10 commandments of a good VT.

• START with the best pictures you have. This means you grab the audience’s attention- like in news writing.
• REMEMBER the rule of thirds. This is checking the placement of the interviewee or anything on camera to ensure it is pleasing to the eye.
• CHECK lighting. If harsh lighting is coming from above or behind it can either wash out or silhouette the interviewee.
• SET white balance. Don’t be embarrassed to ask the interviewee to hold up a piece of white paper.
• CHOOSE a good position for the interviewee. Ideally have them stand up, be close to them with no barriers in the way and the gun mic near their mouth, but not in shot.
• SET the focus and iris.
• USE cut-aways carefully, hold for 5-6 seconds.
• SEQUENCES are the best cut-aways (the same thing being shot in different positions). Shoot 5 different angles if you can.
• KEEP natural sound, and lower level.
• INTERVIEW someone while they are doing something. They are most comfortable in their element, and it looks good on tape.

HCJ 2/3 – KANT

Against Hume- Rejection of the validity of induction

Experience can teach us that something is the case, but it can not show that it MUST be the case – Humes problem of induction.

Science does claim to discover necessary truths; but Hume says there are no necessary truths, and even more critically no causation except as a psychological misunderstanding.

Hume showed that people were irrational, the role of reason is only to define relations of ideas. 2 + 2 = 4, but that is only a tautology, and not about any tangible or necessary.

Kant objected to this ethically. It is essential that humans should be rational, so that they can be moral and free.

He is awoken for his dogmatic slumber (of Leibniz’s rationalism). He sets out to overturn Hume.

Humes a priori is just a matter of definition (All bachelors etc)

But theres a stronger version of a priori for Kant – someting that can be known completely independently of experience (synthetic a priori)

5,000 people on uni campus, who are alive take this as a true fact.

What further things can you deduce about the football stadium, with absolute certainty.

• you would know the minimum possible size of the campus.
• You would know that the temperature, atmosphere, etc, are such that they can support life
• you would know that time is elapsing at least from the subjective point of view of these 5,000 persons (assuming they are the same sort of beings as you – a crucial axiom for Kant)

These are facts about reality which are deduced from the a priori proposition, but without experience. And these truths are not merely analytic.

Note you have proved using synthetic a priori the existence of both space and time.

Try and imagine an object that does not occupy any space. This is impossible. Then category of space is a necessary precondition of perception, it is an iea that is necessary and UNIVERSAL – this is the pure a priori.

Same is true of time. We have no direct experience of time, but we have an ability subjectively to sequence events (this came before that). For us to be able to sequence events, then necessary and UNIVERSAL that there is time. Time (like space) is a necessary pre-condition for perception.

In fact, EXISTENCE IS A PRE-CONDITION OF PERCEPTION;

Existence is not a predicate (of perception), it is not the result of anything.

There is no “Cogito”, no mind perceiving non-contingent objects in a “Cartesian theatre”.

This is the “Copernican revolution” of philosophy. OBJECTIVE REALITY HAS TO CONFORM TO HUMAN APPARATUS OF PERCEPTION – the mind does not arise from objective reality; rather objective reality is created by the mind.

But there is not solipsism. The universe (and other people) does/do exist independently of one own mind. We can infer that other people are like us – using the synthetic a priori.

 

The argument goes like this:

1. The existence of the universe (and objects such as other people) exists as a necessary pre-condition of perception to my own existence.

2) I can infer from my own first person knowledge certain things about other people.

A) they occupy a certain space

1. They experience time, subjectively as I do (eg we can arrange to meet at a certain time)
2. They generally experience the same types of subjective experience as we – “cut me, I bleed” etc.

 

A priori we know that there is space-time; and this persists independently of perception (necessary and universal).

KANT: SPACE AND TIME ARE THE PRE-CONDITIONS OF ALL EXPERIENCE (these things are not the result of perception).

Main categories	analytic	synthetic	pure
A priori (Hume – ROI) Necessary, universal – to deny/ break the law of non-contradiction.	All bachelors are unmarried	Cause and effect The self exists Persistence of unobserved objects Fire causes pain 2+1=3 (Possible for Kant, but not for Hume)	Objects exist in space and time
A posteriori (Hume – MOF) Contingent, situational	(not possible for Kant or Hume or anyone else)	Some bachelors are bald; Drinking causes intoxication; Some objects are Some types of cheese taste tangy; others bland	Raw sense data; dissociated perception (“sensations” – Hume)

PHENOMENA AND NOUMENA

The Copernican revolution in philosophy.

“we see the world in terms of space and time because we wear space-time goggles” – Bertrand Russell’s summary of Kant.

“every chance requires a cause” – is a priori, but contrary to Hume it is not simply a relation of ideas, it requires JUDGEMENT which is necessary and universal, and known as first person, subjectively.

Kant “saves” science and metaphysics from Humes skepticism by restoring cause and effect to nature, via the synthetic apriori.

Observations such as “every change has a cause” is necessary and can be known a priori, subjectively.

Observations such as “all bodies are heavy” is only a generalization of aposteriori experience, and could be falsified without denying THE TRANSCENDENTAL UNITY OF PERCEPTION (OR MIND).

“Unity of perception” means that individual thoughts and sense date are synthesised into a whole picture. Like Descartes Kant discusses dreams; the subject experience in a dream state of consciousness.

HCJ 2/2 – 05/02/13 – EMPIRICISM

Empiricism– Locke and Hume

 … Hume is very well known and appreciated. Applies to journalism because we should care about what is true and how we know this. Empiricists question if it is true, can I test, can I speak to primary source?

Opposite to last seminar.. Descartes = rationalist. 

Epistemology – theory of knowledge – about how we get our knowledge and how we can get to think about the world.

Empiricism is set against rationalism. Locke v Descartes

I am an empiricist because I believe in finding out about the world by doing things, experience counts for me. You have to go out and read newspaper to learn whats going on.

For the rationalist we can gain knowledge of the world just by thinking about it – Descartes (I think, therefore I am) – A priori. (BEFORE EXPERIENCE)

Division

Descartes – european.. Kant, Hegel.

Hume – Locke

A proposition is a priori if it can be known independently of all experience.

But for the empiricist any of our knowledge of the world has to come through our senses, our experience – A posteriori. (AFTER EXPERIENCE)

 Rationalist thinks that someone who grows up in a box can have knowledge of the world but empiricist they can have no knowledge because they have no experience – evidence

Rationalists thought that our ideas are innate – that we’re born with them- Plato’s forms, Descartes trademark argument (Gods logo). Empiricists think are blank slate, and grow to have knowledge.

 

John Locke (1632-1704)

Seen as one of the first Empiricists – also important for political theory (Liberalism, Contract Theory)

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding – very influential – this book was very influential to Hume, and started the ball rolling, if you like, in terms of Empiricism. 

Locke believed that our understanding comes from our experience which is worked on by our powers of reason to produce “real” knowledge.

Liberal.. Influential on politics.

Against idea of “innate ideas” – our minds at birth are a “blank slate” (Tabula rasa)

He thought that God had given mankind the ability to discover knowledge and morality so that innate ideas weren’t needed – God given faculties (The ability to reason and learn). (Remember his natural laws from contract theory)

Locke believed that our understanding comes from our experience, which is worked on by our powers of reason to produce real knowledge. We have sensory experience.. Data.. Reasoning.. = Knowledge. We produce info, not just take pictures and store in mind.

We are not simply cameras passively recording the world.

In the Epistle to the Reader: “Truly before they [ideas] are known, there is nothing of them in the mind but a capacity to know them.”

 

David Hume

Seen as the greatest philosopher to have written in English. 

Hume was born in the Scottish Borders, south of Edinburgh in 1711 and died in 1776. Didn’t become a professor, atheist.

Known as “The Great Infidel” because of his attacks on religion. 

He disagrees with Locke -although great respect for- he doesn’t think that there is a God given faculty called reason which processes experience into thoughts. He thinks it just happens naturally. Thinks we cannot believe anything.

Some critics attack him as an irrationalist because he is skeptical about the pretensions of reasons. But in fact Hume is very pro science, anti superstition.

During time of enlightenment – newton, clockwork, world is complicated, science helped to begin to understand.. We believed reason was possible to understand.. Hume believed reason is a small part of this.. Freud echoes Hume.

Hume very influenced by Locke – especially on view of epistemology.

Locke spoke about ideas (sensory data acted on by reason to produce ideas).

Hume speaks about perceptions (any content of the mind, what we first see) – refines Locke’s ideas.

Perceptions can be impressions (involves actual hearing, seeing, feeling, etc. What we experience) or ideas (thinking of something instead of actually experiencing it – it is a copy of an impression). Impression, Idea.

Beliefs can be separated into: Relations of ideas and matters of fact.

• Relations of ideas – a priori bond between ideas – 5+5=10, all bachelors are unmarried..
• Matters of fact – this is to do with experience, a posteriori. Hume thinks we know matters of fact things a process of cause and effect (we do this all the time.. Dropped phone, you think someone must have dropped it.. This is reasoning). But this relies of a belief in causation – and induction (irrational). Thus, on Hume’s view, all beliefs in matters of fact are fundamentally non-rational…

 

(See below for further explanation)

 

———

Recall … Logic

• Deductive: In a valid argument if the premises are all true then the conclusion must be true too. (strongest but nothing new)

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal.

• Inductive: Reason from the particular to the general. Aims to establish a conclusion to be true with some degree of probability. (science uses this, and we do too. A survey for example, shows that generally something is true, via sample of small group and apply to all. Although not as certain as deductive logic.)

———

Induction

Typically we think what we’ve seen happen in the past is a good guide to what happens in the future.

But now how do we know that the future will resemble the past?

The search for natural laws has long been seen as the central task of science, at least since Newton. (Kegel, Galileo) ..We look for trends, (Valentines day everyone buys flowers, choc and wine so shops know to discount it– it is normal for it to work this way, based on example and applied generally).

The scientific method – Bacon etc – the scientist begins by carrying our experiments, makes observations, from this evidence the scientist attempts to build up general laws – using induction. The use of induction (doing it, practice) then becomes the demarcation between science and non-science. 

The whole of science assumes the regularity of nature –  assumes that the future will be like the past – yet there is no way that this assumption can be secured (can’t assume regularity). It cannot be established by observation, since we cannot observe future events. 

David Hume had argued that was a problem about induction, namely that it’s unreliable [Turkey at Christmas, British PM before 1979] but we cannot help thinking in terms of them because of how we are physiologically constructed. 

Just because happened in past does not mean will happen in future.. Hume used idea of sun.. How do you know it will rise? Future is unpredictable, even though can GUESS using patterns and past. We rely on this, but it has no reason.

“Hume’s problem” has baffled philosophers. Russell HWP pg 612: “Hume has proved that pure empiricism is not a basis for science.. Without the principle of induction, then science is impossible.” Science, technology etc all based on INDUCTION. But this has been proved doesn’t work.. So.. Science is apparently impossible. 

Our justification for assuming that the future will be like the past is flimsy. Yet it is the basis of all our thought. It is custom and habit (just like animals, pavlovian theory in psychology, dog bell induces drooling, assume to continue that way) that guide us through life, not our powers of reason. It’s not that Hume wants us to abandon our trust in relations between causes and effects (as we wouldn’t trust anything, but we cannot live like this.. BUT journalists SHOULD be skeptical about everything): that would be impossible for us anyway. Rather he is demonstrating how little our behavior is dependent on reason and how much on our inherited nature and habits.

He has become relevant because of relativity and quantum mechanics – the world is a much more complicated place than we had imagined.

He’s not necessarily skeptical about for example whether the sun will rise tomorrow – he’s skeptical about the power of reason to tell you that the sun will rise tomorrow. Our confidence in the uniformity of nature might let us down. You can’t argue that it won’t. No degree of certainty.

 

On Miracles

For Hume, a miracle is a transgression of a law of nature, and one which is usually presumed to have been caused by God. Hume says that you should never believe people who claim to have witnessed a miracle unless it would be more miraculous that they were lying or deceived than that the miracle occurred. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Proportion belief to the available evidence. (Miracles are impossible?)

(Example: David Icke – believes world is ruled by lizards, Obama is a lizard, drink blood of children, very scientologist.)

 

I will be doing my seminar paper next Tuesday on this topic and I am excited because for me, science has always fascinated me especially when put in terms of Empiricism.