Knowledge and Existence Exam 1

What are the 2 versions of solipsism?

Strong and weak

What is weak solipsism?

The view that you are the only conscious individual in existence

What is strong solipsism?

the view that you are the only thing that exists

Define philosophy

the rational investigation into the fundamental questions of

1. knowledge

2. existence

3. conduct

define epistomology

the study of knowing and other desirable ways of being

Define epistemic

having to do with knowledge

what is an epistemic bubble

a social epistemic structure in which other relevant voices have been excluded merely through omission

give an example of an epistemic bubble

social media

in an epistemic bubble, are members exposed to contrary views?

no

what is an echo chamber?

a social epistemic structure in which other relevant voices have been actively discredited

How do echo chambers discredit others?

they label others as malicious, dishonest, untrustworthy, etc. They label themselves as trustworthy

define bootstrapped corroboration

treats the testimony of problematically selected insiders as independent corroboration (fyi corroboration is the process of strengthening/confirming a statement, theory, or piece of evidence)

Can a structure be both an epistemic bubble and an echo chamber?

no

could a community practice both forms of structures (epistemic bubbles and echo chambers) at different times?

yes

Define disagreement reinforcement mechanism

contrary beliefs reinforce the original set of beliefs by predicting disagreement

Do epistemic bubbles use bootstrapped corroboration or disagreement reinforcement?

bootstrapped corroboration

Do echo chambers use bootstrapped corroboration or disagreement reinforcement?

disagreement reinforcement

-it could be possible for echo chambers to also use bootstrapped corroboration

what is "post truth era"

the idea of people disregarding facts

what are explanations of "post truth era"

1. total irrationality - not being interested in facts or evidence

2. epistemic bubbles

3. echo chambers

what does Nguyen think the best explanation is for "post truth era"?

echo chambers

what is a cartesian epistemic reboot?

suspend judgement on all of your beliefs and start over from scratch

what is a social epistemic reboot?

trust the things that are as they seem and tentatively trust the testimony of others, but reset trust levels of information sources

For Nguyen, how does one escape an echo chamber?

do a social epistemic reboot

Why, for Nguyen, does a cartesian epistemic reboot not work?

it is not realistic. He thinks it is not possible

What is the traditional analysis of knowledge?

for you to know some proposition p, 3 conditions must be met;

1. p must be true,

2. you must believe that p,

3. you are justified in believing that p

define justification

you have a good reason to believe

could you be justified in believing something that you do not believe?

yes

-you could have all of the justification but maybe there is some mental block (such as fear) that is prohibiting you from actually believing

-having justification for belief is not the same as belief itself

does being justified = being able to show that you are justified?

no

Suppose the earth is a spere:

on the traditional analysis of knowledge, can you know that the earth is flat

no

suppose the earth is flat:

are all beliefs that the earth is a sphere knowledge?

no

Suppose the earth is a sphere:

is it possible for you to be justified in believing the earth is a sphere without knowing it is a sphere?

yes

What is the correspondence theory of truth (CT)?

a proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to the way the world is irrespective of our beliefs about the world

on CT, is truth objective?

yes

what is the subjective theory of truth (ST)?

A proposition is true if and only if you think it is

what are 2 problems with a subjective theory of truth? Can you refute those problems?

1. if ST were true, no one could be wrong

-but we can be wrong so ST is false

2. ST is self refuting

-I don't think ST is true, so by ST, ST is false

what theory (ST or CT) does Feldman think is correct?

CT

True/False

If CT is correct, then we should be dogmatic about what we believe

false

True/False

it can make sense to be tolerant of opposing views, even if CT is true

true

True/False

it is possible for things to change, even if CT is correct

true

CT means that we cannot know what is really true

false

define skepticism

we cannot know certain propositions

What is the infinite regress argument?

1. any chains of reasons must be either:

(a) infinitely long

(b) circular

(c) start with a belief held for no reason

2. I cannot have (a), an infinite chain of reasoning

3. beliefs from (b) or (c) are not justified

--------------------------------------------------

so, I am not justified in believing anything

what is a circular chain of reasoning?

is is a chain of reasons that employs its own conclusions as a reason

ex: your sister is a good person.

why?

because she picks up trash

why?

because she is a good person

define arbitrary belief

beliefs not based on any reason

What is the Brain in a Vat (BIV) argument?

1. the BIV scenario predicts you would be having the same sensory experiences you are having now

2. thus, you have no evidence that you are not a BIV

3. thus, you are not justified in believing you are not a BIV

--------------------------------------------------

thus, you are not justified in believing anything about the external world

what beliefs does universal skepticism concern?

All beliefs

what beliefs does external world skepticism concern?

beliefs about the external world

define radical skepticism

your beliefs about X are not at all justified

define non-radical skepticism

you cannot be 100% certain that your beliefs about X are true

define radical universal skepticism

we are not justified in believing anything

define non-radical universal skeptisicm

we cannot be absolutely certain (100% justified) in any of our beliefs

define radical external world skepticism

we are not at all justified in believing anything about the external world

define non-radical external world skepticism

we cannot be 100% justified that any of our beliefs about the external world are true

What type of skepticism does BIV argument fall under?

radical external world skepticism

what type of skepticism does the infinite regress argument fall under?

radical universal skepticism

What are the 2 senses of justification?

1. internalist justification

-there is a good reason to believe from the agents point of view

2. omniscient justification

-there's a good reason to believe given all correct facts about the case

you believe you will graduate on time.

give internalist justification for this belief without omniscient justification

you have a grad plan, you meet with your advisor, you are passing all of your classes but maybe you don't have a supportive family, or financial stability

-there are so many more obviously, I just remember talking about these in class

you believe you will graduate on time.

give omniscient justification for this belief without internalist justification

you have a supportive family, you are financially stable, etc. maybe you aren't passing one or more classes, don't meet with your advisor, or maybe don't have a grad plan

what is a criticism of skepticism

skepticism is self refuting

what does it mean when something is self refuting

if it were true, it would refute or challenge itself

examples:

-there is no truth

-- if there is no truth, then this statement is false which means there is truth

-don't tell others what to do

-only statements verified by physics are true

which kind(s) of skepticism is/are self refuting?

radical and universal (in turn also radical universal skepticism)

Chisholm has 2 questions. What are they?

A. what are some things we know?

B. what are the criteria/tests for knowledge?

what seems to be an issue with this?

skepticism says an answer to A presupposes an answer to B, but you cannot answer B without first answering A.

-it goes in a circle

-you know nothing

What is methodism?

we have criteria for knowledge (B), that does not depend on first figuring out what we know. we use this criteria (B) to determine what we know (A)

-method before knowledge

what is an example of methodism?

empiricism:

-good beliefs are derived from sense experience (B, criteria)

- I feel pain (A, particular knowledge)

what is particularism?

we know that some things independently of any criteria and we use what we know (A) to formulate a general criteria (B)

-particular knowledge before method

What does Chisholm say about the 2 questions he posed?

A: i know that I have 2 hands

i know a table is in the room

B: when everything seems alright, trust the senses