PHL 110 Exam 2 Study Guide

What is epistemology? What does it study?

The study of knowledge, truth, and the conditions for justified belief.

According to Flexner, is scientific progress the result of “useful” or “useless” knowledge? Why?

Scientific progress often comes from “useless” knowledge, meaning knowledge pursued out of curiosity rather than immediate practical use. Plus, earlier in the semester we talked about how all things that are sciences were once considered philosophies, which was called “useless”. Scientific progress comes from things once considered “useless”.

According to Abraham Flexner, who deserves credit for the shortwave radio? Why?

Real credit should be given to James Clerk Maxwell, mathematician responsible for Maxwell equations, which govern modern theories of electromagnetism (which is the basis of the shortwave radio).

According to Flexner, is science motivated by curiosity or improving the human condition?

From the handout: “the modern world is not chiefly the story of solving practical problems afflicting human beings. It is about being animated by a curiosity over how the world works, and then finding out it is useful only after the fact.”

According to Flexner, what is the purpose of the university system?

Flexner’s vision of science and university is a “repository of useless knowledge”. The ideal university for Flexner is one in which the researchers involved have “no duties, only opportunities”. It’s essentially a place where people are able to just research and explore whatever they’d like to.

According to Descartes, what does it mean to have certainty with respect to my beliefs?

“How can we be confident in our beliefs if we cannot demonstrate them to be true with complete confidence?” - If our beliefs are based on faulty assumptions, or bad evidence, then it seems that we lack any warrant for our beliefs. Descartes sought to interrogate his beliefs and consider which thoughts are CERTAIN or UNCERTAIN. Certain beliefs - beliefs that cannot be doubted.

What is Cartesian skepticism? How does Descartes employ Cartesian skepticism in his approach to philosophy?

This is the process of systematically calling our beliefs into question. It’s not just interrogation, it assumes that one should refrain from ultimate judgement on the truth or falsity of a belief until one can demonstrate the belief CANNOT be discarded. When we come across a belief which we can’t coherently reject, we have found an example of a CERTAIN belief: one which we are justified in holding. Descartes applies Cartesian skepticism in his approach to philosophy by targeting mainly sense perception, which is commonly called “Empirical knowledge”. Applying Cartesian skepticism to empirical knowledge means asking the following: “Can I be certain that my senses are providing me accurate information?

What is empirical knowledge? What kinds of subjects deal in empirical knowledge? Does empirical knowledge generate certainty, according to Descartes?

Empirical knowledge is also known as sense perception. Some subjects that deal in empirical knowledge include science + observation-based disciplines. Empirical knowledge doesn’t always generate certainty. This is because our senses occasionally deceive us, which causes empirical knowledge to fail the test of skepticism. While our senses don’t deceive us constantly, there is a condition where this deception does occur: dreams. Dreams can often feel and appear to be real, but then we wake up. During our dreams, that dream becomes our reality. Since dreams and our real conscious experience “feel” the same, how do we know if we’re awake or dreaming? - Empirical knowledge fails “global skeptical” challenge and also “local” skeptical challenge.

What is the problem posed by the dream example from class? How are dreams different from other cases where the senses deceive us?

The problem of dreaming is that these dreams APPEAR to be real in the moment until you happen to wake up, then realize that the dream wasn’t actually part of your conscious experience. Dreams show that our senses can’t always distinguish reality from illusion, unlike other deceptions which are limited.

According to Descartes, what kinds of beliefs are indubitable? What subjects grant us certain, indubitable knowledge? (Check pop quizzes for answers)

Beliefs are indubitable when they cannot be doubted or seem impossible to reject. Some subjects that grant us certain/indubitable knowledge include: mathematics, geometry. These are things that can’t be doubted, such as 2+2 = 4.

What is the “evil genius” thought experiment?

Someone who is in control of our senses and desires to deceive us at all times.

According to Descartes, can I doubt the existence of my body? Can I doubt the existence of of my mind? Can I doubt my own existence? What is the name of the argument which discusses these last two topics?

Per the evil genius thought experiment, I am not permitted to utilize empirical knowledge. But I normally believe that I exist because I can SEE myself. Thus, I can doubt that I have hands, or feet, or eyes, or even a brain, because my knowledge of these things is sourced from sense perception. Descartes than chances the greatest doubt of all: how do I know I even exist? The argument that discusses these last two points is “Cogito, Ergo Sum” which means I think therefore I am. Descartes claims that I can most certainly doubt that I have a BODY. But it is not possible to doubt that I exist. In doubting I exist, I perform that action which we all do every day: I THINK. And in order to think, there must be something there which is thinking. Thus, it is impossible to doubt my existence, because the act of doubting proves that I MUST exist. With this argument, there is one thing we CANNOT be skeptical about: we are thinking beings.

According to Descartes, what am I, at my most fundamental level?

“My identity is fundamentally that which is a thing that thinks, doubts, understands, contemplates. While my body might go away, it doesn’t matter, because it is not the thing which I most fundamentally am. This is because my mind is the thing I cannot conceive of being separated from. I can imagine being separated from my body or not having a body, but I can’t imagine not having a mind. “My identity is that of a being which can hold and evaluate propositions.

What is a conceivability argument? What do conceivability arguments prove about our relationship to our bodies? Our minds/souls?

An argument which assumes that the limits of conceptual possibility identify a metaphysical necessity. Since we can conceive of the possibility that our bodies do not exist, we are not tightly connected to them in a metaphysical sense. But our minds are not so. As a result, our minds take pride of place. This proves that our relationship to our bodies is something that can be doubted (we can doubt that our bodies exist), and our minds/souls take pride of place because we can’t imagine not having a mind (cogito ergo sum).

What does the case of the beeswax prove? What stays the same about beeswax? What changes?

Descartes notes that this phenomenon of inconceivability applies to more than just our bodies. It turns out that some concepts can be divorced from a substance while others can’t. Beeswax proves that when it’s melting, some things change: color, odor, texture, etc. However, some things don’t change: extension (in other words, it has length width etc). It turns out that there are some concepts which are simply wrapped up in the thing itself.

What is a basic/primitive notion? Can you give some examples? Can we doubt basic/primitive notions?

Basic/primitive notion - concepts which are so fundamental they can’t be explain in terms of lower order concepts. Some examples include thinking, extension, substance. You can’t doubt primitive/basic notions.

What is extension? Which subject studies it in its purest form?

Extension is the property of taking up space. The subject that studies this in its purest form is mathematics/geometry.

What is the name of Descartes’ position on the relationship between the mind and the body? What does it claim?

Cartesian Dualism. Claims: minds exist, minds are distinct from bodies. Our personal identity is related to our minds, and our embodied form is merely incidental. We know the mind and bodies are distinct because of the different PRIMITIVE NOTIONS which attach to them.

Which basic/primitive notions attach to the body? Which ones attach to the mind? What does Descartes claim that this proves?

The basic/primitive notions attached to the bodies are - extension, motion. The basic/primitive notions attached to the mind are - thought, awareness, thinking. This proves that although the mind and body may be connected, they are fundamentally different.

According to Elizabeth of Bohemia, what is required for an object to be capable of moving a physical object? Why does this pose a problem for Descartes’ philosophy of mind? What is Elizabeth’s proposed solution?

What is required for an object to be capable of moving a physical object - product of physical forced. In other words, it must be acted on, or “touched” by a physical object. This poses a problem for Descartes’ philosophy of mind because he says that the mind is not extended. If so, how could the mind “touch the body”? Given that the mind and body are really distinct, and the mind is not material, how does the mind move the body? The way to explain the movement of a physical body is to appeal to a physical explanation. Descartes never really gives an answer, but Elizabeth proposes a solution: these primitive notions we appeal to (duration or weight) might just be wrong. Maybe we have these notions are simply bad explanations for an underlying reality. If so, the lack of an explanation for how mind interacts with the body might point to an alternative hypothesis: the mind/soul really is extended.

What does it mean for two things to be identical in the strict sense? How do I know if I am identical to some future person? How do I know if I am identical to some past person?

Two things can be identical in the strict sense if they are exactly the same entity. Knowing if you’re identical to a future person depends on if you’re identical to someone. I am identical to someone in the past if my present experiences were the appropriate subject of their anticipation. Essentially, identity over time involves memory and psychological continuity. An example of this is two people thinking their Napeoleon, where they may think psychologically that they’re Napoleon, but they’re not actually Napeoleon because the memories and physical being don’t match up.