All epistemology

3 marks: What is philosophical scepticism?

Philosophical scepticism is the position that one or more of our usual methods of justification for claiming that our beliefs amount to knowledge are inadequate, so we do not in fact have knowledge

3 marks: What is the difference between philosophical scepticism and normal incredulity?

Philosophical scepticism is a theoretical worry about the foundations of our knowledge which cannot be alleviated with evidence, ordinary doubt is a practical worry which can be alleviated with evidence.

3 marks: What is the distinction between local and global scepticism?

Local scepticism is where justification for a particular belief or class of beliefs is called into question (eg the existence of God, or moral facts), whereas global scpeticism is the claim that we cannot know anything at all as none of our beliefs have sufficient justification.

3 marks: What are Descartes’ three ‘waves of doubt?

Descartes' three waves of doubt are sceptical worries that 1) any given experience could be an illusion, 2) at any given time he could be dreaming or 3) that an evil demon could be decieving him about all his knowledge.

5 marks: Explain the role/function of philosophical scepticism within epistemology

Philosophical scepticism is the position that one or more of our usual methods of justification for claiming that our beliefs amount to knowledge are inadequate, so we do not in fact have knowledge. Philosophical scepticism is used to test the strength of our knowledge and how we justify it. It undercuts our usual justifications (eg perception, moral beliefs) and reveals to us where we might be making assumptions. Descartes, for example, used PS to test all of his beliefs so he could establish which beliefs he knew for certain.

5 marks: Explain how Descartes responds to the challenge of scepticism

Proof of the external world:

PI: I clearly and distinctly perceive a world of external physical objects

P2: This cause must be either my own mind, God, or external physical objects.

P3: If the cause were my own mind, those perceptual experiences would be voluntary (under my control)

P4: However, they are not voluntary.

P5: If the cause were God, then those perceptual experiences would be deceptive

P6 However, they cannot be deceptive as God exists and is not a deceiver.

C: Therefore, those perceptual experiences must be caused by external physical objects.

C2: Therefore, there is an external world of physical objects.

5 marks: Explain Locke's argument from the involuntary nature of our experience

Locke argued that because he cannot control his perceptual Experience, in the same way he can control his memory and imagination, it must have an external cause. So there must be an external world. Locke gives example that he can shut his eyes and choose to imagine light, but if he looks at the sun at noon he cannot ‘avoid’ the idea of light being produced in his mind.

 

This is  inductive. Inductive arguments can be strong or weak, but the conclusions he reaches can never be guaranteed. He cannot prove that the external world exists using this reasoning, but he can make us think it is probable. It is the case that a particularly good simulation would also provide us with involuntary and coherent experiences, so the worry that we are BIVs cannot be completely solved.

5 marks: Explain the argument from the coherence of various kinds of experience, as developed by Locke and Catharine Trotter Cockburn

Both say that the way our senses cohere with each other suggests the external world does exist. A fire is evidenced by sight, sound, heat, and pain. Cockburn adds the fact that different senses from the same object are very different (eg. Sights and sounds) and we can learn which senses cohere and begin to reliably predict which senses go together.

5 marks: Explain how Berkeley’s Idealism responds to scepticism.

The reason that BIV/evil demon arguments are compelling is because we cannot be sure if there is a difference between experience and reality. Berkeley removes that distinction reality is what we experience and nothing more! Berkeley starts from a position of there not being a mind-independent world of physical objects, instead reality is made up of our ideas. Our knowledge of reality is therefore secure, because we cannot be deceived about the ideas that we have. However, Berkeley still relies on God as guaranteeing that there is a reality, so we might still ask the question, how do we know it is a good God (and not an evil demon or scientist) behind our experiences?

5 marks: Explain how reliabilism responds to scepticism.

If we take it as true that one of the following scenarios is true: BIV (or similar) is true and I do not have knowledge of an external world. 2. BIV (or similar) is false and I do have knowledge of the external world. If we require an internal justification then it is impossible to know whether (1) or (2) is true (as both appear identical to us), so we cannot have knowledge at all. However if reliabilism is true and our knowledge has to be from a reliable process then it just has to be the case that (2) is true for us to have knowledge. So according to reliabilism we can have knowledge of the world, but we can't show that that the process is reliable. Both views have downsides, but if we need to internally justify then knowledge is impossible, if an external reliable process is needed then knowledge is at least possible.

 Criticise:

The reliabilist says we cannot know we are not BIVS, but if we are not BIVs then we do have knowledge. This could be compared to having £1,000,000 in a bank account we know nothing about it may be the case we are millionaires but this is meaningless unless we are aware of the £1,000,000. In the same way to have knowledge of the external world, but not be able to justify that knowledge might be considered a meaningless claim.

5 marks:

5 marks:

5 marks:

How indirect realism could lead to scepticism (Locke)

A sceptic could argue that john Locke’s indirect realism lead to scepticism about the external world, as If we are only directly aware of sense data then it is possible that sense data does not actually resemble reality

3 marks: What is the distinction between ‘intuition’ and ‘deduction’

An intuition is a truth that is grasped immediately, without further inference (clearly and distinctly).  A deduction is a conclusion that is reached following a valid argument with true premises.

3 marks: What does Descartes mean by ‘clear and distinct Ideas?

An idea is (a) clear and (b) distinct if (a) the truth of it is immediately accessible, it is indubitable and (b) one cannot confuse it with other propositions.  They are known a priori.

3 marks: What is Descartes’ cogito?

Argument presented by descartes to prove his own existence beyond doubt. It is “I think therefore I am”.

3 marks: What are the two prongs of Hume’s Fork?

Hume's fork is a way of categorising knowledge.  Relations of ideas are a priori, necessary and analytic; matters of fact are a posteriori, synthetic and contingent.

5 marks: Explain the meaning of ‘intuition’ and ‘deduction’ and the distinction between them

Intuition is an intellectual capacity to grasp the truth of a proposition directly and non-inferentially. Deduction is the drawing of conclusions that necessarily follow from the premises, ie deductively valid arguments (arguments where the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true). Descartes aims to demonstrate that a priori knowledge (without experience) can be gained by starting with truths grasped through intuition and then using them in deductive arguments to produce guaranteed premises.

5 marks: Explain Descartes’ notion of ‘clear and distinct’ ideas

A 'clear' idea is vivid and immediately accessible to the mind, the truth of it cannot be doubted, it is known with certainty. He uses the example of pain - you can't doubt or ignore being in pain. A distinct idea can be distinguished from other ideas, it can't be confused with others. (pain is clear, but not always distinct, as we may not be able to easily identify the source or type of pain)

5 marks: Explain Descartes’ first wave of doubt

First wave: He recognises that his senses have at times deceived him (illusions, errors etc). He uses the analogy that if someone deceives us once then consider them untrustworthy. He therefore says our senses are an untrustworthy source of knowledge and we can doubt information from them.. Descartes' conclude’s that this first wave of doubt does not give him enough evidence to doubt the existence of the physical world, as sensory information is only really unreliable for things that are small or far away. He is not saying that all sensory information is wrong, just that no one piece of information gained via senses is guaranteed to be true. This also gives him no reason to doubt a priori knowledge. it not possible to doubt all our sensory information, as the only reason he knows senses can be deceptive is because he compares illusions etc to veridical perception. In the same way that one counterfeit coin can't call into question the reliability of all money, one or more illusions can't call all sensory information into question.

Reason for the waves of doubt

Descartes wants to examine all of his beliefs and reject any which have room for doubt, he will only be left with indubitable knowledge. He doesn't need to go through his beliefs one-by-one, he just needs to examine the foundations of his beliefs (eg perception, logic etc...)

5 marks: Explain Descartes’ second wave of doubt And solution

He questions whether he could be dreaming that he is sitting by the fire in his dressing gown. As he has had realistic dreams in the past, that at the time he didn't know weren't real, he questions whether all experience could really be a dream. Counter: Reality is much more coherent/clear than dreams. We can usually tell the difference between being awake and having a dream. In the same way that paintings are based on reality, so are dreams. The only reason it is possible to dream is if there is a reality to dream about. He can't therefore claim to be dreaming all the time, but could be dreaming now. Also truths like 2+3-5 are still true in dreams, so he can't doubt all Knowledge.

5 marks: Explain Descartes’ third wave of doubt

That there is an evil demon tricking him about every single thought. He not only questions his perceptual experiences could be tricks from the evil demon but also whether he could be being fooled about his beliefs of a priori knowledge such as 2+3-5 and squares having four sides. All knowledge is called into question, as If there is an evil demon tricking him about both his sense experience and his logic/reasoning, then anything that he believes to be true could be a deception

5 marks: Explain Descartes’ cogito as an example of an a priori intuition

“I think therefore I am” He says his existence as a thinking thing is clear (can’t be doubted) and distinct (can’t be confused with any other knowledge). He can know he exists with certainty. He reaches this conclusion through the third wave of doubt. He questions the possibility that he is being deceived about all of his knowledge. But even if this is the case, the demon can't deceive him about his own existence must exist in order to be deceived. Doubt proves his existence! this counts as knowledge because Descartes says he will only count as knowledge "clear and distinct" ideas ie things that cannot be doubted. In the very act of doubting he cannot doubt that he is thinking and so he knows that he must exist as a thinking thing. He has proved his mind (but not his body) exists. This is an a priori intuition. He thinks he can demonstrate his existence purely from reasoning and thinking alone. "I exist" is certain (impossible to doubt) according to Descartes.

5 marks: Explain how an empiricist might respond to the Cogito (hume)

David Hume argued that we cannot demonstrate the existence of the self at all, as all ideas are copies of impressions, and we never have an impression of “ourselves” isolated from any other experience/perception. He says all we are is a changing “bundle of different perceptions” and we cannot detect the existence of a self. Descartes asserted he had proved the existence of the self, but it is not something that we can point to" in experience. Descartes has not proved there is a permanent unchanging self which links the " from one moment to another. Maybe Descartes makes a leap of logic when he says he has proved "I am maybe all he has shown is that there is thinking happening. Response: Descartes could argue that thoughts necessarily require a thinker, but why is this? When we speak of France we refer to the people, geography, history etc, but not a further disembodied further "thing" existing separately. In the same way why is there a further "1" apart from our body, thoughts, experiences etc?

5 marks: Explain how an empiricist might respond to the Cogito (begging the question)

criticism of Descartes' is that in the Cogito he is guilty of 'begging the question' - Assuming the conclusion in premise of an argument Cogito as an argument: Pl: "I think. [Hidden P2: Thinking things must exist] C: I exist He seems to assume the existence of himself 1 at the beginning of the first premise. You need to already assume it is the doing the thinking before concluding "I exist". If Hume is right and we don't have evidence for the self then this argument doesn't bring any new reason to conclude it exists. Response: Descartes doesn't from the cogito as an argument, but as an a priori intuition, therefore the charge of begging the question" can't work. "I exist" doesn't require an argument, it is just self evidently true as an a priori intuition. He clearly and distinctly perceives that he exists as a thinking thing.

5 marks: Explain how Descartes argues that the existence of God can be known a priori and issue

Descartes says he has an idea of a perfect infinite God. He says that any effect can’t be more perfect (or greater) than the cause, so the only possible cause of the idea of a perfect, infinite God is a perfect, infinite God. Descartes couldn’t produce that idea without God because he is not perfect or infinite himself. This is the trademark argument. Issue: Do we actually have a clear and distinct idea of perfection and infinity? Hume would say that we don’t, instead we see things that are “good” or “big” and just imagine them better (for perfection) and bigger (for infinity). In this way we can (through Hume’s idea of complex ideas) produce an idea which is greater or more perfect than the thing which caused the idea.

5 marks: Outline Descartes’ proof of the external world

He first uses the wax analogy to try and show our understanding of physical objects depends on our mind rather than our senses: wax feels different when cold and when hot, so He can’t know everything about the wax through his senses alone, if we just relied on senses we would think it were a different object! He needs to use his reasoning to understand it is still the same object that continues apart from the sensory information. He concludes he must have a priori knowledge that physical objects can change properties and remain the same object. Using the wax argument Descartes has established that he has a clear and distinct idea of physical objects, and so: PI: I clearly and distinctly perceive a world of external physical objects P2: This cause must be either my own mind, God, or external physical objects. P3: If the cause were my own mind, those perceptual experiences would be voluntary (under my control) P4: However, they are not voluntary. P5: If the cause were God, then those perceptual experiences would be deceptive P6 However, they cannot be deceptive as God exists and is not a deceiver. C: Therefore, those perceptual experiences must be caused by external physical objects. C2: Therefore, there is an external world of physical objects. this argument heavily relies on the existence of God and therefore the validity of the trademark argument.

5 marks: Explain how an empiricist might respond to Descartes’ argument for the existence of an external world.

Issue of circularity in proof of god: His proof of the existence of God relies on him having an idea of a perfect God. His proof of the external world relies on his perceptions being reliable, and he concludes they arereliable because God wouldn’t deceive him. So his reasoning appears circular. Hume’s fork: Again this argument uses the idea of cause and effect (that his perceptions are caused by the external world and are not caused by him or tricks from God). Hume would point out that you cannot deductively prove the cause of anything, we can only infer causation after many different experiences.

5 marks: Explain how Hume’s fork could be used to argue that Descartes cannot demonstrate God’s existence a priori.

Hume's fork is a way of categorising knowledge.  Relations of ideas are a priori, necessary and analytic; matters of fact are a posteriori, synthetic and contingent. "God exists" is neither true by definition so can't be a relation of ideas, and God is not a subject of experience so can't be a matter of fact. As it doesn't fit into either prong' of his fork it isn't something we can claim to know is true or false. “I have an idea of God” – descartes . Hume says all simple ideas are copies of impressions. We do not have an impression of God, so God cannot be a simple idea. God must be a complex idea, which is an amalgamation of other impressions and ideas. “God must be the cause of me/my ideas of God” Hume argued that causation cannot be a relation of ideas, as we cannot logically reason from any effect to a cause (there is always the possibility we are wrong to assume any cause). Instead Hume says that we get the idea of causation from repeatedly seeing the same effect following the same cause (eg a baby won't know the door will make a loud noise when slammed the first time, but will easily make the connection after a few occurrences). In the case of God causing ideas we can't experience that in the same way, and so we have no good reason to believe God is the cause of the idea of God. How would Hume treat a phrase like "God exists"?

3 marks: What does an innatist about propositional knowledge believe?

An innatist holds to the position that we are born with some innate propositional knowledge which is therefore not given to us or justified by empirical experience.

3 marks: What does tabula rasa mean?

Tabula rasa literally means "blank slate".  It is the empiricist view that the mind has no concepts/knowledge at birth, and experience is required to acquire ideas.

3 marks: What is the distinction between a rationalist and an empiricist?

A rationalist beleives that reason is the source of knowledge, while an empiricist believes that knowledge is gained via experience.

3 marks: What is the distinction between an impression and an idea?

Impressions are the result of direct experience (both internal and external).  Ideas are copies of impressions, and are less foreceful and vivid than impressions.

3 marks: What is the distinction between simple and complex ideas?

A simple idea is a copy of an impression, whereas a complex idea is made up of other ideas and/or impressions.  For example the complex idea of a unicorn is made up of the simpler ideas of horse, horn etc.

3 marks: Define propositional knowledge

Knowing “that” some claim is true or false

5 marks: Explain Plato’s argument for innatism

Plato argues for innatism by setting up a response to Meno’s paradox:  If we know the answer to a question you can't gain new knowledge by asking it but if you don't know the answer to a question you can't ever know if you have found the right answer because we don't have the knowledge to judge it. Either way gaining new knowledge is impossible. Plato’s response: The soul is immortal and already contains all our knowledge. Prior to our birth our soul existed in the heavenly realm of forms where the perfect example of everything resides. So our souls have already been acquainted with all knowledge. Learning is a process of recollection. We are able to faintly recall our soul's existence in the realm of forms. So what we call learning is really remembering. For example when we see a circle in the world we are reminded of the perfect form of a circle from the realm of forms. Socrates tries to show he can tease out geometric facts from an uneducated slave boy, without teaching/explaining. He demonstrates that the boy is recalling the knowledge - he always had it innately, he just needed to be asked the right questions to jog his memory.

5 marks: Explain Leibniz’s (Rationalist) argument for innatism

Senses alone are not enough to explain all our knowledge. Eg. We can see examples of two things and two more things making four, but we need reasoning to work out that it will always be the case that 2+2-4 it is impossible for us to experience every example! formally: PI- We have knowledge of some necessary truths P2 Sense experience only provides us information about particular instances P3 Necessary truths go beyond particular instances C1 - Necessary truths cannot be known through sense experience C2 - Necessary truths must be in some sense presence in the mind, ie innate Marble analogy: As a sculptor uses the natural veins of marble to uncover a sculpture - in the same way we have potential' knowledge which is uncovered by experience and skill. The sculpture is in a sense already in the marble- in the same way all we need for knowledge of necessary truths is innate in the structure of our brain.

5 marks: Explain Locke’s (Empiricist) Argument that there aren’t ideas that are universally held and leibniz responses.

Locke argues that if innatism is true then there would be Ideas that all humans accept and agree to - they are universal. However, Locke says the principles that are assumed to be universally assented to,  "Whatever is, is" and "It is impossible for the same thing to both exist and not exist (the principles of identity and contradiction) are not universally held, as Children and "idiots" do not hold them. Response:leibniz argues that everyone does assent to things like the principle of contraction – just not explicitly or actively. Eg. A child understands that a toy cant be in their hand and in the toy box at the same time.

5 marks: Explain locke’s argument against innatism of the transparency of ideas

Locke argues that for something to be in the mind we must be aware of it (think of the mind as a transparent box if something is in it, we see it). He disagrees that children and idiots are really aware of these necessary truths and that it makes no sense to say something can be in the mind and yet not actively known. This is called the transparency of the mind. But: We could argue that much of our mental content is subconscious and that there are lots of ideas we are not actively aware of. Eg being in denial, habits we accidentally pick up, observing a crowd and not taking in every detail.

5 marks: Explain Locke’s (Empiricist) Argument that We cant distinguish innate ideas from n other ideas and response

How can we tell when we are learning something for the first time or recalling it (as Plato said we do) or uncovering it (as Leibniz described). What is the distinction between becoming aware of an innate idea and learning an idea from experience? If it feels the same, then why do we need two competing explanations. Surely it is simpler to just say we are learning from experience? Response: distinction Leibniz makes between innate ideas and ideas gained from experience: Leibniz says it is not about how it feels to become aware of the ideas, but that we know necessary truths are innate because we have to go beyond sense experience to understand them. So we can tell the difference between innate ideas and ideas from experience by identifying whether the idea is a necessary truth or a contingent truth.

5 marks: Explain the view that the mind is a ‘tabula rasa’ at birth

Tabula Rasa – literally means “blank slate”. This is the view that when we are born our minds have no content whatsoever. There is no innate knowledge to uncover, or innate concepts/abilities. Instead, all knowledge is from experience: either from:  The external world. Which we gain information of through our senses, or Our internal operations (eg experiencing our own anger, love, hunger etc).

5 marks: Explain the distinction between simple and complex concepts

Hume goes on from impressions and ideas to establish how our imagination can seem to produce new ideas: Copy principle: All our ideas are copies of impressions. We can only ever think about something we have experienced. We cannot have an idea of something completely new and completely unrelated to our experiences. Every idea we have has a corresponding impression found in experience. Simple ideas come directly from sense experience (eg a colour, shape etc) it can't be broken down. A complex idea is a combination of simple and/or other complex ideas. For example a unicorn is made up of a horse, horn, rainbow etc. A car is made up of wheels, metal, glass, engine noise etc

5 marks: Issue with the copy principle.

missing shade of blue counter-example to the copy principle: Imagine presenting a colour chart with a missing shade of blue to someone who has never seen that missing shade. It seems that they can form an idea of the colour that should go there, but they have never had the impression of that colour. Suggesting the copy principle is wrong - not every idea is from an impression Response: Hume says it is not a problem because it is only one example - but isn't one example enough to show a rule doesn't work? Also we could come up with other examples (eg other colours, or missing musical notes in a scale) suggesting that it is not a singular issue. Also respons: We could say the missing colour is produced by combining our experience of the two colours either side. But this still is a problem as colours are simple ideas (not a complex one), and simple ideas are not made up of other ideas so must be found directly in experience.

5 marks: Explain an issue with the claim that all concepts derive from experience

Leibniz identifies several concepts that he thinks cannot come from experience, eg. Of change, which we have because we change. Any abstract concept is hard for the empiricist eg goodness, similarity, beauty. None of these are directly found in experience, only individual examples. Eg we experience examples of similar things, but there are so many different ways for things to be similar it is hard to say there is one unifying idea of "similar".

5 marks: Explain the distinction between impressions and ideas

2 categories of perception: Ideas - our memories/reflections etc of impressions. They are fainter and less real than the experience you had at the time. Ideas are left over after the experience has finished. Dull. Impressions - the direct experience of something. Eg actually feeling pain, warmth, anger, love etc. or actually seeing, touching tasting, hearing something etc. More vivid than the idea.

3 marks: What is Berkeley’s idealism?

The immediate objects of perception (ie ordinary objects such as tables, chairs, etc) are mind-dependent objects. Berkeley is an immaterialist: he denies the existence of material substance (All that exists are minds and their ideas).

3 marks: What does Berkeley claim is a contradiction in his master argument?

Berkeley claims it is a contradiction to claim one can concieve of an object which exists outside of any mind, this is because as soon as one conceives of such an object, it is within one's mind.

3 marks: What is solipsism?

The claim/belief that only my mind exists (there are no other minds, nor are there any mind independent objects or properties)

3 marks: What is the difference between idealism and direct realism?

The direct realist believes we percieve the external world immediately, and therefore the properties of the objects we percieve are mind-independent.  Whereas the idealism thinks that all that exists are minds and ideas, so the direct objects of perception are mind dependent

3 marks: What is the difference between idealism and indirect realism?

The indirect realist thinks our mind dependent perceptions represent and resemble the mind independent external world.  Whereas the idealism thinks that all that exists are minds and ideas, so the our perceptions do not represent anything mind independent.

3 marks: What is the difference between a primary and a secondary quality?

Primary qualities are mind-independent, inherent properties of objects. Secondary qualities are mind-dependent, relational properties which the object only possesses in virtue of its relation to a perceiver

5 marks: Explain Berkeley’s idealism

The immediate objects of perception are mind-dependent objects. Berkeley is an immaterialist: he denies the existence of material substance (All that exists are minds and their ideas). This is an anti-realist theory.

5 marks: Explain Berkeley’s attack on the primary/secondary quality distinction from indirect realism

Berkeley presented two arguments as to why he believes heat (and by extension other secondary qualities) do not exist outside of our minds: Berkeley maintains that many sensations manifest in our experience as pain, including intense heat, so intense pain and heat are one and the same. He points out that non-sentient objects (such as a metal fire poker) clearly do not experience pain (as pain depends on a mind). As intense heat and pain are the same then the fire poker cannot be the subject of intense heat either. So heat is mind dependent. If temperature is mind independent then it seems clear that the same object can't contain warmth and coldness (absence of warmth) at the same time. The same water can be cold to one hand and warm to the other. This means that warmth and cold must be in our minds rather than in the water itself. So temperature is mind-dependent. Berkeley and Locke are in agreement that secondary qualities are mind- dependent. Berkeley however goes on to argue that if you try and imagine an object (eg an apple) with no secondary qualities (eg colour, taste, soud, temperature, smell) than there is no object left at all. This suggests that primary qualities (eg size, shape, extension, number) are also mind- dependent as they don't exist at all without the mind-dependent secondary qualities. Berkeley maintains that all qualities, and therefore the objects themselves are mind-dependent. Berkeley also  believed that the idea of primary and secondary qualities could lead to scepticism. He pointed out that if secondary qualities "represent" real primary qualities then it is reasonable to doubt that these representations are accurate. If the representations aren't definitely accurate then we can begin to question what the external world is really like, or if it is there.

5 marks: Explain Berkeley’s ‘master’ argument

The Master argument suggests that it is a contradiction to claim that we can conceive of a mind-independent object (i.e. it is impossible to conceive of a mind-independent object). The reason for this is that if one conceives of an object, then that object depends on one's mind. We cannot conceive of an object that exists independently of any mind, as the moment we try to do so that object is in our mind

5 marks: Outline Russell’s criticism of Berkeley’s ‘master’ argument.

Russel thinks Berkeley is confusing the real object with the mental representation of it. There is no contradiction if we say the mental representation is mind-dependent, as we can still accept the physical object itself is mind-independent.

5 marks: Explain why Berkeley’s idealism has an issue with Hallucinations

If all that exists is ideas then what is the status of a hallucination (which is an idea with no corresponding physical reality) compared to how things really are (which according to Berkeley is not physical reality either)? Berkeley's response is to say that there is a difference between hallucinations and veridical perception. Perceptions from waking life are more vivid, dreams and hallucinations are faint so can be told apart. Dreams and hallucinations are not coherent with waking life. This may not be convincing as there are some dreams and hallucinations that are vivid, and times when reality feels faint (eg when we are unwell)

5 marks: Explain why Berkeley’s idealism has an issue with Illusions

If all that exists are ideas then if we have an illusion (eg a bent stick in water) we have an idea in our mind of a bent stick. Does that mean the stick is actually bent? Or is there a mistake on the part of the perceiver. Berkeley says the perceiver is not mistaken in their idea of a bent stick, but would be mistaken to believe it would continue to be bent if pulled out of the water. Reality has a regularity to it (it is governed by laws), illusions on the other hand fail to fit with other experiences coherently.

5 marks: Explain how Berkeley’s idealism could lead to solipsism

Solipsism Is the belief that only my mind exists. There are no other minds or any mind-independent objects or properties. Idealism is vulnerable to this because If reality is composed only of ideas how can I know if there is a reality that I share in with other minds. And how can I have an idea of another mind or God's mind? I can't perceive them so do they exist? the 'master' argument could also lead to the conclusion that no other minds (people) exist, as The master argument states that it is a contradiction to conceive of a mind-independent object (because as soon as I claim an object is unconceived I am conceiving of it). Using the same logic I could say it is a contradiction to imagine that any other human minds or God's mind are independent of my mind (as soon as I claim this I am conceiving of them).

Berkeley response to how his idealism could lead to idealism

Berkeley says that we cannot have an idea of other minds (or God). But we are able to have a notion of God's mind and others by reflecting on our own mind. If we reflect on our mind and remove all imperfections, and extend the capabilities then we can get a 'notion of God's mind. So we can't experience God's mind, but we can infer it. So, If we can infer God's mind then we have an explanation of the ultimate cause of our ideas. If God is causing our ideas and experiences the solipsism must be failse.

5 marks:Explain why there may be a problem with the role played by God in Berkeley’s idealism. (And response)

If all ideas are contained in the mind of God then God must have the ideas of suffering and evil. But how can a perfect God know suffering (which is the result of imperfection), additionally suffering is against one's will, yet nothing should happen to God against God's will; and how can an omnibenevolent God be the source of evil? Response: God has an intellectual understanding of pain. God knows what pain and suffering are but does not suffer it against God's will. In terms of evil, God has given humans free will and they choose evil - so it doesn't come from God, but is the responsibility of free humans. (but what about natural disasters and other non-human "evils"?)

3 marks: Berkeleys proof of god:

Pl: In order to exist an object must be perceived (esse is percipi) P2: Objects continue to exist when not perceived by a finite mind Cl: Objects must be perceived by an infinite mind (God) C2: God exists

3 marks: What is indirect realism?

Indirect realism is the claim that mind-independent physical objects exist in the external world, but we perceive them via some kind of mediation, sense data, or secondary qualities, which represent and resemble the external world.

3 marks: What are sense data?

sense data is caused by, and represents, the mind-independent external world. They are private and subjective.

3 marks: What is the difference between direct and indirect realism?

The direct realist believes we percieve the external world immediately, and therefore the properties of the objects we percieve are mind-independent.  Whereas the indirect realist thinks our perception of the external world is mediated through something like sense data or secondary qualities, these are mind-dependent.

5 marks: Explain Locke’s primary/secondary quality distinction

Primary: has 'the power to produce an idea in our mind' Eg. number. these are inseparable from an object, and are Mind-independent, inherent properties of an object, so they do not depend on us sensing them. Secondary: Eg. Colours. These have the Power to produce various sensations in us, by their primary qualities. They are Mind dependent, relational properties. They represent primary qualities.

5 marks: Explain how indirect realism leads to scepticism about the existence of mind-independent objects

If we only perceive sense data, and not the object itself, how can we know anything about the external world? There is no way of telling if the sense data is an accurate representation of the external world - or even that there is an external world at all. We can't get beyond the veil of perception to access the external world behind it. So, the indirect realist can't support their claim that there is a mind-independent external world the causes sense data.

5 marks: Explain Locke's argument from the involuntary nature of our experience (and weakness)

we are incapable of "avoiding" the production of certain sense-data in our minds.  But we can choose what we imagine or what we remember. Locke gives example that he can shut his eyes and choose to imagine light, but if he looks at the sun at noon he cannot ‘avoid’ the idea of light being produced in his mind. So, perceptual experiences must be produced in our minds by some exterior cause, and this cause must be physical objects. Weakness: Inductive argument, so not a proof (conclusion is not guaranteed by the premises). We can come up with counter examples: eg. Dreams can be involuntary but are not real (veridical)

5 marks: Explain the argument from the coherence of various kinds of experience, as developed by Locke and Catharine Trotter Cockburn

Both say that the way our senses cohere with each other suggests the external world does exist. A fire is evidenced by sight, sound, heat, and pain. Cockburn adds the fact that different senses from the same object are very different (eg. Sights and sounds) and we can learn which senses cohere and begin to reliably predict which senses go together.

5 marks: Explain Bertrand Russell's response to scepticism that the external world is the 'best hypothesis'

Russell recognises he cannot prove the existence of the external world, but explains why he thinks it is preferable to any alternative explanation. Firstly, It is simpler: it accounts better for the differences in perceived properties between multiple experiences. Secondly, Russell thinks It is our human instinct to believe in an external world, and we shouldn't drop that unless a truly better alternative is available.

5 marks: Explain how indirect realism leads to scepticism about the nature of mind-independent objects

If we are only aware of sense data, then we only have evidence of the existence of sense data. As we can't directly observe reality, we can't know that it exists. This leads to the issue that we do not know what reality is really like, as our senses are not always accurate, so even if we accept that is a reality how do we know it is anything like what our senses suggest? sense data could be seen as a cover over reality, or a veil of perception.

5 marks: Explain the argument from George Berkeley that we cannot know the nature of mind-independent objects because mind-dependent ideas cannot be like mind-independent objects.

primary qualities are as mind-dependent as secondary qualities, and that therefore we cannot know by the qualities we perceive that a mind-dependent reality exists. Berkeley argues that, in the same way perceptual variation in terms of colour leads to the conclusion that secondary qualities such as colour are mind dependent, there is perceptual variation in terms of size - size is a primary quality so must also be mind-dependent.

3 mark: What is direct realism?

Direct realism is a theory of perception that makes two key claims: (a) an external world of mind-independent objects and properties exists and (b) we perceive it immediately (ie without mediation such as 'sense data')

5 marks: argument from perceptual variation against direct realism

Define DR Perceptual variation is the phenomena that the qualities of the object seem to change depending on factors external to the object P1. The object I directly perceive changes P2. The physical object doesn't change C1. Therefore, the object I directly perceive cannot be the physical object C2. It follows that direct realism as defined above is false. Russel claims that when we perceive, it is not directly, but through sense data.

5 marks: Explain one way in which a direct realist could respond to the argument from perceptual variation

They could argue that there is no issue that objects’ properties appear to change, but, if we use the table analogy, they could argue there is a real colour ofd a table under “optimum” conditions. We do not need to bring in an extra entity (sense data) to explain this change. Unnecessary reification (assuming something exists without a good reason to do so) But – what are these optimum conditions.

5 marks: Outline the ‘argument from illusion’ against direct realism

Direct realism claims that appearance equals reality. But, if you put stick in a glass of water and view it from the side, it looks crooked.  the stick is not crooked. this illusion is indistinguishable from veridical perception. This proves that in some cases, appearance does not equal reality, and our perceptions are mind-dependent, therefore contradicting direct realism. Illusion proves that our perception and senses have the potential to mislead us, and since we therefore hold the ability to see misrepresentations of objects which are indistinguishable from veridical perception.

5 marks:Explain one way in which a direct realist could respond to the argument from illusion

relational properties: In the stick example, the stick looks bent in relation to being half submerged in water. Therefore the stick being 'crooked' is a relational property of the stick. This is only the case if and when the stick is submerged. This is an effect of refraction - the stick really looks bent - so we are still perceive  an accurate account of reality. Reification: Austin argues that just because something appears to us to be different from what it actually is, it doesn’t follow we need to reign something like sense data to explain the different appearance.

5 marks: Outline the ‘argument from hallucination’ against direct realism

P1: A hallucination is where something that doesn't exist appears to exist C1: The hallucination exists only in the mind P2: Hallucinations can be indistinguishable from veridical perception P3: Indistinguishable perceptions must be caused in the same way C2: What causes veridical perception must also be in the mind C3: We perceive reality indirectly so direct realism is false

5 marks: Explain one way in which a direct realist could respond to the argument from hallucination

Conditions: hallucination does not undermine normal perception, because in normal perception we are perceiving objects and their properties accurately and directly. In hallucination, we are not under normal conditions since hallucinations happen due to certain physiological conditions eg. But, weak. Disjunctivist (direct realist who claims that hallucinations and veridical perception are not the same thing: Disagree with p3 – they would argue that although a hallucination and veridical perception can feel the same, it doesn’t follow that the cause of both has to be the same. They can argue that the psychological processes behind hallucinations and veridical perceptions are distinct.

5 marks: Outline the ‘time lag argument’ against direct realism

P1 It takes time for light to reach our eyes from the object we are perceiving P2 During that time the object (a) may have changed or (b) ceased to exist. C1 therefore they object of my experience is distinct from reality C2 Therefore, I don’t perceive reality directly

5 marks: Explain one way in which a direct realist could respond to the argument from time lag

Direct does not have to mean instant: Direct realists claim we perceive the external world without mediation. Just because our perception is not simultaneous, it doesn’t entail that we need to assume there is some kind of mediation occurring Time lag is about how we perceive, rather than what we perceive: Direct perception works via light waves. Time lag simply explains how we perceive the external world, rather than being a counter example.

3 marks: What is the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge?

A priori knowledge is acquired and/or justified through reasoning, whereas a posteriori knowledge is acquired and/or justified via experience

3 marks: What is the difference between an analytic and a synthetic statement?

An analytic statement is true by definition, a synthetic statement cannot be judged to be true just by looking at the definition, but by virtue of how the world is

3 marks: What is the difference between a necessary and a contingent truth?

A necessary truth is true in all logically possible worlds, its opposite implies a logical contradiction, whereas a contingent truth's opposite is possible and does not imply a contradiction

3 marks: What is (a) propositional knowledge, (b) ability knowledge, (c) acquaintance knowledge?

(a) Propositional knowledge is knowing that some fact is true or false (b) ability knowledge is knowing how to perform an action, and (c) acquaintaince knowledge is knowing of something by experience of it

3 marks: What does Linda Zagzebski say a good definition should avoid?

Ad hoc: a definition which is overly specific to a particular problem. Negative: what something isn’t. Circular: using the same terms in the definition. Obscure: using the terms that are more complicated than the one being defined.

3 marks: How does Linda Zagzebski define propositional knowledge?

Linda Zagzebski defines propositional knowledge as being in "cognitive contact with reality".  She says knowledge arises out of acts of epistemic virtue.

3 marks: What is the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions?

To say X is a necessary condition of Y is to say we cannot have Y without X.  To say X is a sufficient condition of Y is to say that if we have X, we also have Y.

3 marks: What is the tripartite view of propositional knowledge?

Knowledge is a justified true belief.

3 marks: What is infallibilism?

Infallibilism is the view that a belief only counts as knowledge if the truth of that belief is guaranteed (it is impossible to have any doubt regarding that belief)

3 marks: What is a ‘false lemma’?

A lemma is an assumed premise or claim which influences the development of an argument.A false lemma is an inference from a premise/claim (a ‘lemma’) that is false.

3 marks: What is reliabilism?

Knowledge  is a reliable true belief. According to reliabilism S can claim to know that p iff: (1) S believes that p (2) that p is true (3) S's true belief that p is formed by a reliable process

3 marks: What does it mean to say a belief is “reliably formed”?

A belief is reliably formed if it is acquired via a process which produces a high proportion of true beliefs

3 marks: What is Knowledge according to epistemic virtue?

S knows that p iff (if and only if) p is trueS believes that PS’s belief that p is a result of S successfully exercising their intellectual virtues check Here an intellectual virtue is an intellectual skill, ability or trait that contributes to getting to the truth.

5 marks: Outline and explain the tripartite view of knowledge (Plato)

The tripartite view of knowledge Is that knowledge is a ustified true belief. It states that: S knows that P iff (if and only if): P is true S believes that P S's belief that P is justified Thus, justification, truth and belief are individually necessary and collectively sufficient for knowledge.

5 marks: Explain the view that truth is not a necessary condition for knowledge

Coherence theory of truth: Something can be considered to be true if it is “cohearent” (it fits) with the current understanding of the world at the time. Consider a cavewoman who believes the earth is flat. She is justified in believing this, all the evidence available to her suggests this is the case. This is a justified belief, that we would consider to be false today. Her belief is justified by the prevalent view of the time, so she would think that she has knowledge, and this view fits with the coherence view of truth. Science has proved her incorrect, so maybe there are views that we hold, which are currently thought to be true, but will be shown as false. So if you believe in the coherence theory then you can at least argue that we may have some false true beliefs that could be proven false in time.

5 marks: Explain the view that belief is not a necessary condition for knowledge

Someone is asked “When did the queen die?”. They do not think they know the answer, but they answer correctly. This appears to be an example of someone having knowledge without belief? We could however say that this was some kind of subconscious belief, and so there is a reason that they plucked thee correct answer from their mind.

5 marks: Explain the view that justification is not a necessary condition for knowledge

Example: mathematician working on a problem, and subconsciously, a ‘Flash of insight’ leads her to the solution. In this case she cannot provide a justification. It seems that this is an example of knowledge as the mathematician is an expert and has solved the problem correctly, without a justification.

5 marks: Outline one of Gettier’s counter examples to the tripartite definition of knowledge

Gettier presented cases that demonstrate that the three conditions of  JTB are not collectively sufficient for knowledge. This is the first. Imagine that Smith and Jones have applied for a job.  And suppose that Smith has strong evidence that Jones will get the job, and Jones has 10 coins in his pocket.  Smith's evidence could be that the employer has told him that Jones will get the job and that Smith has counted the coins in Jones's pocket.  He then has the proposition that the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket. However,  Smith gets the job, and he also has 10 coins in his pocket but didn't know about them. Smith was justified in his belief because he had counted the coins, and his belief was true.  It seems that this is a case of justified true belief, but it does not count as knowledge because it seems that it was luck that smith held the true belief that the man who will get the job will have 10 coins in his pocket. Thus, this is an example of a justified true belief that does not count as knowledge.