philosophy 201 Unit 3, Exam 2

fallibilism

Knowledge does not require certainty. You can know so long as the chance that you are wrong is small

According to Hume, why do we engage in inductive reasoning? That is, why do we assume that things will behave in the future like they did in the past?

custom or habit causes us to associate events in our mind

According to local skepticism there is no knowledge whatsoever

false

Descartes holds that all ideas, including his idea of God, are derived ultimately from experience.

false

If we have no knowledge of the future, then global skepticism is correct

false

according to Leibniz's Theodicy, since our world contains some evil, it could be improved, or made better.

false

according to the God is Not Responsible to the problem of evil, God cannot forsee the evil things that free agents will do

false

deduction is risky in the sense that it can take you from true premises to a false conclusion.

false

if Hume's skepticism is correct, we can still know that all human beings are mortal.

false

if infallibilism is correct, we can acquire knowledge by way of inductive reasoning.

false

if the restricted definition of omnipotence is correct, then if God cannot make a triangle with four sides then he is not omnipotent

false

introspection provides us of knowledge of necessary truths

false

physical necessity is a stronger form of necessity than logical necessity.

false

some inductive arguments are valid.

false

the following claim is an example of logical necessity: If you smoke, you are more likely to get cancer.

false

the following claim is an example of physical necessity: all sisters have siblings.

false

to say that a belief is justified is to say that the belief is genuine -- that is, held with a significant degree of confidence.

false

According to the "God is not responsible" defense

free agents are the cause of evil, not God

Which of the following does Descartes argue for in Meditation III?.

god exist

The JTB account of knowledge

knowledge requires having a justified and true belief

relations of ideas

like math and logic; necessarily true, knowable a priori

Categorize the following necessity: a sound argument must have true premises.

logical necessity

Consider the following classical puzzle: can God make a boulder so large that even he cannot lift it? This is a puzzle regarding which of the traditional attributes of God.

omnipotence

The fallibilist says what

one can know even if there is a chance that one's belief is mistaken

give a counter example for If you have a justified belief, then you have knowledge

people believe the earth is flat, or they did believe back in the day before they had knowledge

Categorize the following necessity: if a human being is shot ten times in the head, they will die.

physical necessity

The faculty that is responsible for rational insights is:

reason

a priori knowledge

relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience. Necessary truths, no claim can be both true and false. FACTS 2+2=4

All sound arguments have true conclusions

relations of ideas

Suppose that Sam has a true belief that the French Revolution occurred in 1789. Yet, he doesn't know this. What can we conclude?

sam must lack good reason for believing as he does

According to Descartes, one should only accept or believe a claim insofar as

that claim is certain

In the second meditation, descartes claims what is certain

that he exist

empirical knowledge (a posteriori)

the senses and contingent truths about the world, it is sunny out

according to Hume, all inductive reasoning presupposes

the uniformity of nature

knowing whether it is sunny out would be categorized as a form of empirical knowledge

true

laws of biology are categorized as physical rather than logical necessities.

true

the empiricist is someone who holds that we are not capable of having a significant amount of a priori knowledge

true

the following claim is an example of physical necessity: if you jump off a 40 story building without a parachute, you will die.

true

the following is an example of logical necessity: modus ponens is a valid form of inference.

true

the following is knowable a priori: no necessary being is contingent.

true

Suppose Tom has a true belief that the Royals won the world series last year but he does not know this. Tom's true belief must be

unjustified

"Gratuitous" evil is

unnecessary evil

Categorize the following claim using Hume's fork: all living human beings have a heart

unobservable matter of fact

what is Hume's position regarding inductive reasoning

we cannot say whether conclusions of inductive arguments are probable or not

rationalism

we have a great deal of a priori knowledge

In the second Meditation, what does Descartes claim is indubitable or certain?

that he exists

Leibniz motto

this is the best of all possible worlds

a physical necessity could possibly change.

true

according to Descartes, in order to know a claim, one must be absolutely certain that the claim is true.

true

observable matters of facts

you are in class right now

The free will response

H

restricted definition of omnipotence

If it is possible, then God can do it

Descartes' argument for the existence of God

1. I have an idea of God 2. This idea is an idea of an all-perfect being 3. As such, this is an idea with the greatest degree of reality 4. This idea with the greatest degree of reality must have had a proportionate cause -------- 5. So, this idea must have been caused by God

In the latter half of the second Meditation, Descartes discusses what example?

A piece of wax that changes all of its observable properties.

The "Cartesian Circle" is

A problem Descartes encounters in showing that his faculties are trustworthy.

According to the value of freedom of defense,

A world in which there are free agents that occasionally do evil is better than a world with no free agents that never do evil.

the God is Not responsible defense

All evil is due to free will of moral agents So, God is not responsible for evil.

Omnibenevalent

All loving

Moral evil is

Any form of evil caused by moral agents, or beings that know the difference between right from wrong.

The problem of Divine foreknowledge

Can God foresee what we will do? Yes Then the unforeseeable evil defense fails, and perhaps we are not free No Then he is not omniscient Even if God does not know what we will choose, once we have chosen he can predict the consequences and intervene

matters of fact

Empirical truths and laws of nature Knowable a posteriori Denials are not contradictions Contingent truths

According to Descartes, where does his idea of God come from?

God

unrestricted definition of omnipotence

God can do anything, even the impossible

According to the unrestricted definition of God's omnipotence

God can do anything, including things that are impossible.

According to the unforeseeable evil defense.

God cannot foresee what free agents will do.

Suppose that the restricted definition of God's omnipotence is correct. Then which of the following would mean that God is not omnipotent?

God cannot make a human being who is invulnerable to radiation poisoning.

Descartes takes himself to have knowledge of the existence of God. How would he characterize this knowledge?

He knows particular claims by using introspection, and from these claims he infers the existence of God.

Which of the following best captures Mackie's understanding of the problem of evil?ƒ

It is a contradiction to say that a wholly good and all-powerful God exists, but that evil exists.

"cogito ergo sum"

I think, therefore I am (Descartes)

empiricism

Most of our knowledge comes from the senses. We have a little a priori knowledge of great significance.

The goal of cognitive vindication

We are all committed to something like this. We all trust our cognitive faculties to give us information. And so we are all committed to vindicating our faculties as trustworthy.

According to the fallibilist view of knowledge

One can know even if there is a chance that one's belief is mistaken.

Which of the following best captures Hume's skeptical position?

We have no good reason for regarding any unobservable matter of fact as even probable

According to the "Justified True Belief" account of knowledge, which of the following is not possible?

Someone knows something false. That is, they have knowledge of a claim and that claim is not correct.

In his first Meditation, Descartes

Subjects as much as possible to an extreme form of doubt.

In the first Meditation, what possibilities does Descartes consider?

That he is mad, or insane. That his current experiences are produced by dreaming, rather than normal perception. That an all powerful demon, or evil God is deceiving him about everything.

According to Hume, a "relation of ideas" is a claim which

can be known a priori

According to Mackie, which of the following is an "adequate" solution to the problem of evil?

The denial of God's omnipotence. The denial of the existence of evil

Local Skepticism

The position that nothing in certain areas (like values, religion, spirituality, etc.) can be known as true.

The problem of divine foreknowledge is

The problem of whether God's omniscience is compatible with the existence of free agents.

Infallibilism

To know, you must be certain. If there is even a miniscule chance that you are wrong, you don't know

Necessary truths are

True statements that could not have been false, needs

if Hume's skepticism is correct, one can still know that one exists.

true

Which of the following is a puzzle Mackie raises regarding free will as a response to the problem of evil?

Whether being omnipotent, God could have made human beings both free and all good.

Is the truth or falsity of the following knowable a priori or only a posteriori: If someone goes to Iowa State University, then they like football.

a posteriori

Using Hume's fork, classify the following claim: A deductively valid argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion.

a relation of ideas

The theodicy says what

all evil is a necessary part of the best of all possible worlds

omnipotent

all powerful

omniscient

all-knowing

the fact you exist is

contingent

Which of the following best summarizes Descartes's strongest reason on behalf of skepticism in Meditation I?

an all powerful God could potentially deceive one about everything

empirical knowledge

based on experience and observations that are rational, testable, and repeatable

According to the "Justified True Belief" account of knowledge, which of the following is necessary for knowledge?

belief, truth, justification

introspection gives us knowledge of what kinds of truths

contingent truths about one's own mind

if Hume's skepticism is correct, we can still know that all triangles have three sides.

true

Humans could only have discovered many truths about the world if our cognitive faculties are reliable. ------------- So, our cognitive faculties are reliable.

deductive

Knowledge requires certainty. Nothing is certain. --------- Therefore, nothing is known.

deductive

counter example for if something is a matter of fact, a contingent truth about out world, then it is knowable on the basis of direct observation

dinosaurs existed

non-observable matters of fact

dinosaurs existed

necessary truth

either something exists or nothing exists

You know that you live in the United States. What kind of knowledge is this?

empirical knowledge

evil is a physically necessary part of the world

evil is physically necessary for bringing about some good

Introspection

examination of one's own thoughts and feelings

if the conclusion of an argument is certain, then the argument must be deductive

true

necessary conditions on knowledge

having a belief that is true and having justification for one's belief

What best explains Descartes's motivation for attempting to prove the existence of God in Meditation III?

he wants to show that he can trust his cognitive faculties

example of a physical necessity

humans need oxygens

counter example for all evil is caused by free agents

hurricanes

give a counter example for all non-empirical knowledge is of necessary truths knowable a prior

i exist

Descartes accepted which of the following?

infallibilism

Right now, you know whether or not you are in the mental state of being sleepy. What is the source of this knowledge?

introspection

How descartes categorize his knowledge of own existence

introspective knowledge

according to the unforeseeable evil defense the reason evil exists is that

it is caused by free agents, and so God cannot anticipate it

if you can acquire knowledge by way of an inductive argument then fallibilism is correct

true

What can be known a priori

no claims are both true and false

The problem of divine foreknowledge is that if God is omniscient and can know what we will do in the future then

no free will

non-empirical knowledge

no observations or sensory experience is necessary to gain or to prove the knowledge

Using Hume's fork, categorize the following claim: Tomorrow the sun will rise in the east.

non-directly observable matter of fact

if the unrestricted definition of omnipotence is correct, then God cannot do

nothing

Descartes argument for global skeptiscm was

nothing is certain so nothing is known

suppose that a God does not care about the suffering of some human beings, and even delights in it. The plausibly that God is not

omnibenevalent

Suppose that God is indifferent to human suffering. In that case God is not

omnibenevolent

in the first meditation descartes provided an argument for global skepticism

true

One problem with any free will defense is that

some evil is natural evil

evil is a logically necessary part of the world (second-order goods)

some good logically require evil second order goods mother teresa easing suffering (suffering is bad) the good of eliminating suffering cannot exist unless suffering exists

The Cartesian Circle

there is no way to be absolutely certain that one's faculties are not systematically deceptive. We have no choice but to be fallibilism

contingent truths

things that are true, but did not have to be true, could have failed to be true, and are NOT true in all possible worlds

Descartes holds that there exists some non-empirical knowledge.

true

Descartes was a rationalist.

true

Hume would say that deduction is a trustworthy form of reasoning.

true

according to Descartes, we have non-empirical knowledge.

true

according to Hume, all knowledge of non-observable matter of facts depends upon induction

true

all matters of fact are contingent rather than necessary

true

by the end of Meditation II Descartes rejects the skeptical claim that since nothing is certain, there is no knowledge.

true

even if the argument from evil is sound, it is possible that there is a God so long as that God is either not all-knowing, or not all-powerful, or not all-good.

true