PHIL 302 Epistemology, Moon, Mid-term Exam

SV1 and SV2

1: we know a large variety of things in categories (a-k) our environment, our own feelings and thoughts, etc. 2: our primary sources of knowledge are (a-f) perception, memory, etc.

Chisholm's objections to Methodism and empiricism

Its a broad view and an arbitrary choice. ex. "All knowledge comes from science" not a scientific claim It says we don't know things that we clearly do know, doesn't acknowledge morality or empathy.

What are five deductive argument forms? (AA)

MP, MT, DA, AC, DS, HS

Three views in response to the Criterion Problem.

Methodist, Particularist, Skeptic

Three types of justification

Moral justification-what is good Prudential Justification-for the better Epistemic Justification-the right standing of belief in respect to knowledge-is it likely to be knowledge

sufficient condition

a condition that is enough to bring about a further condition

necessary condition

a condition without which another event cannot occur

Objections to evidentialism (ex. movie times 4.6)

a couple is going to the movies, the man saw that the showtime was 8 pm yesterday in the paper, so they showed up at 8 and the movie had started at 7 which was noted in today's paper that he didn't consult. BJ implied that the man was justified...wrong. GEP-If S's evidence supports P, but S should have had additional evidence, and this additional evidence would not support P, then S's belief in P is not justified.

propositional attitude

a mental state held by an agent toward a proposition. Kent believes that scientology is cool.

List the sources of knowledge according to the Standard View

a. Perception b. Memory c. Testimony d. Introspection e. Reasoning f. Rational Insight

NFG will work provided that...

a. in all Gettier cases the believer has a false ground b. there are no cases of knowledge in which the believer does have a false ground.

Empiricism

the view that knowledge originates in experience; Sensory experience.

Evidentialism

the view that we are justified in believing something only if it is supported by sufficient evidence

JD-Justified Deduction Principle JF-Justified Falsehood Principle

two ways to defend TAK JF-it is possible for a person to be justified in believing a false proposition. If JF is false then no beliefs are justified. JD-If S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q. If JD is correct then the belief will be a JTB that's not knowledge.

Skeptic

we have no knowledge either of A or B. We must know both.

Feldman's reply to Clifford's thesis (4.4 & 4.5)

4.4: The Optimistic Batter-each time he comes to bat he believes that he will get a hit. It is not wrong for the batter to believe this, it is better for him to do so. he knows he is a good batter but lacks sufficient evidence. 4.5: Recovery-This person is not willing to give up their "fight" in this illness and survive although their odds are slim. Clifford's thesis would say that it's wrong for this person to be optimistic and believe that they will survive.

Two questions to start "The Problem of the Criterion"

A. What do we know and what is the extent of our knowledge? B. How are we to decide whether we know and what are the criteria for knowledge?

What are the two parts of a conditional called?

Antecedent and Consequent

TB counterexample

Any time when a person has a true belief but does not have knowledge. Ex. You believe that your favorite team will win and they do, so your belief was true but there was no conclusive knowledge.

Infinite Regress Argument

Argument that goes on forever without arriving at absolute truth Either there are justified basic beliefs or each justified belief has an evidential chain that either a. ternimates and unjustified belief b. is an infinate regress of beliefs c. is circular a. no b.no c.no there are justified basic beliefs

JB- Justified Belief

B is a justified basic belief=df. B is justified, but is not justified on the basis of any other beliefs.

Example of sufficient condition

Being POTUS is a sufficient condition for being at least 35

Example of necessary condition

Being at least 35 is a necessary condition for being POTUS

Evidentialist Justification (EJ)

Believing P is justified for S at t iff S's evidence at t supports p. all the evidence that a person has at a given time consisting of what data and evidence they may have no the possession of the evidence physically.

What is the second part of a conditional statement?

Consequent

Cartesian Foundationalism

Descartes wants certainty in the foundation so that he can reason deductively from basic beliefs to non-basic beliefs 1. There are justified basic beliefs 2. all justified non-basic beliefs are justified in virtue of their relation to justified basic beliefs. -Propositions describing what one feels and thinks are basic -JBBs are infalliable

D1 (propositional knowledge)

Either S knows P or S knows not P

Example of Disjunctive Syllogism (Valid) (two right answers)

Either he is tired or he is hungry. He is not tired. Therefore, he is hungry.

Infinite regress response from a foundationalist, Coherentist, and Skeptic

Foundationalist: The argument is sound. There are JBBs, and they are a foundation upon which all other justified beliefs rest. Coherentist: the argument goes wrong at 1-4: "No belief could be justified by itself, so no justified belief could have an evidential chain that is circular." Skeptic: the argument is wrong at the start when it assumes that there are justified beliefs. there are none.

An argument is valid if...

It is impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false

Counterexamples to TAK: JTB

Gettier Cases: sheep in the field, 10 coins, nogot haveit ford. Ex. He sees a sheep in field, its just a fake sheep, there's a real sheep that he cant see but is there, so he's only right by chance and not justified.

Example of Modus Ponens (Valid)

If Bob is from RVA, then he is from VA. Bob is from RVA. Therefore, Bob is from VA.

Example of Modus Tollens (Valid)

If Janet is from RVA, then she is from VA. Janet is not from VA. Therefore, Janet is not from RVA.

Hypothetical Syllogism

If Moe is a dog, then Moe is a mammal. If Moe is a mammal, then Moe is an animal. If Moe is a dog, then Moe is an animal. Remember, it's a chain.

Denying the Antecedent (DA)

If P, then q. Not P. Therefore, not q. (Invalid)

Modus Tollens (MT)

If P, then q. Not q. Therefore not P. (valid)

Affirming the Consequent (AC)

If P, then q. q. Therefore P (Invalid)

Example of Affirming the Consequent (Invalid)

If Prof. Moon is Chinese, then he is Asian. Prof. Moon is Asian. Therefore, he is Chinese. IV

Example of Denying the Antecedent (invalid)

If Prof. Moon is Chinese, then he is Asian. Prof. Moon is not Chinese. Therefore, he is not Asian. IV

Hypothetical Syllogism (HS) (Chain)

If p, then q. If q, then r. Therefore, if p, then r. (Valid)

Modus Ponens (MP)

If p, then q. p. Therefore, q. (valid)

John Locke and Hume

Were Methodist and Hume further developed the view of Empiricism

Is the following a valid argument? The Sky is Blue. Clouds are in the Sky. I am a human being.

No, true premises and a true conclusion don't alone provide a valid argument.

List what we know according to the Standard View

Our immediate environment: "Nice Place Brother" Our own thoughts and feelings: ow Commonsense facts about the world: this is VA Scientific facts: cigs cause cancer Mental states of others: his wife just died, he is sad The Past: FDR was president Mathematics: 9+10=21 Conceptual truths: Orange is a color Morality: Killing children is wrong The Future: My birthday is in two days Religion: God loves me

Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)

P or q. Not P. Therefore, q. (valid) the opposite is also valid

Counterexample

Proves a condition to be false and provides an example where it would not be true

TAK: Knowledge is Justified True Belief

S knows P iff: S believes P, P is true, and S is justified in believing P. Belief, truth, justification: JTB

D4a & D4b

S knows how to A= df. If a is an important step in A-ing, then S knows that a is an important step to A-ing. knowing how can be defined in terms of propositional knowledge? as a child can know how to ski without conceptualization, there is a second example: D4b: S knows how to A=df. S is able to A.

True Belief TB

S knows that P if and only if S believes P and P is true.

truth condition of knowledge

S knows that P only if P is true. (would be a necessary condition)

Propositional Knowledge

S knows that P. Knowing whether and knowing that.

no false grounds NFG

S knows that p if and only if (2) S believes that p, (2) p is true, (3) p is justified for S, and (4) S's ground for believing that p does not include any false propositions. Avoids Gettier style counterexamples. Adds a 4th condition to TAK: all of S's grounds for believing P are true.

belief condition of knowledge

S knows that p only if S believes that p; belief is a necessary condition of knowledge

D3

S knows x=df. S has propositional knowledge of some facts about x. Ex. JD Salinger case. Knowing some facts about someone is not sufficient for knowing the person.

Basing Justification (BJ)

S's belief that P at a time t is justified (well-founded) IFF

Reid and Moore

Were particularists. "I know very well this is a hand" rational belief.

"The Ethics of Belief" Clifford's epistemic evaluation

The Negligent Ship owner decides that his ship is ready to sail without checking anything. The ship sinks and people die bc there was something wrong. Clifford uses this example to formulate the following thesis: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

Being a bachelor is a sufficient condition for being unmarried

True

Being a student is a necessary condition for being a VCU student

True

How are apples disanalogous to our beliefs?

We have a method for distinguishing a bad apple from a good one but we lack a criterion for determining what is a good belief.

Good apples v. Bad apples

We need a system in order to distinguish good from bad beliefs

Objections to NFG

a. there are Gettier style cases in which someone does not goes through a false step in their reasoning. ex. The alternate route (Someone in the office owns a ford, skip a false premise) the mere fact that there is a falsehood among ones reasons for a belief does not show that one lacks knowledge.

A sound argument...

always has true premises

indubitable

certain beyond doubt or question

Particularist

has an answer to A and then tries to answer B

Methodist

has an answer to B and then tries to answer A

infallible

incapable of making mistakes or being wrong