Philosophy Test 2

Know how to use inference to the best explanation to think that nature is uniform and how it relates to the coin tossing machine example discussed in class.

P1) we observed every massive object we observe is attached to other massive objects (bias) (P2) It's too improbable that this is the result of mere chance (P3) The best explanation of this fact is that there is a law of nature (gravity) that governs the world (C)There is a Law of Gravity governing the world Relating to the uniformity of nature IBE: (P1): There were 100 heads in a row. (P2): This fact is too improbable if it is the result of mere chance. (P3): The best explanation for the 100 heads is that the machine is biased towards heads. (C1): The machine is biased towards heads. (C2): The next toss will be heads.

analytic proposition

a statement or judgment that is necessarily true on purely logical grounds and serves only to elucidate meanings already implicit in the subject; its truth is thus guaranteed by the principle of contradiction

uniformity of nature

is the principle that the course of nature continues uniformly the same, e.g. if X is the cause Y, then Y will necessarily exist whenever X exists.

physicalism

is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical

Know why it is that Hume thinks we regularly use induction.

its a psychological fact of human thinking; it's habit

proposition

things that can be true or false

Know in what ways Popper agrees with Hume regarding induction and in what ways he disagrees with him and why.

- both agree that induction is not rational -Hume think humans use induction out of habit and Popper think humans don't use induction at all

Know the difference, for Hume, between matters of fact and relations of ideas.

-Matters of fact= non necessary propositions there are established by observation; contingent; experience -Relation of Ideas= are propositions; can be true by definition or by thinking about them: logic and math

Know the litmus paper challenge to Popper's view that we discussed in class and why it is supposed to be a problem for Popper's view.

-Observation: Every time we dip litmus paper in acid it turns red. 1) Theory 1: Every time litmus paper is dipped in acid, it will turn red. 2) Theory 2: Every time litmus paper is dipped in acid it turns red before 2017, after which it turns blue. -One's general, intuitive knowledge would lead them to leaning more towards theory one; however, Popper on the other hand states that both of these theories are equally good, which to an ordinary person doesn't even appear as a possibility and just crazy. -Thus, one can see how this is the problem standing in the way of Popper's view especially since he is all about trying to disprove the problem of induction.

Know what the problem of induction is according to Hume.

-That making inductive inferences or inductive reasoning about anything cannot be justified; does not lead to knowledge -there is no such justified reason to think past experience with something yields future arguments -Matter of fact and Relation of ideas

induction

-arguments that establish the truth of the conclusion as probable or probably true -an inductive argument claims its conclusion follows with some degree of probability

Know what Strawson thinks about induction. Know why he thinks it demonstrates a confusion to ask "Is it rational to use induction?"

-based of reasonable definition -Is using induction rational?= yes bc it includes the use of induction, its part the actual definition for the word, and there is no independent meaning aside from the way we use it, knowing what rational means means induction is a rational thing to do -Ex: is the law legal? Legal is the law!

Know what the uniformity of nature is, why Hume thinks we're not justified in believing in it and why, if we were justified in believing in it, we would be justified in our beliefs about the unobserved.

-is governed by laws of nature,nature ordered, the future will be like the past: deductive arguement. -bc it doesn't solve the problem; you can see that nature is uniformed ;its not true by definition; relation of ideas -no bc its goes back to thinking inductively, which has no rational knowledge

Know Descartes's doubt argument and his divisibility argument. Know Leibniz's Law and the role it plays in the arguments. And know the criticism of the doubt argument that we talked about in class.

-properties (P1): The body is divisible. (P2): The mind is not divisible. (P3): If two things fail to have exactly the same properties, then they are not identical. (C): The mind and the body are not identical. -If 2 things are identical, they have exactly the same properties If 2 things fail to have exactly the same properties, then they are not identical the doubt argument makes use of an intentional property, but it doesn't seem that Leibniz Law can be applied to such properties. -Ex: for problem with doubt arg.=eminiem vs. Michael Meyers

Know why Harman thinks that there are common inferences that we make that employ inference to the best explanation that can't be thought of as instances of induction.

-there are things IBE can do that induction can't bc it requires explaining things Paley's design argument Arg. for uniformity of nature Arg. for fundamental particles (observes the effects) Agr. for mental of states of others (observe behaviors) -IBE can be used anytime you don't have direct observation

Know what conjectural knowledge is, -how it differs from a traditional view of knowledge and -what makes one conjecture better than another.

-you don't think of them as true; they are false or at best possibly true; you prefer them -Traditional view is belief,truth, justification -having informative content and withstood attempts of falsification Belief: Knowledge:Preference: Conjectural

inference to the best explanation (abduction)

Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation.

Know Descartes's view on mind and body: the difference between mind and body and how they interact.

Body= being such that I can doubt its existence Mind=you can't

Know why mind-body interaction is viewed as a problem for dualism and know the basic problem with the identity view: its inability to account for multiple realizability. Be able to say why it is that functionalism is able to account for multiple realizability.

Challenge: How do we make sense of mind-body interaction? The mind influences the body: -Depression leading you to be more lethargic -Placebo Effect -Hypochondriac always being sick The body influences the mind: -Drugs causing you to hallucinate -Touching a hot surface and it yields pain According to Descartes, the place of mind-body interaction is the pineal gland in the brain. However, what is odd about this, is that this contradicts with dualism. Even though Descartes agrees with dualism in that the mind and body are separate, Descartes contradicts himself by stating that the place of mind-body interaction is in the pineal gland in the brain. By saying this, Descartes is saying that the pineal gland has location in time and space as well as size, shape, and mobility and dualism states that the mind and body are separate and that mind is not supposed to have a location, shape, size, or mobility and the body is not supposed to have modes such as doubt, pain, anger, and/or love. -Let's take pain as an example. Human experiencing pain is due to c-fibers firing. Furthermore, let's say that octopus' experience pain due to o-fibers firing and martians experience pain through m-fibers firing. This shows that pain is realized in different sorts of things. However, the identity theory says that pain is equal to c-fibers firing in humans meaning that c-fibers firing is not equal o-fibers firing and that that isn't equal to m-fibers firing, thus meaning that the octopus and martian would then not feel pain. -To best understand how functionalism is able to account for multiple realizability, let's take a look at the following example. Let's say the input is a corked bottle of wine and the output is the cork removed from the bottle. Now the question is, how do we get from the input to the output? Well to do that, a wine bottle opener would need to be used, which would be the "property that plays the cork-removing role." Thus, being a wine bottle opener the property having a property that plays the cork-removing role demonstrates what all the wine-bottle openers have in common, which solves the problem of accounting for multiple realizability.

Know the three basic views of what mental states are (dualism, identity theory and functionalism) and how a supporter of each view answers the question, Is mind material?

Dualism= mind is not material; humans are made up of both mind and body and considers the mind and body separately Functionalism=mind is either (compatible with dualism); mental states are functional states Identity theory=mind is material; if mental states are just brain states and brain states are physical states, then mental states are physical states as well

Be familiar with the traditional account of knowledge and why knowledge is more than a merely true belief.

EX: lottery ticket= you form the belief you have the winning ticket and believe and it turns out you actually have it, but we don't think you know you have the winning ticket, we think you just got lucky -there is no justification for you thinking you have the winning ticket

Know how Harman thinks that induction can be thought of as an inference to the best explanation.

Everything that induction can do IBE can do too Induction will struggle without direct observation Induction requires no explanation whatsoever: expect what you see again

valid (as in "this argument is valid")

If an argument is sound, then its premises and conclusions are true; It is impossible to produce a valid argument for a false conclusion.

Know what it means for a theory (or conjecture) to have informative content for Popper.

It means if there is more informative content; there a more statements to disagree with it

deduction

an argument whose premisses are claimed to provide conclusive evidence for the truth of its conclusion.