PHIL 310, Exam 1
A1. Motivate and explain the JTB account of knowledge, paying special attention to J.
An account of knowledge is justified true belief. If a person claims to know something then it has to be true. When someone makes a claim about how something is it should correspond to how it really is. Belief is an attitude towards a proposition. If we believe something we accept it as true. There are 7 general points of justification. 1) Epistemic justification. The type of justification required for knowledge is epistemic justification, which is aimed at truth. If one makes a knowledge claim that is epistemically justified then that claim is likely to be true. 2) True but not justified. There are an even/odd number of stars. Either one is true but neither is justified. 3) Justified but not true. The time 12:30 but my watch is broken. 4) Justified v. Justifying. Many things we believe we don't attempt to justify, such as the claim I am. This is a state of justification vs. the act. 5) Relative. Something can be justified for one person but not another. I understand the evidence that claims the earth is round but some people don't understand it. 6) Comes in degrees. 2=2 has more certainty than me being alive in 3 months. 7) Justified but not believed. I'm justified that I won't visit Mars but I don't believe that to be the case because I really want to visit Mars.
B2. Give one objection to foundationalism and articulate a possible response.
An objection to foundationalism is The Scatter Problem. Modest foundationalism holds that the nondoxastic experience of a triangle gives prima facie justification that there is a triangle. However, when you apply this principle to a chiliagon one doesn't seem justified in believing a thousand sided figure is in front of them. The objection is there are nondoxastic experiences that allow for justification and some that don't which creates a scattered plurality of principles. Thus, foundationalism is an inadequate system of justification. In response to the Scatter problem, a foundationalist could simply agree that we do have sensory experiences that don't justify claims of knowledge due to the limitations of our sensory apparatuses. However, this doesn't mean that the sensory apparatus of a super being (Superman or an extra-terrestrial) is incapable of identifying chiliagons as well as we identify triangles. Blind people are not justified in making claims of knowledge about the current color of traffic lights, but those with fully functioning visual apparatuses are justified. Animals that use sonar are justified in knowing their surroundings in the dark and I am not justified because I can't see in the dark.
C2. Explain how coherentism's approach to justifying cognitively spontaneous empirical beliefs differs from foundationalism's.
Cognitively spontaneous empirical beliefs for a foundationalist are justified because they just are. Our experience 'that of a triangle' justifies our claims 'that there is a triangle.' The knowledge of our own mental and perceptual states is a basic belief that is able to provide justification for our claims about the world. The foundationalist doesn't explain why/how spontaneous empirical beliefs receive justification. The cohernentist provides justification for spontaneous empirical beliefs through the overall system of beliefs. Experience of a triangle doesn't justify the belief of a triangle. It leads to a belief of a triangle; if that belief coheres with the system of beliefs then it is justified. For example, I believe the conditions of my perception are satisfactory, I believe I'm good at identifying triangles, and I have a belief that my perceptions are accurate, and I believe there is a triangle in front of me. The experience of a triangle doesn't provide justification for believing there is a triangle, but the belief there is a triangle fits in the system of beliefs without creating inconsistencies.
C1. Explain coherentism, paying special attention to what coherence among beliefs means.
Coherentism justifies beliefs by an evaluation of how they function in an overall body of beliefs. Instead of justification working in a chain, it comes from a web of interconnectedness with multiple beliefs supporting the justification of other beliefs. Coherence with a system of beliefs is necessary for a belief to be justified and if a belief coheres to an overall system of beliefs than that is sufficient for it to be justified. There are three factors that coherence depends on. 1) Logical inconsistency is a minus. If I believe in p and not p then the overall coherence of my belief is diminished. 2) Explanatory connections are a plus. If all the symptoms of an illness explain the diagnosis this strengthens the overall coherence of a belief system. 3) Inconsistency with norms about belief formation. If I believe things that come from wishful thinking, then the forming of those beliefs are inconsistent with my beliefs from scientific analysis. My wishful thinking beliefs weaken my overall belief system.
B1. Explain modest foundationalism in contrast with classical foundationalism.
Foundationalism justifies beliefs at a stopping point, which is a basic belief. A basic belief has a degree of justification that is independent of any justification they receive from other beliefs. For Classic foundationalism, justification can be transferred from one belief to another only through deduction. A deductive claim is infallible. The classic foundationalist acknowledges 2 types of basic beliefs; 1) Logic/math and 2) our own mental or perceptual states. Our mental/perceptual states, as long as they are not used to make claims about the world, have a degree of justification independent of any other belief. I have knowledge that I'm perceiving blue requires no further justification. I have knowledge of a blue ball in the world is not justified by the classic foundationalist. Modest foundationalism wants to account for knowledge claims such as these. So they have a third basic belief that classic foundationalism doesn't; Perceiving 'As if x' gives prima facie justification 'that x'. This third basic belief gives justification to knowledge claims about the world, the past, and the future because it allows for induction as well as deduction. This accounts for many more claims that most consider knowledge, but they are not infallible.
A2. Give and explain the regress argument for skepticism.
P1. Chains of justification work one of three ways. a. Terminating in something that itself is epistemically unjustified. b. Circling back to the thing that's under investigation. c. Never terminating (infinite regress) P2. a, b, and c are not adequate for justification. P3. Ways of justifying beliefs don't work. C. No beliefs are justified. The skeptic provides the three methods chains of justification. Method A can't work because once a chain reaches its end, that end has nothing that justifies it. Thus, the justification for the rest of the chain is in doubt. Method B doesn't work because justification works circular and ultimately the thing itself provides its own justification. If there is an infinite chain of justification then we can't be confident in the justification of the thing under investigation. Because these three methods are found inadequate and these are the only three methods of justification we are not able to justify any beliefs. Thus, we can't have knowledge.