Phil 102 Test 3

Epistemology

The branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge and rational justification

3 different kinds of knowledge

1. Know how (ability/skill)

2. know whom (what)

3. know that (propositional knowledge) Main one

Conditions for knowledge

If you don’t believe can you know?

for s to know p

1. The s must believe p (subjective)

2. And p must be true (objective)

Subjective

Truth depends on what occurs in the mind of someone (I believe the rockies reach 10,000 feet above sea level)

Objective

Truth does not depend on any persons mental state (Statement) The rockies reach 10,000 feet above sea level

Necessary Conditions

A condition that must be present in order for the other thing to be the case (Being at least 35 years old is a ______ condition of being the president)

Sufficient conditions

A condition that if it is present ensures the other is the case but doesn’t have to be their (Being a golden retriever is a ________ condition for being a dog)

What is Knowledge

A justified true belief they are necessary conditions for ________

What are JTB conditions supposed to be

Individually necessary and jointly sufficent

Descriptive

Claims say what IS the case. They describe states of affairs. (Sky is blue) (Truth and belief)

Normative

Should/ought claim (Justification)

Edmund Gettier

Wrote “Is JTB knowledge” book came up with job counter example to oppose JTB

Bertrand Russell

Came up with clock counter example for JTB (See clock says 9:55 but clock stopped exactly 24 hours ago)

It has been argued that we have reason to know that the future will resemble the past, because what was the future has constantly become the past, and has always been found to resemble the past. . . .

Sober Counter example

Bought lottery ticket #394 you think and believe it is a loser and you are right. Did you know?

Rene Descartes

“Father of Modern Philosophy” used the method of doubt

Method of Doubt

if it is possible to doubt a beliefs truth, then that belief is not a foundational piece of knowledge

Is it possible to doubt a a posteriori belief?

I am in class right now - Yes, it is (hallucinating, dreaming?)

Can you doubt an a priori belief?

yes (evil demon could be tricking you)

Is it possible to doubt “I am thinking”?

I think therefore I am - Descartes

Indubitable

Beliefs about our own psychological state are impossible to doubt

Direct Epistemic Access

beliefs do not require you to make any inferences; you don’t have to reason to get to them.

Descartes argument for the existence of god (similar to ontological argument)

1. My idea of god is an idea of a perfect being

2. If an idea is of a perfect being, then the cause of that idea must be a perfect being

c. The cause of my idea of God is a perfect being namely god

Objections to Descartes argument for the existence of god

Is Premise 2 really “indubitable,” or absolutely certain? - Isnt a proposition about Descartes mind

David Hume

Scottish philosopher (empiricist)(skeptic)

Skepticism

the position that knowledge or justified belief is unobtainable

Radical skepticism

Firmly doubting things that have a high probability of coming true

Empiricism

The position that all knowledge comes ultimately from sensory experience

Rationalism

holds that knowledge can also come from reason, independent of sensory experience

Problem of Induction

1. I’ve observed many days and the sun has risen at the start of each

c. Sun rises at the start of each day

or

c. sun will rise tomorrow

Humes objection to the problem of induction

They aren’t deductively valid and and premises provide no justification for the conclusion

Principle of the uniformity of nature

The assumption that the future will resemble the past

What does hume think about the PUN

It can not be rationally justified - There is no good inductive argument for the PUN, since any
such argument would be circular

What does Hume think every inductive argument needs

The PUN

What makes an argument circular?

If its conclusion is already proposed in the premises

Can the PUN be justified deductively?

The PUN can’t be deduced from premises based on past observations because the conclusion will inevitably contain info not contained in those premises. Premises about our past observations can’t guarantee what the future will be like.

Problem of induction

1. Every inductive argument requires the PUN as a premise

2. If the conclusion of an inductive argument is rationally justified, then there must be a rational justification for the PUN

3. There is no good inductive argument for the PUN since any such argument would be circular

4. There is no good deductive argument for the PUN, since the PUN does not follow deductively from our past observations, nor is it a prior true

5. So there is no rational justification for the PUN

c. There is no rational justification for any inductive conclusion