Epistemology - Short Answer Flashcards
Present and explain Descartes’ argument for External World Skepticism that turns on the dreaming hypothesis
(i)The external world is whatever exists outside of your own mind.
The internal world is the contents of your own mind.
External World Skepticism: We can’t know anything about the external world
(ii) (1)My senses have sometimes misled me.
(2) If my senses have sometimes misled me, then I cannot place absolute confidence in them.
(3) If I cannot place absolute confidence in my senses, then I can’t know anything about the external world.
(4) I can’t know anything about the external world.
(iii) (1)I can’t be certain I’m not dreaming.
(2) If (1), then I can’t know anything about the external world.
(3) I can’t know anything about the external world.
NICKEL:
(1) It’s at least possible that all of my experiences are dreams
+
(2) If my life were a dream, my senses would always be unreliable
=
SO (3) It’s possible that my senses are always unreliable
+
(4) I know that p if I have rational certainty that p
+
5) All knowledge claims about the world are based on the senses that p
=SO all my knowledge about the world is uncertain
Briefly explain why Descartes needs to show that god is not a deceiver in order to be able to rely on clear and distinct ideas as a sure guide to truth.
God is supremely good and would not deceive perceptions that have been scrutinized through careful use of reason and if God were a deceiver then God would not have given him a nature to perceive clear and distinct ideas as such
It’s part of Descartes’ nature to perceive clear and distinct ideas a such; if God were a deceiver, it would not be a part of his nature to perceive clear and distinct ideas as such
Briefly present the argument Socrates gives that turns on how to get to Larissa. (Section 97 of Meno)
Knowledge is not required to achieve our goals
When 2 guides are supposed to get you to larissa and
• One guide has knowledge (true justified beliefs) of how to get to larissa and
• One guide has true belief of how to get to larissa,
Both will get you there
so knowledge is just as good as true belief at achieving the same end
Briefly present Longino’s argument that if the claim we have called Universal Background is true, the the objectivity of science cannot consist in the absence of bias or preconception.
Universal Background Whenever something e counts as evidence for a hypothesis h for some subject S, that is only because S relies on some substantive back- ground beliefs that themselves require evidence.
If Universal Background, then without bias or preconception, in the form of previous evidence and assumptions brought to the scientific enterprise, there can be no evidence.
Nickel’s answer:
a reductio
Suppose objectivity DID consist in absence of bias and preconception
Then E can be evidence for H (for a subject) in the absence of preconception
(there would be some beliefs, hypotheses that themselves do not require background beliefs)
BUT if Universal Background, then contradiction
Please explain how, according to Jones, an audience goes wrong in assessing the credibility of a speaker when they violate Rules 2 and 3.
Rule 2: Self-Trust and the Weighing of Evidence Let the presumption against accepting an apparently astonishing report or believing an apparently untrustworthy witness be rebutted when it is reasonable to distrust one’s own distrust or judgments of implausibility.
Rule 3: Self-Trust and the Burden of Evidence Seeking Let the burden of seeking corroborating evidence of trustworthiness vary inversely with how reasonable it is to trust one’s own tendency to trust witnesses of this type; and let the burden of seeking corroborating evidence for the likely truth of p vary inversely with how reasonable it is to trust the background knowledge one brings to bear in assessing plausibility
In assessing the credibility of a speaker, an audience goes wrong when violating rule 2 because they are judging the speaker’s credibility based on the belief of an astonishing report without reflecting on whether or not they should trust or distrust their judgment based on the case at hand
In assessing the credibility of a speaker, an audience goes wrong when violating rule 3 because an improper judgment is made due to the lack of corroborating evidence for the astonishing report to confirm that the proper judgment was made.
Nickel:
• An audience goes wrong because they don’t consider whether or not their judgment is right
•• An audience fails to seek corroborating evidence for their judgment when they distrust their judgment
(1) Consider the following claim:
If a subject has sufficient evidence for a true belief for that belief to count as knowledge according to Descartes’ Rational Certainty, then that subject has sufficient evidence for that belief to count as knowledge according to Russell’s High Probability.
Is this claim true or false? Briefly justify your answer.
Yes, because Descartes’ Rational Certainty requires complete certainty to an agent that p .; if evidence for p falls short of complete certainty, subject S is not justified in believing p.
Russell’s High Probability only requires that it is highly probable that p, so if p is completely certain, it is highly probable and hence satisfies both conditions.
