Epistemology 5 Markers

How does the argument from perceptual variation present an issue for direct realism? (5)

• Direct realism is the claim that the immediate objects of perception are mind-independent objects and their properties

• The argument for perceptual variation is as follows:

• P1: When I walk around the table, what I directly perceive changes colour

• P2: The table doesn’t change colour when I walk around it

• C1: Therefore, the object I directly perceive is not the table

• C2: Therefore, direct realism as defined above is false

Explain how Bertrand Russell responds to scepticism by arguing that the external world is the ‘best hypothesis’. (5)

• Scepticism is the claim that we should doubt the possibility of attaining absolute knowledge of something

• This is because we cannot definitively prove it to be true

• Russell responds with an abductive argument

• Russell firstly distinguishes between the physical object and the sense data

• He states that we only have ‘knowledge by acquaintance’ with our sense data

• Russell then argues that an external world explains the constancy and coherence of our experiences

• There are many different hypotheses, but an external world is the simplest explanation

• This allows us to predict future sense data

Explain Locke’s distinction between primary qualities and secondary qualities. (5)

• A ‘quality’ is the power to produce an idea in our mind

• Primary qualities are utterly inseparable from the body, whatever state it is in

• They are mind-independent properties

• Examples include extension, shape, mobility and number

• Secondary qualities are nothing but powers to produce various sensations in us by their primary qualities

• They are mind-dependent properties

• Examples include colours, smell, sound and taste

Explain Hume’s Fork. (5)

• Hume’s distinction between ‘relations of ideas’ and ‘matters of fact’

• ROIs can be discovered purely by thinking

• They are self-evident and cannot be denied without contradiction

• Examples include 3×5 equals half of 30

• MOFs must be established empirically and cannot be discovered purely by thinking

• They can be denied without contradiction

• They are neither demonstrative nor certain

• Examples include the proposition ‘the sun is rising’

Explain the reliabilist definition of knowledge. (5)

• Knowledge is a reliably informed true belief

• S knows that p iff:

• 1. P is true

• 2. S believes that p

• 3. S’s belief that p was produced by a reliable cognitive process

• RTB are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for K

• Examples of reliable cognitive processes are memory, perception, testimony and introspection

Explain how the argument from hallucination presents an issue for direct realism. (5)

• Direct realism is the position that we always directly perceive mind-independent physical objects and their properties

• Our perception is therefore not mediated by ‘sense-data,’ so it is not indirect

• Hallucinations are non-veridical experiences that are qualitatively indistinguishable from a veridical perception

• P1. In a hallucination, I directly perceive an object

• P2. When I hallucinate, there is no physical object of my perception

• C1. Therefore, the object I directly perceive in a hallucination isn’t a physical object

• C2. Therefore, direct realism as defined above is false

• This challenges direct realism as it is an epistemological claim about how they can justify their claim

Explain the view that the mind is ‘tabula rasa’ at birth. (5)

• A claim made by empiricists such as Locke and Hume

• It refers to the mind being a blank slate at birth

• This is to claim that there are no concepts and no knowledge within the mind at this point

• To claim this is to deny the existence of innate concepts

• All concepts are thus derived from empirical experience

• Therefore, all knowledge is either a posteriori or a priori but analytic

Explain Descartes’ third ‘wave of doubt’. (5)

• Descartes imagines a scenario in which the evil demon is able to deceive him as regards any of his beliefs

• P1: It is possible that there is a powerful and deceptive being who is continuously deceiving me in all my perceptions of the external world and reasoning so that everything I take to be fact is false

• P2: In order to know that p (any proposition)I need to rule out this possibility

• P3: I cannot rule out this possibility, as my beliefs would stay the same whether it is true or false

• C1: Therefore, I cannot know anything

• Descartes is exposing his beliefs to radical scepticism to discover which ones are certain

Explain why there may be a problem with the role played by God in Berkley’s idealism. (5)

• Berkley’s idealism states that the immediate objects of perception are mind-dependent objects

• The role of God in this theory is that he is the cause of sensory ideas based on their coherence and consistency

• God’s mind contains ideas not perceived by us

• God maintains the laws of nature + is an ontological guarantor

• One problem with the role of God is that Berkley states that he cannot suffer or feel any sensation

• The problem is that if:

• 1. Ordinary objects are collections of qualities

• 2. These objects have an existence independent of any finite mind then:

• 1. Whilst they could be ideas of an infinite mind, they couldn’t be the same ideas if God’s ideas are non-sensory

• Therefore, it cannot be said that these physical objects exist in God’s mind in the way they do mine

Explain the view that belief is not a necessary condition for knowledge. (5)

• According to JTB, justification, truth and belief are individually necessary and jointly sufficient

• This means that they are all needed for knowledge, and, together, they are enough for someone to have knowledge

• Best demonstrated with an example:

• Imagine a person once learned some information and has now forgotten that they did so

• They then give a large number of correct answers in a quiz on that topic

• They feel like they were guessing the answers

• We might say that they knew the answers to be true though they do not believe anything that they said