Evidence and justification

Question 1

How does Hume divide Knowledge claims?

Answer 1

He divides them into:
1) Matters of fact: “Probable” claims that are Synthetic a posteriori

2) Relations of ideas: “Demonstrative” claims that are analytic a priori

Question 2

What does Hume say about the relation of causation? And what does this mean

Answer 2

it is is how… “we go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses.”

Only through what we perceive in the physical world, can we gain further knowledge.

Question 3

If observations about the physical world are our only method of gaining insight about the physical world and causation, what does this mean?

Answer 3

We can not use a priori statements to gain insight into the physical world, they have no relation to it as the don’t describe actual things.

We therefore can only induce using a posterior arguments, so are claims of knowledge about the physical world are falliable

Question 4

Why does Hume argue that we can see cause and effect but not causality directly?

Answer 4

We can see that in any given circumstance the cause leads to the effect, but we can not know for sure that this is the case with every given circumstance.

Question 5

What are we guilty of when we assume that the future will act as the past has?

Answer 5

We are guilty of inferring through the “uniformity of nature”, a natural human psychological feature that is not based on deduction but the habit to find patterns.

Question 6

Why can’t causal inference be made from demonstrative claims?

Answer 6

Because demonstrative claims are true in of themselves. You can describe a situation in a causal argument where the cause has a different effect, thus it can not be true in of itself.

Question 7

According to Hume, what do repeat similar results mean?

Answer 7

Chance. You cannot fully generalise because you cannot know causality directly.

Question 8

If we assume Hume is right, how does this effect scientific realism?

Answer 8

Only empirical data can meaningfully describe the world. Empirical data cannot be used to derive in information about “unobservables” nor can unobersavables be used to to describe things we can observe.

Question 9

Kant uses ideas of “transcendental deduction” to attack Humes separation between “probable” and “demonstrative” claims?

Answer 9

He argues that there are statements that are true in of themselves, but require experience to gain knowledge of.

Question 10

What implication does “transcendental deductive claims” about the relationship between observable and unobservables?

Answer 10

If we can deduce transcendentally, then we can make certain truth inferences about unobservables using observables and vice versa.

Question 11

What does Kant use to exemplify synthetic a priori claims and why?

Answer 11

Kant argues mathematical claims are synthetic a priori. He gives the example of “5+7=12” as nothing about the subject 12 is necessitated by the nature of the predicates; 5&7.

Question 12

How does Kant synthesis the aprioricity of causation, and use it to make inference generalisable?

Answer 12

Because we know that cause and effect is a priori, when we see a given effect repeatable stem from the same cause, we can generalise that this is true in all cases.

Question 13

If Hume is right in that we can not use inference to make truth claims, how does this impede the data collection?

Answer 13

There would be know way of determining the falsehood of anomalous results certainly.

Question 14

If we accept Hume is right, how dies the effect contrastive underdetermination?

Answer 14

It strengthens the notion that we cannot certainly discern between empirically identical hypotheses.

Question 15

Though Hume dismisses that certain claims can be be made through inference, his argument allows for probable claims. Give 2 major examples of this.

Answer 15

1) Nomologically- explanatory solutions.

2) Bayesian probability.

Question 16

How is the nomological-explanatory solution similar to Kantian explanations?

Answer 16

They both argue that regularities imply an underlying law.

Question 17

Explain “nomological-explanatory” solution

Answer 17

Through the observation of regularities, abductive logic can be used to infer to the best explaination (IBE). This means that if there appears to be a pattern than through Occam’s razor, their probably is.

Question 18

How do Bayesian methods work?

Answer 18

Through use of Bayesian methods, a probability can be calculated to work out the likelihood that a claim is generalisation.

Question 19

Hume argues that inference is circular in nature, explain.

Answer 19

The only thing to presuppose the uniformity of nature is that nature appears uniform.

Question 20

How does Strawson address scepticism of inductive knowledge?

Answer 20

1) Introduction to Logical Theory (1952): Induction will always be rationally employed as, by definition, rationality encompasses inference.
2) Analysis and Metaphysics (1992) describes “connective analysis”; related claims can support each other and they are still meaningful as long as they are sufficiently encompassing and informative.

Question 21

Psillos (1999) refers to “natural kinds” in his defence of induction. What is a natural kind and how does it rate to inferences?

Answer 21

Natural kinds refer to the groupings of objects based on shared properties. This improves the success of our induction through making more accurately generalisable claims.

Question 22

How can rule inference be used counter the issue of circular inference?

Answer 22

In rule inferences the conclusion is not found within the set, but rather the conclusion makes claims about the methods used to derive the premise.

E.G, Most F->G, we can infer inference is successful as it provides consistent results.

Question 23

Goodman develops upon Humes argument, what:

1) does he modify within the argument?
2) is the reason he modifies the argument?
3) cite as the new riddle of induction?

Answer 23

1) the uniformity of nature
2) Hume’s use of the uniformity is too vague because it assumes that the future resembles the past in all aspects
3) when is induction justifiable?

Question 24

How does Goodman argue inductive arguments differ from deductive arguments?

Answer 24

Because they are not necessarily true, they can not be reduced to syntax alone. Therefore the predicate necessitating the subject is insufficient to determine the validity of an argument.

Question 25

Explain entrenchment in terms of Goodman’s adjustment of uniformity principle.

Answer 25

Rather than assuming the future will resemble the past because it has in the past, we make predictions based on specific empirical claims and how much we value them as being reliable.

Question 26

What extra empirical value does Goodman assert is used in determine whether a predicate is justifiably inferable?

Answer 26

Projectibilty, in terms of readily used is it in preexisting theories.

Question 27

What doe critiques of Goodman argue about “grue”, and how does he refute this.

Answer 27

They argue that when referring to grue, you are referring to a predicate + time, however Goodman refutes this by noting that Green can be redefined in terms of “bleen” and “grue”, without any actual change, thus grue is not time contingent.