MID TERM 1

Question 1

Common misuse of ‘philosophy’

Answer 1

Characterize guiding principles

Question 2

Philosophy as a practice vs a body of knowledge

Answer 2

Can have knowledge of different philosophical theories and arguments, critiques, distinctions, and argument forms

Truth of theories is a matter of debate

As a practice - philosophy is the pursuit of truth by means of reason

Question 3

Issues with ‘truth by means of reason’

Answer 3

Truth itself is a matter of philosophical controversy

Question 4

Common view of what truth means in philosophy

Answer 4

Correspondence - if it represents the way things are in the world

Question 5

Objectivity vs relativity

Answer 5

Objective - some claims/beliefs/propositions are true independent of the beliefs/values of those who hold them

Relativism - truth is relative to an individuals beliefs/values

Question 6

Epistemology
Metaphysics
Value theory

Answer 6

Epistemology - theory of knowledge
Metaphysics - theory of reality
Value theory - theory of what is value

Question 7

What is value theory divided into

Answer 7

Ethics (morality)
Social/political philosophy
Aesthetics (beauty/value with respect to art)

Question 8

What issues/qualities do philosophical problems have

Answer 8

Deal with fundamentals in how we organize our experiences/reality

Fundamental questions of justification
Very general
Involve clarity on concepts
Pluralism

Question 9

How are philosophical questions answered

Answer 9

Critical argumentation, logic, and reasoning

Question 10

Argument

Answer 10

An attempt to transition from premises (starting point) to conclusion (finish line)

A set of propositions, one being the conclusion

Is the author offering reasons to support a conclusion?

Question 11

What makes a good/strong argument

Answer 11

Rationally persuasive (can be this but not actually strong)

Must be factually (all premises true) and logically strong (if it the premises are true, or would be true, then the conclusion is likely to be true)

Successful argument = factually and logically strong
Logical strength = independent of factual strength, pertains only to the logical relationship between premises/conclusion

Question 12

Types of standards of argument evaluation

Answer 12

Deductive
Ampliative (abductively strong and inductively strong)

Question 13

What is a valid argument?

Answer 13

If the truth of the premises absolutely guarantee the truth of its conclusion

Question 14

Abduction

Answer 14

Involves inferring that a theory or proposition is true on the basis of that theory or proposition providing the best explanation of some observed phenomenon.

E.g. Black holes, Mendel’s discovery of genes, medical diagnostics.

An abductive argument is logically strong if the conclusion provides the best explanation of the premises given other possible alternative explanations

Question 15

Inductive arguments

Answer 15

Inductive arguments involve taking a description of some sample and extending that description to items outside the sample

Question 16

Factors that indicate if an inductive argument is logically strong

Answer 16

• sample size
• representativeness of sample

Question 17

Cogent

Answer 17

Logically strong argument with acceptable and relevant premises

In general terms, a cogent argument is an argument whose premises (reasons) provides a good basis to believe its conclusion

Question 18

Acceptable premises

Answer 18

Can be true, but we might not definitely know their truth-value - they are reasonable to believe

Question 19

Positive relevance vs negative relevance

Answer 19

Positive relevance (if P provides some evidence that Q is true)

Negative relevance (if P provides some evidence that Q is not true)

Irrelevance (if P is neither positively or negatively relevant to Q)

Question 20

Types of knowledge

Answer 20

Ability knowledge (know how)
Propositional knowledge (know that)

A posteriori (through observation of empirical reality)
A priori (the truth of the proposition known is recognized from the meanings of the words composing the sentence, together, when needed, with some deductive argument)

Relational knowledge/by acquaintance or object knowledge

Question 21

Two basic requirements on propositional knowledge

Answer 21

Believed and true

False propositions can’t be known on this basis
We can’t know something if we don’t believe it

Justified false belief cannot be knowledge

Question 22

Belief

Answer 22

An attitude taken towards some proposition that regards the position to be true

Question 23

Dominant theories of truth

Answer 23

Correspondence theory
Coherence theory
Pragmatic theory
Minimal (deflationary) theory

Question 24

JTB account of knowledge

Answer 24

Justified true belief

The idea is that Justification, truth, and belief constitute jointly necessary and sufficient conditions for correct knowledge attributions

Question 25

Necessary and sufficient conditions

Answer 25

Y is necessary for X if the presence of Y is required to have X

Y is sufficient for X if the presence of Y is enough to ensure the presence of X

Question 26

Gettier counterexamples

Answer 26

There are cases where we have justified true belief about some proposition, but do not thereby have knowledge

1) You take an agent who forms her beliefs in a way that would usually lead her to have a false belief (like looking at a broken clock, or a mirage).
2) You add some detail to the example to ensure that the agent’s belief is justified nonetheless.
3) You make the case such that while the way in which the agent formed her belief would normally have resulted in a false belief, in this case, it so happened that the belief was true because of sheer luck.

Question 27

JTB+ to fix the Gettier counterexamples

Answer 27

An additional criteria is needed to fix JTB

Such as, no false presuppositions (which is hard to spell out this notion so that it is strong enough to deal with Gettier cases, but not so strong that it prevents us from having most knowledge that we think we have)

Question 28

Zagbzeski’s response to Gettier

Answer 28

According to Zagzebski, there are two ways to avoid the Gettier problem.

First, one might say that the Gettier cases do not satisfy the justification condition since, on this view, justification cannot generate truth due to being lucky.
So, the Gettier examples would not satisfy the justification condition of JTB because Gettier justifications generate truth belief because of luck.
Hence, Gettier cases are not counterexamples to JTB.

Knowledge does not exclude luck - so despite it being true based on luck it is still knowledge

Question 29

Timothy Williamson’s definition of knowledge

Answer 29

Suspected knowledge cannot be analyzed in the way JTB does

Williamson argues that:
1. Knowledge is a state of mind (or mental state).
2. That knowledge’s status as a mental state dooms to failure the traditional project of analyzing knowledge.
3. That knowledge is a very special kind of mental state.

Here is Williamson’s case that knowledge is a mental state
1. If knowledge closely resembles paradigm cases of a mental state, then unless a special reason disqualifies it, knowledge is a mental state.
2. Knowledge closely resembles paradigm cases of a mental state.
3. So, unless a special reason disqualifies it, knowledge is a mental state.
4. No special reason disqualifies it.
5. So, knowledge is a mental state.

Question 30

What does it mean to say a state is transparent

Answer 30

Whenever you are in the state, you are in a position to know that you are in the state

Question 31

Counterargument(s) to Williams knowledge as a mental state

Answer 31

Knowledge is not transparent, all other states are (countered by idea of hope)