Philsophy
The argument below is valid. (1) If Napoleon was born in Chicago, he was the Emperor of France. (2) Its not the case that Napoleon was born in Chicago. (3) So, its not the case that Napoleon was the Emperor of France.
False
The argument below is valid. (1) If this wire is made of copper, this wire will conduct electricity. (2) This wire will conduct electricity. (3) So, this wire is made of copper.
False
The premises of an argument are those statements in the argument for which the conclusion is meant to provide support.
False
A rebutting defeater is...
Evidence that what appears to be true is false.
According to Buddhism, there is a self. But we should not be attached to it.
False
According to Feldman, atheists are rational and theists are irrational.
False
According to eliminativism about persons I am the same person today as I was yesterday.
False
An argument is any collection of statements.`
False
Descartes thought that a good reason to doubt our senses is that they sometimes deceive us.
False
One important difference between Clifford and James is that Clifford thinks we should pursue the truth but James does not.
False
Reasonable disagreement is when two people agree not to fight about their different beliefs.
False
According to Emptiness Buddhism... (Note: More than one answer may be correct.)
- people are like cars. - there is a conventional reality. - experiences have no inherent nature
According to Reductionist Buddhism...
- the tiniest parts of a thing are real and do not depend on anything else for their existence. - people are like cars. - there is a conventional reality. - there is an ultimate reality.
The argument below is valid. (1) All cadets at military institutions are drug-free. (2) Snoop Dogg was once a cadet at a military institution. (3) So, Snoop Dogg is drug free.
False
The argument below is valid. (1) If Fido is a dog, then he is a mammal. (2) It is not the case that Fido is a dog. (3) So, Fido is not a mammal.
False
The Puzzle about Teaching and Practice is:
Buddhism is a non-violent religion. But its history and practice are closely tied with martial arts.
Do you think reasonable religious disagreement is possible?
I do not believe that reasonable disagreement is possible in the case of religion, if we then want to claim that any religion/god is objectively true. Due to the fact that we must be either ignorant, or subjective in order to justify reasonable disagreement in religion, indicates that the thing we are thusly disagreeing about (in this case religion) cannot be objective. The reason for this in the former - ignorance - is that simply not taking into account another person's beliefs does not justify our own. This is even worse than PC, since even when there are defeaters from other similarly reasonable and intelligent people, we in this case chose to ignore them, which is illogical. We cannot reach truth in our own, or anyone else's beliefs by disregarding and ignoring the beliefs of other comparably reasonable people, since that is just the ignorance of other relevant evidence, since no one really can know whether there is a god or not and if they say they do, then it is knowledge that is usually not transferable to other people (visions, intuitions, feelings, etc.) The reason for non-objectivity in the latter - allowance of subjective beliefs - is pretty clearly right away not objective. The fact that something can be true for someone else and something other can be true for me indicates that the matter in question is either not the same, or it is not objective. In conclusion, that means that reasonable religious disagreement can only be possible if religion and its doctrines and beliefs are subjective to those that believe in it, or in the case that there are many religions and many different gods. Subjectivity in itself would then mean that this type of religion would only be true to a certain group of people, but not to everyone. If we want to argue that religion (whichever one) and god are objective truths, then reasonable religious disagreement is impossible.
Present and explain the Argument that PC Makes Justified Belief Too Easy. To do this you must explain the theory being attacked by the argument (.5pts), identify the premises and conclusion of the argument (.5pts), and explain the examples used to support the argument (.5pts).
Phenomenal Conservatism states that if it seems to you that something is true, then in the absence of defeaters, you have some justification for believing it. As discussed in class, critics of the argument say that this is too easy to misuse and thus PC can allow for some pretty wacky, unreasonable beliefs. The example discussed in class talked about a person walking by a tree and just having the intuition/feeling that the tree was planted in April of 1914. The fact that there is no plaque on the tree indicating otherwise, or that there is no one nearby with the knowledge of the actual date of the planting of the tree, would under the classifications of PC indicate that the person who just felt like the tree was planted in April of 1914 (without any tangible evidence) is justified in that belief, since there are no defeaters. This however makes little sense, since there is no reasonable proof that the tree was actually planted in April of 1914. This gets to the argument against PC, which states that: (1) If PC is true, then I'm justified in believing that the tree was planted in April of 1914. (2) But those beliefs are not justified. (3) So, PC is not true. PC says I am justified in believing the tree was planted on that date, only because there are no defeaters. The absence of the defeaters at the moment, does not mean however that there are none at all and neither does it mean that I have logical proof for my belief and thus those beliefs are not justified, so PC is not true. Another example is of someone having clairvoyance and acting based upon the belief that they can indeed just know stuff, even though they have never actually tested whether this skill of theirs actually provides them with true, legitimate beliefs. This is equally irrational as the example with the tree, since beliefs cannot be based solely on missing evidence (i.e. the absence of defeaters), but rather must have some evidence speaking in its favor. If we accept beliefs only because they are 'innocent' and have no obvious defeaters at the moment we form them, we are then subject to corruption of our other beliefs and even of the actions that stem from those beliefs, since the beliefs were not based on real evidence in the first place, but rather the lack of evidence for a contrary standpoint to our own.
What according to Buddhism is the Problem? And what is the Solution?
The problem is that we suffer. The solution is to get rid of attachment.
According to Buddhism, one of the main sources of suffering stems from attachment to the self.
True
An argument is valid if and only if it has a form such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true.
True
The argument below is valid. (1) All cadets at military institutions are drug-free. (2) Snoop Dogg is a cadet at a military institution. (3) So, Snoop Dogg is drug free.
True
The argument below is valid. (1) If a world government doesn't occur soon, then we're in for a lot more terrorism and war. (2) A world government isn'g going to occur soon. (3) So, we're in for a lot more terrorism and war.
True
The conclusion of an argument is the statement in an argument for which the premises are meant to provide support.
True
Descartes thought that a good reason to doubt our senses is that...
any experience we have while awake we could also have while dreaming.
The Net of Indra represents:
the way in which all beings depend on all other beings
The lesson of the early and late example is that...
there can be reasonable disagreements in cases in which evidence is not shared.
