theory}. A distribution of wealth is just if it arises from legitimate acquisition and voluntary exchange. Taxation for wealth redistribution is morally akin to forced labor, violating self-ownership. The state must be minimal.
\textbf{Communitarianism} (Sandel, MacIntyre) critiques both Rawls and Nozick for viewing individuals as unencumbered, atomistic choosers; it argues the "self" is fundamentally embedded in communities and traditions that provide meaning.

\textbf{Freedom and Rights}: Isaiah Berlin famously distinguished \textbf{negative liberty} (freedom \emph{from} external interference or physical constraint) and \textbf{positive liberty} (freedom \emph{to} achieve self-mastery and self-realization). \textbf{Republicanism} (Pettit) offers a third view: freedom as \textbf{non-domination} (not living at the mercy of arbitrary power, even if that power doesn't actively interfere). 

Rights are typically divided into \textbf{negative rights} (duties of others to not interfere, e.g., free speech) and \textbf{positive rights} (duties of others/the state to provide goods, e.g., healthcare). Contemporary global justice asks if these frameworks extend beyond national borders (Cosmopolitanism) or are bounded by the state.

For review, be able to: outline Hobbes's, Locke's, and Rousseau's state of nature; explain Rawls's veil of ignorance and Difference Principle; articulate Nozick's entitlement critique of taxation; distinguish negative from positive liberty; define freedom as non-domination; contrast libertarianism with egalitarian liberalism and communitarianism.

\paragraph{Section summary}
Political philosophy evaluates the legitimacy of the state. Social contract theories (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) ground authority in rational consent. Contemporary justice debates pit Rawlsian egalitarianism (the veil of ignorance, difference principle) against Nozickian libertarianism (entitlement, minimal state). Freedom is analyzed as negative (non-interference), positive (self-mastery), or non-domination.

\section{Aesthetics: Art, Interpretation, and Appreciation}
\subsection{Core ideas}

Aesthetics is the philosophical study of art, beauty, and aesthetic judgment. Central questions: What defines an artwork? Are aesthetic judgments purely subjective? How should we determine the meaning of an artwork?

\textbf{Definitions of art} have evolved significantly. Historically, Plato and Aristotle defined art as \textbf{mimesis} (representation/imitation of reality). In the 19th century, Tolstoy framed it as \textbf{expressionism} (the transmission of emotion from artist to audience). Clive Bell proposed \textbf{significant form} (art possesses formal structural properties that provoke a unique "aesthetic emotion"). Given modern art's boundary-pushing (e.g., Duchamp's urinal \emph{Fountain}), contemporary philosophy leans toward non-perceptual definitions: the \textbf{Institutional Theory} (George Dickie) claims an object is art if the "artworld" confers that status upon it; the \textbf{Historical Definition} (Jerrold Levinson) argues art is something intended to be regarded in ways prior art was correctly regarded.

\textbf{Aesthetic Judgment}: Are claims like "Bach's music is beautiful" objective facts or subjective preferences? David Hume argued for a \textbf{Standard of Taste}: while judgments are based on sentiment, some sentiments are superior. The standard is set by "ideal critics"—those with delicate perception, extensive practice, good sense, and freedom from prejudice. Immanuel Kant argued aesthetic judgments are intrinsically \textbf{disinterested} (we appreciate the object for its own sake, apart from utility or personal desire) and \textbf{universally valid} (we subjectively feel beauty but demand others agree, as if it were objective).

\textbf{Interpretation}: Where does the meaning of a text or artwork reside? \textbf{Intentionalism} claims meaning is fixed by the artist's actual intentions. \textbf{Anti-intentionalism} (Wimsatt and Beardsley) famously warned against the \textbf{Intentional Fallacy}, arguing the author's private intentions are unavailable and irrelevant; meaning belongs strictly to the public text. \textbf{Constructivism} argues meaning is co-created by the audience or "interpretive communities."

\textbf{Evaluation}: \textbf{Formalism} judges an artwork based exclusively on its structural properties (color, composition, meter) while ignoring context. \textbf{Contextualism} asserts that an artwork's aesthetic value is inextricably tied to its historical and biographical origins.

For review, be able to: state three distinct definitions of art (mimesis, formalist, institutional); summarize Hume's "ideal critic" criteria; explain Kant's concept of disinterested pleasure; define the intentional fallacy; distinguish formalism from contextualism in art criticism.

\paragraph{Section summary}
Aesthetics investigates definitions of art, the nature of beauty, and the mechanics of interpretation. Definitions have shifted from representation and expression toward institutional and historical accounts to accommodate modern art. Aesthetic judgment wrestles with subjectivity (Hume's ideal critics, Kant's disinterestedness). Interpretation debates center on whether authorial intent, the text itself, or the audience determines meaning.

\section{Philosophy of Science: Models, Explanation, Measurement, and Causation}
\subsection{Core ideas}

Philosophy of science examines the epistemic foundations, methodology, and metaphysical implications of the sciences. Central questions: How does science differ from pseudoscience? What constitutes a scientific explanation? Do scientific theories describe true reality?

\textbf{The Demarcation Problem}: How to separate science from non-science. Karl Popper famously argued for \textbf{Falsificationism}: a theory is scientific if and only if it makes bold, risky predictions that are empirically falsifiable (e.g., Einstein's relativity, unlike Freudian psychoanalysis). Thomas Kuhn radically shifted the focus to history, arguing that science operates within \textbf{paradigms} (broad frameworks of rules and assumptions). Normal science solves puzzles within a paradigm until anomalies accumulate, triggering a \textbf{scientific revolution} and a paradigm shift. Kuhn argued paradigms are often \textbf{incommensurable} (lacking a common measure for direct comparison).

\textbf{Scientific Explanation}: What does it mean to explain a phenomenon? The \textbf{Deductive-Nomological (D-N) model} (Hempel) claims an explanation is a logical deduction of the phenomenon from universal laws of nature plus initial conditions. However, the D-N model struggles with asymmetry (e.g., a flagpole's shadow length "explains" the flagpole's height under D-N logic). Alternatives include the \textbf{Causal-Mechanical model} (Salmon), where explaining means tracing the physical causal processes, and the \textbf{Unificationist model} (Kitcher), where explanation reduces the number of brute facts by subsuming them under broad patterns.

\textbf{Scientific Realism vs. Anti-Realism}: Do unobservable entities (electrons, quarks) actually exist? \textbf{Scientific Realism} says our best mature theories are approximately true descriptions of a mind-independent reality. The primary argument is the \textbf{No-Miracles Argument}: realism is the only philosophy that doesn't make the predictive success of science a massive miracle. \textbf{Anti-Realism} (e.g., Bas van Fraassen's \textbf{Constructive Empiricism}) argues theories only need to be "empirically adequate" (accurately describing observables); we should remain agnostic about unobservables. Anti-realists invoke the \textbf{Pessimistic Meta-Induction}: history is a graveyard of successful past theories that turned out to be false (e.g., phlogiston, aether); therefore, our current theories are likely false too.

\textbf{Causation and Measurement}: Modern philosophy of science conceptualizes causation through the \textbf{interventionist account} (Judea Pearl, James Woodward): variable $X$ causes $Y$ if a direct, surgical intervention on $X$ alters the probability or value of $Y$. This is formalized using Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs). \textbf{Measurement} is analyzed as establishing a structural mapping (homomorphism) between empirical phenomena and mathematical domains, acknowledging that measurements are always \textbf{theory-laden} (our observational data is shaped by our theoretical assumptions).

For review, be able to: define Popper's falsificationism; explain Kuhn's paradigms and incommensurability; state the D-N model and the asymmetry objection; map the scientific realism debate (No-Miracles vs.\ Pessimistic Induction); explain the interventionist theory of causation and theory-ladenness.

\paragraph{Section summary}
Philosophy of science analyzes scientific methodology, demarcation, and metaphysics. Popper's falsification and Kuhn's paradigm shifts address how science functions and progresses. Theories of explanation include the D-N and causal models. The debate over unobservables opposes Scientific Realism (backed by the No-Miracles argument) against Anti-Realism (backed by Pessimistic Induction).

\section{Philosophy of Technology and AI Ethics}
\subsection{Core ideas}

Philosophy of technology critically examines how tools and artifacts shape human existence, while the rapidly growing field of AI Ethics analyzes the moral implications of artificial intelligence and machine learning. 

\textbf{Philosophy of Technology}: Is technology a neutral tool? The \textbf{Instrumentalist view} argues technology is merely a value-neutral means to human ends; the morality lies entirely in the user. The \textbf{Substantive view} (Martin Heidegger) argues technology is a dominant cultural force that fundamentally alters how we perceive reality, reducing nature and humans to mere standing-reserve or resources (\emph{Bestand}). The \textbf{Critical theory of technology} (Andrew Feenberg) offers a middle path: technologies are embedded with specific social values and power structures, but they can be democratically redesigned. Furthermore, the \textbf{Extended Mind Thesis} (Clark \& Chalmers) posits that cognitive processes are not bounded by the skull; reliable external technologies (like smartphones or notebooks) literally constitute part of our minds.

\textbf{AI Ethics} addresses several urgent normative clusters:

\emph{Opacity and Explainability}: Deep neural networks often function as \textbf{black boxes}. Their internal decision-making processes are opaque even to their creators. This creates an accountability gap in high-stakes areas like medicine or criminal justice. \textbf{Explainable AI (XAI)} seeks to make algorithmic reasoning interpretable to humans.

\emph{Algorithmic Fairness and Bias}: ML models trained on historical data inevitably encode and automate historical prejudices. For example, risk-assessment algorithms in criminal justice have demonstrated racial bias. A profound philosophical problem is that mathematical definitions of fairness (e.g., equal false positive rates across groups vs.\ equal demographic acceptance) are mutually exclusive; \textbf{impossibility theorems} prove we cannot satisfy all intuitive metrics of fairness simultaneously.

\emph{Value Alignment and Existential Risk}: The \textbf{Value Alignment Problem} asks how we can design artificial agents that reliably understand and pursue human values. This is complicated by the fact that human values are varied, evolving, and often logically inconsistent. Nick Bostrom has warned of \textbf{Existential Risk}: the creation of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) or Superintelligence without perfect value alignment could lead to the unintended destruction of humanity. The \textbf{Control Problem} asks how a less intelligent species can permanently control a vastly more intelligent entity.

\emph{Moral Agency and Autonomous Systems}: If an autonomous vehicle crashes, who is morally responsible? The programmer, the user, or the AI? The \textbf{Retribution Gap} describes the problem of having no suitable target for moral blame when autonomous systems cause harm. The debate asks whether AI should be treated as mere tools, or potentially as \textbf{Artificial Moral Agents (AMAs)} with obligations.

For review, be able to: contrast instrumentalist, substantive, and critical views of technology; explain the Extended Mind Thesis; describe the black box problem and why it threatens accountability; explain algorithmic bias and the impossibility of universal formal fairness; define the Value Alignment and Control problems; discuss the Retribution Gap in autonomous systems.

\paragraph{Section summary}
Philosophy of technology views artifacts as either neutral tools, deterministic forces, or socially embedded systems (critical theory). AI Ethics confronts the opacity of black-box algorithms and the amplification of human bias. Core challenges include mathematically defining fairness, solving the value alignment problem before achieving superintelligence, and assigning moral responsibility for the actions of autonomous systems.

\section{Integrative Critical Review with Other Disciplines}
\subsection{Core ideas}

Philosophy does not exist in a vacuum; it maintains a dynamic, dialectical relationship with other disciplines. It provides the foundational normative and conceptual frameworks for empirical fields, while simultaneously using empirical discoveries to refine or overturn philosophical theories.

\textbf{Philosophy and the Natural Sciences}: Contemporary philosophy is highly scientifically informed. In the philosophy of mind and \textbf{Neuroethics}, discoveries in cognitive neuroscience (e.g., the Libet experiments mapping brain activity prior to conscious decision-making) challenge traditional notions of free will. In metaethics, \textbf{Evolutionary Debunking Arguments} use evolutionary biology to argue that our moral intuitions evolved for survival and social cohesion, not for tracking objective moral truths, casting doubt on Moral Realism. \textbf{Philosophy of Biology} works alongside geneticists to clarify concepts like "fitness," "species," and the nature of genetic information.

\textbf{Philosophy and the Social Sciences}: Philosophy of social science examines the methodology of fields like economics and sociology. A major debate is between \textbf{Causal Explanation} (treating human behavior like natural phenomena) and the \textbf{Interpretive Turn} (focusing on understanding the subjective meaning and cultural rules driving behavior). \textbf{Rational Choice Theory} and \textbf{Game Theory} provide powerful formal models of human interaction (e.g., the Prisoner’s Dilemma), but philosophers critique them for assuming a narrow, egoistic model of human rationality. \textbf{Critical Theory} (the Frankfurt School) explicitly merges sociology and philosophy to unmask power dynamics, ideology, and systemic oppression.

\textbf{Philosophy and the Humanities}: History, literature, and art criticism rely heavily on philosophical foundations. \textbf{Historiography} relies on philosophical accounts of narrative, causation, and objectivity to understand how we construct the past. In literary theory, \textbf{Post-structuralism} and \textbf{Deconstruction} (Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault) challenge the existence of objective meaning, stable categories, and universal truths, highlighting how language and power construct reality.

\textbf{Applied Philosophy and Professional Practice}: Philosophy directly informs policy and professional codes of conduct. \textbf{Bioethics} committees use deontological and utilitarian principles to resolve medical dilemmas. \textbf{Interdisciplinarity} requires \textbf{methodological pluralism}—recognizing that no single discipline possesses a monopoly on truth. Philosophy provides the "translation layer" between disciplines, clarifying concepts, exposing hidden methodological assumptions, and deploying probabilistic/Bayesian frameworks to manage uncertainty across diverse datasets.

For review, be able to: explain how the Libet experiments relate to free will; articulate the evolutionary debunking argument against moral realism; contrast causal vs.\ interpretive methods in social science; explain the philosophical critique of rational choice theory; define deconstruction; give examples of philosophy acting as a bridge between distinct empirical fields.

\paragraph{Section summary}
Philosophy deeply integrates with other disciplines. It absorbs neuroscientific and evolutionary data to update theories of mind and morality. It critiques the methodologies of social sciences, like rational choice theory, and grounds humanistic inquiry like historiography and literary theory. Crucially, philosophy provides the critical, analytical, and normative tools necessary for genuine interdisciplinary translation and applied professional ethics.

\end{document}