PHIL 275 EXAM #2

naive inductionism

science proceeds through: the collection of facts through observation, the formulation of general laws through induction, and the making of predictions and construction of explanations through deduction

inductive reasoning:

reasoning from what is true of a limited set of particular cases of a given kind to what is true of all cases of that kind

deductive argument:

the conclusion follows of necessity from the premises (impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false)

inductive arguments cannot be valid in the sense in which deductive arguments can be. This is to say that, however good an inductive argument may be, the conclusion does not follow of necessity from its premises. It is always possible that its premises be true and its conclusion to be falsex

inductive vs deductive

principle of induction

If a large number of A’s have been observed under a wide variety of circumstances and conditions, and if all those observed A’s possess the property B, then all A’s have the property B

true

T/F: observation is guided by theory

Problem of induction

the difficulty in proving why we can trust the principle of induction. cannot be justified by reason or experience; the argument itself is inductive and therefore relies on the principle of induction itself.

problem of demarcation

this is the problem of how and where to draw the line between science and non-science or pseudo-science

Verificationism

view that a theory is scientific when it can be verified by evidence.  Science is in the business of formulating theories and verifying them by evidence.

Falsificationism

view that a theory is scientific when it can be falsified by evidence.  Science is in the business of formulating theories and subjecting them to repeated attempts at falsification

Galileo’s test of Copernicanism

tested Copernicus's heliocentric theory, and they provided evidence against the geocentric model. if the heliocentric model had been proven wrong through observation, it would have been falsified.

Eddington’s test of einstein’s theory of gravity

the light bended as predicted by einstein’s theory, so his theory survived. if observation were different, it would have been falsified.

Moral objectivism:

moral claims are objectively true or false

Moral subjectivism:

moral claims, if they are true or false at all, are so only subjectively 

moral skepticism

the denial of moral knowledge

bc moral subjectivism entails a denial of moral facts (objective moral truths). With the denial of moral facts the denial of moral knowledge. If there are no moral facts, then there are no moral facts to be known

why does moral subjectivism lead to moral skepticism

foundationalism

our understanding of what is right and wrong rests on basic moral principles that we know to be true without needing further proof - these are known as a priori truths (things we can know independently or experience)

foundationalism and moral knowledge

foundationalism says that moral knowledge starts with basic principles we know are true, and then we use these principles to figure out what is right or wrong in specific cases

coherentism

idea that our moral beliefs are justified by how well they fit with all the other beliefs we have about right and wrong

coherentism and moral knowledge

if all our moral beliefs work well together and make sense as a whole, then they’re justified

direct moral knowledge

we do not always need to think or reason through general rules to know what is right or wrong in a situation. instead, we just know what is morally right or wrong directly through intuition, etc.

social epistemology

the study of how knowledge is generated, transmitted, and held within groups of people. Focuses on knowledge communities and the interdependence of knowers within those communities

perception, memory, introspection, reason, intuition

sources of knowledge

perception

the sun is shining, the birds are chirping

introspection

i have a toothache, i am depressed

memory

i had cereal for breakfast, i was up all night

intuition

every whole is greater than its parts, if a = c and b = c then a = b

reason

all humans are mortal, socrates is human, therefore socrates is mortal

testimony

communication or information from one person to another through speech, writing, or gestures

testimony as a source of knowledge or justification

we would only know things we’ve personally experienced or figured out on our own. we could not draw on the knowledge acquired by other people

acceptability of testimony

testimony has to be useful or reliable, consider the honesty, objectivity, expertise, and consistency of the testifier

Reductionism:

the view that testimony is not a unique source of knowledge or justification alongside perception, memory, reason, etc. rather, it reduces to those other sources of knowledge

Non-reductionism:

the view that testimony is a unique source of knowledge or justification that does not derive from other sources of justification of knowledge. testimony provides direct justification for one’s beliefs without the need to justify acceptance of testimony from other sources

epistemology of disagreement

focuses on how we should respond when we encounter someone who disagrees with us, especially when that person is just as knowledgeable, rational, and sincere as we are

peer disagreement

disagreement among individuals who are equally well-positioned to know something

peer disagreement and skepticism

the best response with peer disagreement is to suspend judgment

feminist epistemology

a branch of philosophy that, broadly speaking, studies the relation between knowledge and gender

situated knowledge

what we know or think we know comes from our unique position in society, shaped by things like our culture, background, and social environment. because everyone has a different social position, people can interpret the same events or information in very different ways

lived experience

the subjective or experienced reality of individuals, particularly from marginalized groups, as they navigate the social world, with its hierarchies and systems of power

Epistemic injustice:

when someone is wronged because of their ability to know or share knowledge, treated unfairly due to their identity/background

testimonial injustice

when a person is not believed or is given less credibility than deserved because of prejudice against their identity

credibility deficit

when a person is afforded less credibility than they deserve

negative identity prejudice

when a person is subject to negative prejudice due to membership in a certain group (ex: race, gender, economic status, age, disability, nationality, etc.)

undermines capacity of the speaker to impart knowledge, undermines the speaker’s status as a human being

harms of T.I.

virtue of testimonial injustice

ability to neutralize the impact of prejudice on credibility judgements

hermeneutical injustice

when a person can’t fully understand or express their own social experiences because of a lack of shared knowledge or language

prevents those from making their experiences understandable to others, which can harm their ability to advocate for themselves or others

harms of H.I.

virtue of H.I.

the ability to recognize when someone is struggling to express something bc of a lack of shared understanding or language, not bc they are confused/ignorant