Theory of Knowledge
Skills
(How to read a map) Experience helps us gain skills.
Epist: Which of these expresses a proposition? -"What time is it?" - "Thanks." - "The milk is in the fridge." - "Shut that door!"
- "The milk is in the fridge." Here are four ways of thinking about propositions. (1) A proposition is what is expressed by a declarative sentence. (2) A proposition is something that can be true or false. (3) A proposition is something that can be asserted, believed or known. (4) A proposition is something that could be a premise or a conclusion of an argument. All of the phrases in this question are meaningful in some way, but only "The milk is in the fridge" expresses something that fits all four of these criteria.
Objectivism is inconsistent with which of the following claims? - Most people's morals are corrupted. - Our senses can tell what is true. - 'Truth' is only a matter of opinion. - Human reason cannot see the ultimate truths.
- 'Truth' is only a matter of opinion. The objectivist holds that there are (or can be) objective truths about the world that hold independent of whether anyone believes them, has evidence for them, or has any thoughts about them whatsoever. In other words, objectivists believe that reality is \textit{mind-independent}mind-independent. How or whether we can come to \textit{know}know about this world is a separate issue.
Time Travel: According to David Lewis, what would time travel involve? - A discrepancy between "personal time" and "external time": i.e. time travel takes place when personal time has a different duration and/or direction to external time. - A reversal of causal processes, so that everything happens backwards rather than forwards. - A discrepancy between "personal time" and "external time": i.e. time travel takes place when our subjective or personal \textit{experience}experience of time does not seem to match what is going on in the external world. - None of the above: Lewis held that time travel is logically impossible.
- A discrepancy between "personal time" and "external time": i.e. time travel takes place when personal time has a different duration and/or direction to external time. Lewis defined time travel in the following way: 'What is time travel? Inevitably, it involves discrepancy between time and time. Any traveler departs and then arrives at his destination; the time elapsed from departure to arrival (positive, or perhaps zero) is the duration of the journey. But if he is a time traveler, the separation in time between departure and arrival does not equal the duration of the journey.'
Time Travel: Why is it logically impossible to assassinate your own grandfather before he had produced your mother or father? - Because time travel is impossible. - Because we will never have the technological capability to travel in time. - Because we do not yet have the technological capability to travel in time. - Because in doing so you would make it the case that you had never existed; but in order to assassinate your grandfather you must exist.
- Because in doing so you would make it the case that you had never existed; but in order to assassinate your grandfather you must exist.
What are miracles according to David Hume's definition? - Events that are inconsistent with the laws of nature. - Events that could not possibly happen. - Events that are very unlikely. - Events that present science cannot explain.
- Events that are inconsistent with the laws of nature. According to Hume, miracles are events that violate natural laws, viz. are exceptions to previously exceptionless regularities. (It is generally thought that Hume defined laws of nature in terms of regularities; although this point of interpretation has recently become controversial.)
Which of the following are instances of gaining a belief via testimony? (Select as many boxes as is appropriate.) - Forming the belief that phenolphthalein turns colourless in acidic solutions by dipping phenolphthalein into an acidic solution. - Forming the belief that Hume mistrusted testimony by hearing it in a philosophy lecture.
- Forming the belief that Hume mistrusted testimony by hearing it in a philosophy lecture. To gain a belief via testimony is to believe something on the basis of an assertion made by someone else. Since assertions purport to tell that something is the case, they can therefore be made in writing or in speech.
Time Travel: An event X counterfactually "changes" an event Y (in other words, Y counterfactually depends on X if and only if... - X is in the past and Y is in the future. - X and Y both in fact occurred - If X had not occurred, Y would not have occurred. - If X occurs, it is logically impossible for Y to not occur.
- If X had not occurred, Y would not have occurred.
Which of the following is the \textit{best}best objection to emotivism about morality? - If emotivism is true, then polygamy is not really wrong. - If emotivism is true, then it is unclear how we reason our way to moral conclusions, which we sometimes seem to do. - What is considered morally right or wrong varies from culture to culture. - If emotivism is true, then genocide is not really wrong.
- If emotivism is true, then it is unclear how we reason our way to moral conclusions, which we sometimes seem to do. Correct Note that the claim 'If emotivism is true, then genocide/polygamy is not really wrong' is not a cogent objection to moral emotivism: the emotivist simply claims that statements about what is right or wrong express emotional attitudes. Similarly, the claim that 'What is considered morally right or wrong varies from culture to culture' does not present a telling objection to emotivism since emotivism can be true even while this second claim is true: the two claims are consistent.
Thomas Reid criticised David Hume's position on testimony on the grounds that: - Testimonial knowledge is gained through the senses and our senses are reliable. - If it were correct, we would be deprived of much of the knowledge we in fact possess. - It supports atheism or agnosticim.
- If it were correct, we would be deprived of much of the knowledge we in fact possess. Correct Reid noticed that a great deal of our knowledge is based entirely on testimony. If we could not take e.g. reputable scientists' testimony as true without first seeking external evidence that they were reliable, it would be very difficult for us to know even that the earth is not flat, that it rotates around the sun, or that spacetime is curved, etc.
Hard determinists... - Focus on how practical their theory is - Agree that we don't have metaphysical free will but think we do have moral responsibility - Maintain that we have neither metaphysical free will nor moral responsibility.
- Maintain that we have neither metaphysical free will nor moral responsibility.
To which one of the following claims must any moral objectivist be committed? - Moral claims must be supported by objective evidence, not mere feelings or opinions. - Moral claims are scientific claims - Any moral claim that is supported by objective evidence must be true - Moral claims can be true independently of what anyone thinks or feels about them
- Moral claims can be true independently of what anyone thinks or feels about them The objectivist holds that there are (or can be) objective truths about the world that hold independent of whether anyone believes them, has evidence for them, or has any thoughts about them whatsoever. In other words, objectivists believe that reality is \textit{mind-independent}mind-independent. How or whether we can come to \textit{know}know about this world is a separate issue.
Time Travel: Which of the following can be replaced in time? - Objects - Moments in time
- Objects A glass can be shattered at 12:53 and "replaced" by shards. However, the same unbroken glass cannot then exist at 12:53 as that would be replacing time. It is logically impossible.
In arguing about free will, compatibilists (such as Hume) argue... - Everything is predetermined and therefore we are not responsible for our actions. - That even if everything were causally determined, this needn't be a problem because we could still be morally responsible for what we do.
- That even if everything were causally determined, this needn't be a problem because we could still be morally responsible for what we do. to wit, we are both CAUSED and FREE. Determinism and moral responsibility are compatible
The 'No False Lemmas' account of knowledge attempts to respond to Gettier cases by adding an extra condition to the classical account of knowledge. What is that condition? - That the belief is not true due to luck - That the belief is not based on any false assumptions - That the belief is likely to be true
- That the belief is not based on any false assumptions Problem: How can a knower ever know if they're making a false assumption? This lacks any practical use.
Determinism is... - The idea that as agents, we determine our own choices. - The idea that everything that happens is determined by the physical conditions that preceded it
- The idea that everything that happens is determined by the physical conditions that preceded it
Why did David Hume and Thomas Reid think that we trust our senses without evidence that they are likely to be right? - Checking that our senses are reliable is too difficult in practice. - We can't have good evidence that our senses are reliable. - We have been taught to trust our senses by our parents and general enculturation. - We are ignorant of the scientific evidence regarding the unreliability of our senses.
- We can't have good evidence that our senses are reliable. According to both Hume and Reid, we need to first trust our senses in order to see that our senses are reliable. Therefore we trust our senses without having good evidence of their reliability.
Which of the following claims does the radical sceptic make? - We are not infallible. - We know that we are brains-in-vats. - We do not know that we are not brains-in-vats.
- We do not know that we are not brains-in-vats. Radical sceptics claim that we cannot know that we are not brains-in-vats since we cannot rule out that possibility. The claim that we know that we \textit{are}are brains-in-vats is a different, stronger claim than this. The claim that we are not infallible is a weaker claim than this, and not sufficient for scepticism.
Which of the following claims are specific to moral relativism? (Select as many options as appropriate.) - Which moral claims are false here and now depends on the facts about you or facts about the group you are currently in. - What is fundamentally morally right and wrong can differ from one group of people to another. - Which moral claims are deemed false here and now depends exclusively on whether evidence supports them here and now. - What is held to be morally right and wrong is not really right or wrong, because moral claims simply cannot be 'right' or 'wrong'.
- Which moral claims are false here and now depends on the facts about you or facts about the group you are currently in. AND - What is fundamentally morally right and wrong can differ from one group of people to another. Moral relativism is the claim that what \textit{is in fact}is in fact right and wrong depends on factors that can vary between people. This is distinct from the claim that different people have different \textit{beliefs}beliefs or \textit{opinions}opinions regarding what is right and wrong.
How did David Hume think that one ought to assess the likelihood of an event taking place after having acquired testimony that it took place? - Use neuro-linguistic programming techniques to assess the truthfulness of the testifier. - Consider whether the testifier herself believes that the event took place on the basis of testimony. - Work out what is more likely: that the testifier is mistaken or lying, or that the event actually happened. - Work out whether the event actually happened by relying on our epistemic intuitions instead of testimony.
- Work out what is more likely: that the testifier is mistaken or lying, or that the event actually happened. Hume thought that one should consider whether it is more probable that the testimony is false or that the event took place.
Four characteristics of sense perception
1. Human 2. Variable 3. Selective 4. Interpretive
Hofstede's Dimensions of Culture
1. Power distance 2.indiv./collect 3.masc./fem 4. Uncert. avoid 5. Time orientation
Confirmation bias
A cognitive bias to support beliefs we already hold, including the tendency to notice and accept con rming information while ignoring or rationalizing discon rming information.
Default mode
A common behavior that results from evolved emotions and subconscious processes without metacognitive insight.
Which of the following scenarios is a Gettier-case? - A man enters his house and does not see his wife. He nevertheless forms a belief that his wife is in the house. His wife is indeed in the house, but upstairs and out out of sight. - A man enters his house and sees a clever holographic image of his wife, which looks exactly like her. On this basis he forms a belief that his wife is in the house. His wife is not in the house. - A man enters his house and sees a clever holographic image of his wife, which looks exactly like her. On this basis he forms a belief that his wife is in the house. By coincidence, his wife is in the house, but upstairs and out of sight.
A man enters his house and sees a clever holographic image of his wife, which looks exactly like her. On this basis he forms a belief that his wife is in the house. By coincidence, his wife is in the house, but upstairs and out of sight. Correct Yes, this is a Gettier-style case. The man believes his wife is in the house; this belief is justified, as the man has good reason to believe his wife is in the house; and the belief is true since the man's wife is in the house. However, intuitively, the man does not know since there is no appropriate connection between the justification of his belief and the truth of his belief; his belief is luckily true.
Cognitive dissonance
A state of mind that is caused by the act of holding two beliefs at the same time that are mutually exclusive, or that conflict with each other.
Poli Phil: Comply v. Obey the Law
Comply: Acting in accordance with the law Obey: Doing what the law commands because the law commands it
Time Travel: What constitutes a causal loop? - A chain of impossible events. - A chain of events that creates a paradox. - An impossible chain of events. - A chain of events such that an event is among its own causes.
Correct A causal loop is chain of events such that an event is one of its own causes: an event partly causes itself. Causal loops present a puzzle for the intelligibility of backwards time travel: where does the information contained within a causal loop come from?
Time Travel: Causal loops pose a puzzle: what is the entry point for the information in a causal loop? What is David Lewis' response? - There is no entry point for the information in a causal loop - causal loops are not possible. - There is an entry point for the information in a causal loop - but we have not yet found out what it is. - There is no entry point for the information in a causal loop - the information does not exist. - There is no entry point for the information in a causal loop - the information simply exists.
Correct Lewis argued that the information in a causal loop - and in any entire chain of events - simply exists. For any chain of events, we lack a good explanation of the chain of events as a whole.
"No moral claim could ever be true." Which, if any, view about the status of moral claims is committed to this statement? - No view is committed to this claim - Emotivism - Objectivism - Relativism
Emotivism Both objectivism and relativism hold that moral claims can be true or false (these views differ over what makes moral claims true or false). Emotivism denies, however, that moral claims are the kinds of things that can be true or false.
Experiential Knowledge
Experience+Reflection (Going for a hike)
David Hume argued for the view that we ought not to trust testimony without evidence on the grounds that humans are "hardwired" to be dishonest, and hence we ought not to trust their testimony. True or false?
False Hume did not think that humans are dishonest by nature. However, neither did he think that we are "hardwired" to be honest or reliable. Therefore, although we should not think that all testimony is likely to be dishonest, we should always consider whether the testimony with which we are presented is true or not.
The radical skeptic thinks that even if we cannot rule out the skeptical hypothesis (e.g. that we are just brains in vats without bodies) we can still know basic everyday things like the fact that 'sugar is sweet.' True False
False: The skeptic thinks that most, if not all, of our knowledge of the world is called into jeopardy if we cannot rule out the skeptical hypothesis. This includes basic everyday knowledge such as the fact that 'sugar is sweet'.
Immanuel Kant
German Enlightenment philosopher (1724-1804). Kant argued that the human mind creates the structure of human experience, that reason is the source of morality, and that the world as it is "in-itself" is independent of humanity's concepts of it. Kant took himself to have effected a "Copernican revolution" in philosophy, akin to Copernicus' reversal of the age-old belief that the sun revolves around the earth.
Poli Phil: Phil. Theories of Political Obligation
Gratitude: We are obliged to obey the state because of the great benefits that the state has bestowed upon us. Posited by Socrates in the platonic dialog Crito. Fairness: Citizens are a part of cooperative enterprises that are mutually beneficial and fair. Because they are part of such schemes, such enterprises, they have an obligation to obey the rules of those schemes or enterprises. Example: House agreement to do the chores. Consent: We have an obligation to obey the state because we have consented to the state and to having such obligations to it (Social contract: Thomas Hobbes and John Locke).
How did Reid argue for the view that we should believe testimony without first seeking external evidence? - As a clergyman, he argued that the Church of Scotland had the authority to pronounce on matters without evidence. - He claimed that knowledge by testimony was analogous to knowledge by sense perception, and that we should trust sense perception without first seeking external evidence that our senses are properly functioning. - He claimed that seeking evidence would lead to unorthodox views about morality, and hence that it was safer for society to trust testimony. - As an early socialist, he argued that solidarity required trusting others in the community.
He claimed that knowledge by testimony was analogous to knowledge by sense perception, and that we should trust sense perception without first seeking external evidence that our senses are properly functioning. Reid noted that we cannot step outside our own senses and check that they are working from some special vantage point. In trying to figure out if our senses are reliable, we must rely on our senses. This means however that there is no 'external' evidence that our senses are reliable. Yet, Reid thought, we are still warranted in trusting our senses. By analogy, Reid argued that we can be warranted in trusting testimony without any external evidence that it is reliable.
Why did David Hume hold that any miracle is highly unlikely?
Hume thinks that the unlikelihood of miracles is what makes it more likely that someone is mistaken about events - not the other way round.
Empiricism
Knowledge that comes from sensory experience.
Time Travel: Deutsch and Lockwood's account of time travel involves multiple histories. David Lewis' account, as discussed in previous videos, is importantly different: Lewis is concerned with time travel within a single history. Is this true or false? - False: Deutsch and Lockwood's account focused on time travel within a single history. - True: Lewis' account of time travel focused on time travel within a single history. - False: Deutsch and Lockwood's account does not involve any histories at all. - False: Lewis' account of time travel also involved multiple histories.
Lewis' account of time travel focused on time travel within a single history, or chain of events. David Lewis, "The Paradoxes of Time Travel." 1976. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20009616?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
We have free will according to... - Libertarianism - Hard Determinism - Compatibilism
Libertarianism
Libertarian view of determinism
Libertarians suggest that we are a special sort of cause. Problems: 1. If we're not part of the causal chain, then we must be out of the natural world 2. If we act outside of the natural world, what are our reasons for acting?
Logical Fallacy
Logical connections that are not valid, or real.
Moral Emotivism
Moral judgements CANNOT be true or false. They are mere opinions. They're the direct expression of our emotive reactions to the world. Example: Okra is gross. Not describing a judgement or matter of fact, simply directly expressing emotions.
Fundamental attribution error
Our tendency to look for internal causes of behavior and ignore external forces. Explain the fact that someone is unemployed based on his character, and blame him for his plight, when in fact he was recently laid off due to a sluggish economy.
Brainstem
Part of brain that controls heartbeat and breathing—most "primitive"
Types of Knowledge Claims
Personal: What we're experiencing. Can be checked. E.g., "I'm wearing a blue shirt." Value. "This tastes delicious!" Prediction. E.g., "I know that tomorrow the sun will rise." Application of past experience. Hypothesis. "If I do X, I think Y will happen." Metaphysical. "I know that god created the universe."
Kant's libertarian argument of free will
Phenomenal selves: part that exists within the causal, material world Noumenal selves: Self which is entirely free from this material world, which is capable of independent thought.
Sense Perception
Physical response of our senses to stimuli.
Shared Knowledge
Points of social agreement—rules, laws, units of measurement, etc.
Scientific skepticism
Questioning everything that you think, the process of your thinking, and everything that you think you know.
David Hume
Scottish Enlightenment philosopher (1711-1776) known for naturalistic approach to philosophy (as in relying on laws of nature and not appealing to the divine). Critique of miracles: Testimony shouldn't be believed without evidence. Testimony should be believed to the extent to which it's believed that the testimony is accurate. Miracles are unique; they are supernatural.
What was Thomas Reid's "principle of credulity"? - That we are "hardwired" to believe only true testimony. - That we have a natural disposition to believe what others tell us. - That children are especially disposed to be truthful. - That we are disposed to prefer beliefs formed via testimony over other beliefs.
That we have a natural disposition to believe what others tell us. Correct According to Reid's principle, we naturally trust in testimony. The evidence for this is that small children usually believe whatever they are told.
On the classical account of knowledge what are the three necessary conditions for propositional knowledge? - That the person wants to know it - That the person believes the proposition. - That the proposition is true. - That the person memorises the proposition - That the proposition is justified.
The classical account defines knowledge as justified, true, belief.
Neocortex
The most recently evolved portion of the human brain—specifically, the frontal lobes, which provide executive function, among other things. Can override brainstem.
Moral Objectivism
The notion that moral judgement are like empirical judgements in that they are objective from the knower (and knower's culture) and can be true or false. Example 1: Genocide is wrong — how many people would disagree with that? Example 2: Polygamy is wrong — this is practiced in many cultures around the world. Can this be known objectively? Objectivity: Independent of the perceptions thus objectivity means the property of being independent from the perceptions 1. Are moral judgements things that can be true or false. 2. If not, what makes them true or false? 3. If they are true, are they objectively true?
Moral Relativism
The notion that morality is relative to the knower in some way. It can be true in some cases, false in others. Example 1: You must drive on the left in the US, on the right in the UK. Neither is objectively true, but can be true in their respective contexts. Example 2: Polygamy is wrong. This can be true for some, false for others. Example 3: Oedipus sleeping with his mother Jacosta. Is this wrong if he didn't know? Extreme form: Subjectivism. True or false, but subjective to the individual who makes that judgement.
Gettier cases raise the question of whether a true belief's being justified is enough for it to count as knowledge. True or false?
True: Gettier cases do this by presenting us with situations where a belief is both true and justified, but we intuitively resist calling that belief knowledge.
What did Immanuel Kant take The Enlightenment to consist in? Rejecting testimony wholesale, and forming beliefs only on the basis of philosophical reasoning. Using one's own reasoning and understanding, rather than relying only on what others tell us. Becoming "Renaissance men": learning everything there is to know about both the sciences and the arts. Overturning undemocratic political authorities.
Using one's own reasoning and understanding, rather than relying only on what others tell us. Immanuel Kant's view was that The Enlightenment is a new attitude towards testimony. Instead of blindly relying on the teachings of authorities, people are finally actively using their own intellectual capabilities to acquire knowledge. Of course, Kant's view is not historically accurate, because there have been highly critical thinkers throughout history, but it shaped strongly the historical and philosophical self-perception of Enlightenment philosophers.
Knowledge Claims
What we "know," what is "true" or what we say is true or we know. (i.e. knowing lines represent topography on a map)
Time Travel: The grandfather paradox of time travel...
is a paradox of time travel in which inconsistencies emerge through changing the past. The name comes from the paradox's common description: a person travels to the past and kills their own grandfather before the conception of their father or mother, which prevents the time traveler's existence.