Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Philosophy - epistemology > Descartes Waves Of Doubt > Flashcards

Descartes Waves Of Doubt Flashcards

1
Q

Normal incredulity

A

Normal everyday doubting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Philosophical scepticism

A

Philosophical scepticism is generally used as an approach to testing the strength of knowledge claims and better understanding the nature of knowledge and justification

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Two differences between normal incredulity and philosophical scepticism

A
  • normal incredulity is sensitive to evidence and can be removed when new facts emerge whereas philosophical scepticism goes deeper in that it leads us to doubt entire classes of beliefs such as all beliefs that come from the senses
  • philosophical scepticism is more extreme than normal incredulity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Role of philosophical scepticism in epistemology

A
  • used to test the strength of our knowledge claims
  • trying to find ultra-strong knowledge that is absolutely certain with no doubts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Local scepticism

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Global scepticism

A
  • doubts everything that is possible to exist
  • doesnt just doubt what scientists say, it doubts that they actually exist
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

First wave: argument from illusion

A
  • occurs when something appears different from the way it really is
  • never trust anything that’s deceived him afew times, because sense experience isnt 100% trust worthy must be rejected entirely
  • (every belief that comes even partly from sense experience can be doubted so must be rejected)
    -> however realises this is only under unusual conditions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Second wave: argument from dreaming

A
  • he can’t prove that he’s not dreaming
  • the fact he cannot prove that he’s not dreaming is already enough of a reason to doubt everything his senses are telling him
  • rejects this himself; even if he was dreaming things in his dream must have come from real life in the first place -> dreams are also constructed of basic ideas so they must correspond to something real
  • also gives him no reason to doubt the truth of his beliefs about geometry and arithmetic
    “It seems impossible to suspect such obvious truths must be false”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Third wave: argument from the evil demon

A
  • he can’t prove that there’s not an evil demon
  • thinks that only a belief impossible to doubt can be certain
  • trying to think of every possible reason to doubt a belief
  • doesnt matter is x3 are implausible, what matters is if they’re possible
  • demon loves putting false beliefs into Descartes mind-> can doubt geometry!
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Objection to descartes method: set the bar too high

A
  • should accept beliefs that are beyond a reasonable level of doubt
  • after all, many scientific beliefs that we confidently hold reliable are still possible to doubt but that doesnt prevent us from saying they’re reliable
  • doubt doesn’t need to be eliminated it needs to be minimised
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Replying on behalf of descartes to set the bar too high

A
  • misunderstands descartes intention
  • he’s not trying to find practical and useful beliefs, he’s trying to find perfect and absolutely certainly true ones
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Global scepticism is impossible

A
  • descartes really did doubt all his beliefs, would involve meanings of words so wouldn’t be able to think or doubt properly
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Argument from illusion isn’t very strong

A
  • senses sometimes deceive us but not ALWAYS
  • we know we’re experiencing an illusion because we trust our senses not to deceive them
  • contradicting
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Dreaming argument isn’t very strong

A
  • descartes claims that dreams are indistinguishable from walking life
  • if such dreams are indistinguishable descartes wouldn’t have been able to distinguish them, so couldn’t possibly know he had them
  • he he’d had an indistinguishable dream, he would never know

CRITICISM:
- dreams ARE different
- only relies on the premise that ‘at the time he was having them’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Demon argument isn’t very strong

A
  • we can only use the concept of doubt if we also know how to use the concept of certain
  • the evil demon argument goes too far in that it doubts everything
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Descartes own response to scepticism: The cogito

A
  • “i think therefore i am”
  • if he can discover other ideas that have the same clarity and distinctness they must also be true
  • clear and distinct as a litmus test for finding whether a belief is true or not
  • arithmetic and geometry pass so they’re absolutely certain too
17
Q

Objection to clear and distinct ideas

A
  • just because I perceive something clearly and distinctly doesnt mean it’s true
  • i am certain isn’t the same it is certain
  • self-refuting, the cogito is self-verifying
  • “are you awake?” “No I’m asleep!”
18
Q

Objection 2 to clear and distinct ideas

A
  • clear and distinct mean different things to different people
  • what even is clear and distinct?
19
Q

Empiricist response to scepticism: Locke

A
  • descartes = absolute certainty
  • Locke = best, most likely explanation
  • ideas -> immediate objects of perception and thought
  • cant doubt hes having ideas because doubting is an idea itsefl
  • we can’t control what we perceive, and sense experiences cohere with one another
20
Q

Berkleys empiricist response to scepticism

A
  • berkely accepts that we can have certain knowledge of what we are directly aware of
  • nothing is mind-independent, only minds and their ideas exist, to exist is to be perceived
21
Q

Russells empiricist response to scepticism

A
  • Russell accepts that we cannot dispel scepticism about the existence or indeed the nature of mind-independent reality
  • we cant prove beyond any doubt that material really exists
  • the hypothesis that mind-independent reality exists is the best explanation for our experiences here argues
22
Q

Reliablism

A
  • the definition of knowledge as true belief performed via a reliable method
23
Q

reliabilists response to scepticism

A
  • The reliabilism definition of knowledge says that knowledge is true belief formed via a reliable method. Assuming I’m not being actually deceived by an evil demon, then my perception would count as a reliable method of gaining knowledge because my perceptions reliably cause me to form true beliefs.

Of course, I can’t prove either way whether I’m being deceived by an evil demon – but that doesn’t matter. I don’t have to know my perception is reliable in order for it to count as a reliable method – it just is. Consider the following two scenarios:

Scenario 1: I am not a brain in a vat
My perception is a reliable method because I’m living in the real world and am perceiving it accurately
My perception leads me to the belief “I have hands”
My belief is true, because this is scenario 1 and I’m not a brain in a vat
So I have a true belief formed via a reliable method that “I have hands”
So, according to reliabilism, I know “I have hands” in scenario 1
(so, if you’re not actually a brain in a vat, you can know “I have hands”)
Scenario 2: I am a brain in a vat
My perception is not a reliable method because I’m a brain in a vat being fed artificial stimuli
My perception leads me to the belief “I have hands”
But my belief is false, because this is scenario 2 and I’m actually a brain in a vat
So I have a false belief formed via an unreliable method that “I have hands”
So, according to reliabilism, I do not know “I have hands” in scenario 2
(which would be correct – you don’t want a definition of knowledge that says you know you have hands when you don’t have hands)

24
Q

descartes response from: mind-independent reality

A
  • sensations are not subject to his will
  • sensations appear to be things with size and shape
  • descartes essential nature has no size or shape
  • why? because its just a mind
  • the mind is not divisble unlike objects of sensations
  • why? because the mind is not in space
  • sensations therefore aren’t from the mind
  • because non-spatial things (the mind) can’t cause spatial things
  • therefore sensations come outside the mind and they can’t come from God because god can’t decieve me
  • therefore must come from matter

Philosophy - epistemology (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions