Nathan Rockwood, “Locke on Scientific Knowledge“
This paper is on Locke’s view of what we can and cannot know based on empirical observation. Commentators often emphasize the things that we cannot know: we cannot know that unobserved objects exist, and we cannot know that non-trivial, universal generalizations about the properties of objects are true. But, I will argue, this emphasis on what we cannot know, or be absolutely certain of, has led to an overly skeptical interpretation of Locke. First, I will argue that empirical observation gives us knowledge not only of the existence of objects but the “co-existence” of observable properties in a particular object. Second, I argue that Locke uses this knowledge of the observed properties to make inferences about the unobserved properties of objects. Although commentators are correct that we cannot “know” these generalizations are true, Locke does think that they are rationally justified inferences. I explain how Locke thinks past experience justifies these inferences. My interpretation of Locke’s epistemology, then, emphasizes the things we can know and rationally believe about the properties of objects.