Evolutionary epistemology
The Evolutionary epistemology (English evolutionary epistemology ) is an epistemological approach, which is largely determined by the principles and conclusions of the theory of evolution.
Kant noted that the people from the outset (a priori) forms of intuition as space and time and the categories of the understanding of quantity, quality, relation (including: causality) and modality are available, so he can come to knowledge. The evolutionary epistemology, however, does not explain generally these forms of intuition and categories as a priori from the perspective of the individual given, but as a " phylogenetic " acquired by the hundreds of millions of years continuous evolutionary development of sense organs and brain functions, language and cultural skills.
The main representatives of Donald T. Campbell, Gerhard Vollmer, Rupert Riedl, Konrad Lorenz and Karl Popper.
While Kant said that the worldly phenomena and also the a priori given intuition forms of space and time, nothing to do with the actual reality ( the " thing in itself " ) have to do and we will never recognize this reality, many believe representatives of evolutionary epistemology to have Kant refuted it. For them, in particular space and time are knowledge structures that have evolved in the evolution to adapt to the reality, that is, that they therefore probably structures of reality are. This are the worldly phenomena that we recognize, not mere appearances, as in Kant's idealism, but are regarded as real objects in a but only hypothetical realism.
That the theory of evolution can not only be used in refutation, but also for the confirmation of Kant, which often show the radical constructivism assigned - even though they themselves do not understand themselves as constructivists - neurobiologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. Both interpretations of evolutionary epistemology are shown below and then placed in an interdisciplinary context, as a doctrine of the knowledge of reality also applies to many other disciplines.
The main epistemological question
" The main epistemological question is the reason and degree of conformity of knowledge and real categories " ( Vollmer 1998, p.3 and p.54). The naive realism, which assumes that the world is real and substantial, just as we recognize them, so that knowledge and real categories totally agree, is generally regarded as disproved. At the other extreme in terms of these main epistemological question is idealism in particular by Kant, according to which we nothing of the rationale behind the worldly phenomena seen " thing in itself ", statements about it or can know, so that knowledge and real categories do not match. " What may be in themselves the things I do not know and do not need it to know because me never can happen a thing unlike in appearance " (Kant, B 332- B 333). Note: Kant here (as above) is not correctly represent the true idealists. Even Kant himself fought against. See a quote Kant from the Prolegomena, Appendix: Sample of a judgment about the criticism that precedes the study: " The set of all true idealists from the Eleatic school, to Bishop Berkeley, is in this formula include :" all knowledge by sense and experience is nothing but mere sham, and only in the ideas of the pure understanding and reason is truth, " the principle which consistently ruled my Idealism and determines, on the other hand. " All knowledge of things, from the naked pure understanding, or pure reason is nothing but mere sham, and only in experience is the truth, " that is but just the opposite of that actual Idealism; . how I came because to me to use this expression to a completely opposite intention, and as the reviewer to see him everywhere? "
Modern science is based generally on a realism which regards matter as the actual substance and the spiritual only as a property or function of this substance. Kant says, however, about the matter, taking the achievements of modern science about the theory of evolution, quantum physics, brain research anticipates that statement in some fundamental way, etc.: "Into the inner being of nature penetrating observation and analysis of phenomena, and to can not know with the times how far this will ' (Kant, B 334). But even if we are in a perfect observation and dissection of " the whole of nature would be revealed ", it is and remains according to Kant the transcendental object ( as a " thing in itself "), " which may be the reason of this phenomenon, which we call matter, a mere something which we would not even understand what it was, if it could also tell us someone " (Kant, B 333).
This perfect and fundamental inaccessibility and non- recognition of the absolute or real concerns, according to Kant, the directly associated with the material being categories of space and time. For Kant, these categories only a priori structures, ie given prior and independently of all experience, or just mere forms of intuition that we put itself in the chaos of sensations, and then recognize them accordingly and "read " can be. For Kant, space and time have nothing to do with the " bare something" that is as absolute and " thing in itself " behind the material phenomena.
The realistic answer to the main epistemological question about the theory of evolution
Exactly this statement of Kant believes the realistic evolutionary epistemology to have refuted. Kant's statement of the given prior to and independent of all empirical knowledge structures is therefore true in terms of individual being correct, which these structures are innate and, in this sense a priori. But Kant could know nothing of the evolutionary history of humans and generally the evolution of life.
The knowledge and science theorists Gerhard Vollmer answered the above-mentioned epistemological main question then according to the theory of evolution in refutation of Kant as follows:
Vollmer emphasized but always, that the degree of compliance of the reconstructed from the theoretical knowledge world is unknown to us with the real world and will remain, even if he should be perfect ( Vollmer, p 137). This defines the hypothetical realism. According to him, it is assumed that it is independent of perception and consciousness is a real world that it has certain structures and that these structures are partially visible or with which the recognized world we match ( Vollmer 1998, p 35). This applies in particular for the structures then of space and time, but is here basically hypothetical. In other words, the universe exists in the hypothetical realism independently of our knowledge and thus real and substantially in the form in which we perceive it with his separated in space and time physical objects. The idealism of Kant, who sees all worldly phenomena meaningfully identified only as appearances would be refuted it.
The idealistic interpretation of the main epistemological question about the theory of evolution
However, these realistic epistemological interpretation with the help of the theory of evolution is controversial even in modern natural science, even if the opposite position is clearly in the minority. Thus, the two write - despite its opposition (see their review of solipsism, 2010, p 146) - often regarded as radical constructivists neurobiologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela: "If we presuppose the existence of an objective world that we as the observers independently and is accessible to recognition by our nervous system, then we can not understand how our nervous system in its structural dynamics and function to generate a representation of this independent world in " ( Maturana / Varela, p 259).
In her book, The tree of knowledge they use, conversely, the theory of evolution to support an idealistic embossed evolutionary epistemology. They make the ultimate statement: " Recognizing has not to do with objects " ( Maturana / Varela, p 262), that is, the phenomenon of explaining and explained the phenomenon does not include a number of fields ( Maturana / Varela, S. 257). With regard to the main epistemological question of Vollmer, this means that there can be no correspondence between knowledge and real categories, because all of us in the world Detected belongs only to the realm of knowledge structures.
This results in a Kreisläufigkeit. For Maturana and Varela describe the evolution of life from the material foundations of the universe and arrive at the conclusion to the realization that these initial conditions, and the entire process of evolution only through and in the final state, the consciousness and in the comprehensiveness of specifically human consciousness, are produced. They do not emphasize it at the end of her book, although explicit, but only in that here also the material - physical being is involved, there is " no fixed reference point more " ( Maturana / Varela, p 258 ) and thus a circularity it with the image of " drawing hands " by MC Escher illustrate.
The realistic interpretation of evolutionary epistemology is hypothetically the material existence in time and space as a real advance. From this and the fact then this understanding have evolved according to the evolution of the subjective knowledge structures, especially those mentioned by Kant (subjective) forms of intuition of space and time. However, from an idealistic point of view this is what is to be derived already assumed, which again results in circularity or the a priori of Kant. In the idealistic interpretation of the epistemology of Kant is not refuted by the theory of evolution.
In this circularity worldly phenomena have only a specter -like creature that could only be rebutted if " a fixed reference point " would be there, ie if somewhere safe and clear and not just hypothetical distinction could be made between real and substantial subjective knowledge categories. But that's not possible, not even in terms of material being. The circularity of such knowledge, how do we recognize, for Maturana and Varela not an obstacle for the understanding of cognition, but quite the opposite: " On this basis, it is just about possible to recognize scientifically explain " ( Maturana / Varela, p 263 ).
Maturana and Varela explain objectivism but not in all respects false and the idealism to be correct, but they understand their interpretation of the world and of cognition as a balancing act, saying in the Conclusion: " Again we must travel along a ridge and avoid, in one of the extremes - the representationist ( objectivism ) or the solipsistic ( idealism ) - to fall " ( Maturana / Varela, p 259).
The importance of interdisciplinarity for each epistemology
Vollmer emphasized - as I said - always the hypothetical nature of realistic evolutionary epistemology, and particularly in regard to the radical constructivism and the idealistic interpretation, it is far from certain and decided that with the help of the theory of evolution to an undoubtedly true epistemology or even a true and certain knowledge of the ultimate reality have come into this world.
But it might be possible indirect recognition of a truth not directly accessible, because Vollmer is in his account of the evolutionary theory of knowledge is an important aspect in a separate section out, namely the " interdisciplinary context " ( Vollmer 1998, p 180). He even has two major interdisciplinary remuneration taken into account. One is the quantum physics, which yes is committed to the eventual realization of the assumed realism in the substance of the matter. In interpreting the findings of quantum physics to this day the idealism plays a crucial role, especially in the interpretation by the thought experiment " Schrödinger's Cat ", the physicist Eugene Paul Wigner with the addition of " Wigner's friend " to a more or less pure consciousness solution of the interpretation quantum mechanics has developed. At least meets the found in quantum physics, mathematical wave function, which has proven itself in the empirical application outstanding, in the interpretation of anything but the desired realistic solution, in which a quantum object can always be safely and uniquely identified and determined in space and time as such. The wave function provides only probabilities for the appearance of a quantum object and makes it the idealistic interpretation.
Maturana and Varela speak - unlike Vollmer - In its final chapter, the further evolution of the human being, especially in regard to ethical behavior and ultimately interpret their evolutionary epistemology entirely in this direction ( Maturana / Varela, p 263 ). In this they also bring the religions into play. About their epistemologies especially the negative theology would be to consider that about the ancient roots of idealism is very close to the Neo-Platonism and in terms of an interdisciplinary cover. Especially with Meister Eckhart the divine, otherworldly are not only denied all worldly characteristics and personality in this negative theology, but as the Neoplatonic an even ( separated in space and time) being. The main epistemological question is answered here in the spirit of Kant and of idealism, but not in the sense of positive theology of realism. The otherworldly One is by Meister Eckhart " the hidden darkness of the eternal Godhead and is unrecognized and never was recognized and will never recognize " (Homily 23 on the fifth count ). In the Neoplatonic interpretation, the knowledge of God in His Son - in Meister Eckhart in this manner is nothing but a religious- philosophical epistemology is (see " birth of God in the soul " in Meister Eckhart ). Only this strictly negative theology is moreover contrary to Kant's critique of religion, but rather confirms this.
Striking and recognizable in these interdisciplinary implications of the epistemological aspects regarding a final and is absolute truth that in the idealistic interpretations of a comprehensive consensus seems at least possible, whereas in the realistic interpretations of the individual disciplines and their respective epistemologies and findings unbridgeable separated Me and contradictory. If the structures of an ultimate reality or truth of which the world are strictly separated and match in any way, so this is otherworldly reality is in secular structures generally not recognizable, which then also relates to any theory of knowledge in the world. The true reality could be detected except indirectly in some way.
History
The first steps of an evolutionary epistemology came from Herbert Spencer and Georg Simmel. Most approaches of evolutionary theories of knowledge but rely on a passage from "Natural Kinds " by Willard Van Orman Quine of 1969. In this article, he wonders why the categories of our language should correspond to those of the world. He argues that we are born with the ability to make categorizations that help us survive, because:. "Creatures inveterately wrong in Their inductions have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die before Reproducing Their child (living, with their inductive inferences are always wrong, tend - though regret, but thankfully - to die to do so before they can propagate their kind ) ". . Thus, Quine does not represent but the theory that actually an evolution has taken place, but only that the type to which I belong, would not have survived with inappropriate categories. Quine is Kohärentist and Naturalist, which is why the solution of philosophical problems is permissible for him by scientific findings. In the kohärentistischen position the justification of our categories by evolution in Quine takes only their place. This aspect is often forgotten by many representatives of evolutionary theories of cognition.
The first major systematic version was only presented by Konrad Lorenz, which was expanded in more of Gerhard Vollmer ( The attempt at a natural history of human cognition, 1973 back of the mirror. ). Another representative is the Austrian marine biologist Rupert Riedl.