Quiz 4 Question 1 3 out of 3 points Externalism in epistemology is an approach to rationality which argues that Selected Answer: A person can be rational in relying on one’s memory, even if a person cannot state how she knows her memory is reliable. Externalism is one of the philosophies of the mind that identifies the content of the brain as dependent on its …
Externalism can plausibly explain why justified beliefs are likely to be true; but by losing sight of the subject’s perspective, externalism fails to appreciate the force of the sceptical challenge.
Internalism and externalism in epistemology. By Alston, William P. DOI. 10.4324/9780415249126-P028-1 Versions. content locked. version 2. ... of course, its success does depend on the right way of thinking of knowledge. (For some criticisms of Nozick’s proposals see Luper-Foy ... Rational beliefs By Cherniak, Christopher Reasons for belief By ...
Question 3 3 out of 3 points Externalism in epistemology is an approach to rationality which argues that Selected Answer: A person can be rational in relying on one’s memory, even if a person cannot state how she knows her memory is reliable.
Problem with externalism is if two people find the truth through different means then you can’t say one is more justified than the other (novice vs. expert at bird watching)
Internalism tends to focus on how to maintain intellectual integrity. Internalism tends to focus on a person’s perspective and access to information. Perspective: An agent’s perspective tends speak to how justified they are in their belief. Access: to be justified, an agent must have access to their belief structure.
Internalism tends to focus on a person’s perspective and access to information. Perspective: An agent’s perspective tends speak to how justified they are in their belief. Access: to be justified, an agent must have access to their belief structure. The amount of access varies, this is one of the main areas of criticism.
The outcome of the belief being true doesn’t make the actions taken justified ; in the same way the outcome of a moral event (more people are helped) doesn’t make the action good if undertaken for the wrong intent
Lottery paradox. From an internalist position that holds 99% certainty required for truth, if you know every ticket has a 99% chance of losing, then all ticket draws will lose. Externalist can appeal to outside truth of the 1 draw. Counter example: Angela is in a room with 100 real cups and 1 fake cup.
So analytic philosophy is concerned with analysis - analysis of thought, language, logic, knowledge, mind, etc; whereas continental philosophy is concerned with synthesis - synthesis of modernity with history , individuals with society, and speculation with application.
Pastafarianism (a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarianism) is a social movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools. According to adherents, Pastafarianism is a "real, legitimate religion, as much as any other".
Philosophy: a system of beliefs and values. Philosophy (from Greek philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Such questions are often posed as problems to be studied or resolved.
Such questions are often posed as problems to be studied or resolved. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 - 495 BCE).
For promis'd joy! ... Chariot Allegory: Plato, in his dialogue Phaedrus (sections 246a-254e), uses the Chariot Allegory to explain his view of the human soul. He does this in the dialogue through the character of Socrates, who uses it in a discussion of the merit of Love as "divine madness".
Analytic-synthetic distinction (also called the analytic-synthetic dichotomy): a semantic distinction, used primarily in philosophy to distinguish propositions (in particular, statements that are affirmative subject-predicate judgments) into two types: analytic propositions and synthetic propositions.
According to adherents, Pastafarianism is a "real, legitimate religion, as much as any other". In New Zealand, Pastafarian representatives are authorized to officiate weddings. However, in the United States, a federal court has ruled that the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is not a real religion.
Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. Epistemology is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with ethics, logic, and metaphysics.
One of the core concepts in epistemology is belief. A belief is an attitude that a person holds regarding anything that they take to be true. For instance, to believe that snow is white is comparable to accepting the truth of the proposition "snow is white". Beliefs can be occurrent (e.g. a person actively thinking "snow is white"), or they can be dispositional (e.g. a person who if asked about the color of snow would assert "snow is white"). While there is not universal agreement about the nature of belief, most contemporary philosophers hold the view that a disposition to express belief B qualifies as holding the belief B. There are various different ways that contemporary philosophers have tried to describe beliefs, including as representations of ways that the world could be ( Jerry Fodor ), as dispositions to act as if certain things are true ( Roderick Chisholm ), as interpretive schemes for making sense of someone's actions ( Daniel Dennett and Donald Davidson ), or as mental states that fill a particular function ( Hilary Putnam ). Some have also attempted to offer significant revisions to our notion of belief, including eliminativists about belief who argue that there is no phenomenon in the natural world which corresponds to our folk psychological concept of belief ( Paul Churchland) and formal epistemologists who aim to replace our bivalent notion of belief ("either I have a belief or I don't have a belief") with the more permissive, probabilistic notion of credence ("there is an entire spectrum of degrees of belief, not a simple dichotomy between belief and non-belief").
The word epistemology is derived from the ancient Greek epistēmē, meaning "knowledge", and the suffix -logia, meaning "logical discourse " (derived from the Greek word logos meaning "discourse"). The word's appearance in English was predated by the German term Wissenschaftslehre (literally, theory of science), which was introduced by philosophers ...
The concept of "epistemology" as a distinct field of inquiry predates the introduction of the term into the lexicon of philosophy. John Locke, for instance, described his efforts in Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) as an inquiry "into the original, certainty, and extent of human knowledge, together with the grounds and degrees of belief, opinion, and assent". According to Brett Warren, the character Epistemon in King James VI of Scotland 's Daemonologie (1591) "was meant to be a personification of [what would later come to be] known as 'epistemology': the investigation into the differences of a justified belief versus its opinion."
A posteriori knowledge is knowledge that is known by experience (that is, it is empirical, or arrived at through experience). Views that emphasize the importance of a priori knowledge are generally classified as rationalist.
Truth is the property or state of being in accordance with facts or reality . On most views, truth is the correspondence of language or thought to a mind-independent world. This is called the correspondence theory of truth. Among philosophers who think that it is possible to analyze the conditions necessary for knowledge, virtually all of them accept that truth is such a condition. There is much less agreement about the extent to which a knower must know why something is true in order to know. On such views, something being known implies that it is true. However, this should not be confused for the more contentious view that one must know that one knows in order to know (the KK principle ).
One of the earliest suggested replies to Gettier, and perhaps the most intuitive ways to respond to the Gettier problem, is the "no false premises" response, sometimes also called the "no false lemmas" response. Most notably, this reply was defended by David Malet Armstrong in his 1973 book, Belief, Truth, and Knowledge. The basic form of the response is to assert that the person who holds the justified true belief (for instance, Smith in Gettier's first case) made the mistake of inferring a true belief (e.g. "The person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket") from a false belief (e.g. "Jones will get the job"). Proponents of this response therefore propose that we add a fourth necessary and sufficient condition for knowledge, namely, "the justified true belief must not have been inferred from a false belief".