Attempts

docx

School

Oakton Community College, Des Plaines *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MISC

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SargentWater3293

Attempts Attempt1 score is1.8 Average no score out of 21.8 / 2 1. Introduction to Epistemology - Two Types of Truth Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It is one of the three main branches of philosophy: epistemology (knowledge), metaphysics (reality and being), and ethics (morality and virtue). Within epistemology, philosophers debate the nature of knowledge, the limits of knowledge, the formation and justification of belief, and what it means for a belief to be true. A good starting point for thinking about knowledge is to recognize two distinct types of truth, empirical truth and necessary truth . Empirical Truth Empirical truth is based on experience of the outside world. A statement or proposition is empirically true if it can be known only by experience of the outside world. Knowledge of empirically true statements is often called a posteriori knowledge. The term "a posteriori" is a Latin phrase meaning "from what comes later." The word "empirical" means "having to do with experience." Therefore, empirical truths can be known to be true only when we have experienced and analyzed the world around us. Points: 1 / 1 Empirical truths can be known only on the basis of experience, either our own or someone else's. Sometimes, for practical reasons, it makes sense to rely on the experiences of other people. For example, you may not have the skill or equipment needed for you yourself actually to view other galaxies besides the Milky Way, but you might rely on the documented experience of scientists who have done so to form your opinion on whether those other galaxies exist. Consider the sentence "Penguins live in Antarctica," which makes a factual claim about a region. To determine whether the sentence is true, you or someone else would have to go to the Antarctic and look for penguins; finding them would make the sentence empirically true. Even if they are found, however, you can conceive that things might have been different, that penguins might have lived elsewhere or even nowhere. Empirical truths are always contingent truths: they happen to be true, but they might not have been. Necessary Truth

A necessary truth can be known through reason alone, apart from experience. Moreover, a necessary truth cannot be false. Knowledge of necessarily true statements is often called a priori knowledge. The term "a priori" is a Latin phrase meaning "from the earlier." In the case of a statement of necessary truth, we cannot even make sense of the idea that it might be false. For example, "7 + 5 = 12" is a necessary truth because it is true by definition and cannot be false. The quantity 7 added to the quantity 5 will always result in the quantity 12, regardless of what the numbers refer to. Moreover, it is possible to know that "7 + 5 = 12" through reason alone. Examples Determine whether each of the following statements is an empirically true statement or a necessarily true statement. Statement Type 12 times 3 equals 36. Necessarily true All daughters are female. Necessarily true There are fifty states in the United States of America. Empirically true Tallahassee is the capitol of Florida. Empirically true All bachelors are unmarried males. Necessarily true 2. Rationalism (Innate Ideas) versus Empiricism (Tabula Rasa) In order to begin to understand the source of your knowledge, it is important to understand the two dominant schools of thought on the subject. These important schools of thought are known as rationalism and empiricism .

Rationalism Rationalism is the view that knowledge can be obtained by the use of reason alone, without the aid of the senses. Rationalists argue that the use of reason can produce necessary, undeniable, and certain truths. Although rationalists do not believe that the use of reason always leads to such truths (since people sometimes reason incorrectly), they do believe that the use of reason is the only way to attain knowledge of those truths. Rationalists do not reject sensory experience altogether, but they do not believe it can lead to true (or certain) knowledge. Rationalists generally believe that there are innate ideas that are not derived from experience. In addition, rationalists believe that it is possible to obtain knowledge of necessary truths (also called a priori truths) by using reason to derive further knowledge from the relationship between these innate ideas. For example, a rationalist might hold that certain mathematical principles or axioms are innate ideas and that it is possible to derive further mathematical knowledge from these axioms. Rationalists differ in their opinions of how we acquire these innate ideas. Some philosophers such as René Descartes (1596–1650) believe these ideas were implanted in us by God, while others, such as Plato (424/423–348/347 BCE), believe we are born with certain innate ideas. According to the rationalist viewpoint, what is the distinguishing characteristic of innate ideas? Innate ideas originate in the mind and can be known through reason alone. Innate ideas can be obtained only by the collective understanding of a community of thinkers. It is impossible to know innate ideas with certainty. Innate ideas can be known only through sensory experience of the external world. Points: 1 / 1 Empiricism Empiricists reject the view that there are innate ideas. Instead, empiricists believe that all ideas are the result of experience. Empiricism is the view that true knowledge can be attained only through the senses. Empiricists argue that our sight, hearing, smell, and other senses tell us what really exists and what facts are true. Empiricists do believe in reason, of course, but they do not agree that reason alone can lead to true knowledge. For example, you know that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, that the Earth moves around the sun, and that your kitchen stove will burn you if you touch it. An empiricist would claim that you know these facts only from information you've gained from experience. The philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) was an empiricist who rejected the notion of innate ideas in favor of the view that all ideas are generated through experience. According to Locke, the only justification rationalists have for their belief in innate ideas is the notion of "universal consent," or the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

idea that certain ideas must be innate because people everywhere have those ideas. Locke criticized this argument on the basis that there are absolutely no ideas that every human being is aware of. For example, children or those who are mentally ill may not have any ideas in common with other people. In addition, according to Locke, even if a proposition is held universally by all people, the universality of consent may have origins other than an innate disposition to believe that proposition. Finally, it is also possible that each human being is so unique that his or her thoughts will not be shared by other people. Locke also introduced the notion of a "blank slate," or tabula rasa . According to this theory, at birth, prior to having any sensory experience, the mind begins like a blank slate, containing no ideas, thoughts, or emotions. Then as you experience sensory perceptions over time, the blank slate is filled with knowledge that can come only from experience. According to Locke, what does the tabula rasa , or "blank slate," represent? The mind's ability to gain knowledge through reason alone The blank human mind prior to having any sensory experience The human mind possessing innate ideas A physical chalkboard with no writing on it Points: 1 / 1 In the image, what experiential data are being written on the baby's tabula rasa ? A hand holding a pencil The baby's mind or mental state

A pad of paper A block with colors and letters on it Points: 1 / 1 Close Explanation Explanation: The rationalist viewpoint depends on the concept of innate ideas, which are based on the methods and laws developed by reason alone. Empiricists reject the rationalist viewpoint in two ways. First, empiricists believe that knowledge is based on sensation and experience rather than pure reason. Second, empiricists reject the very notion of innate ideas. Locke presented an alternative view of how we gain knowledge—the tabula rasa . The tabula rasa , or "blank slate," represents the blank human mind prior to having any experiences. According to Locke, experience (such as the experience of viewing a colored block) is the only thing that can fill the blank slate because experience is the source of all knowledge. 3. Plato - The Meno Thought Experiment The "Meno" Dialog Plato's dialog "Meno" recounts a conversation between Socrates and Meno , a visiting political figure from Thessaly. The dialog is centered on the issue of whether virtue can be taught. In the course of the dialog, Plato requests to engage one of Meno's slaves in a mathematical thought experiment designed to demonstrate Socrates's view that knowledge is innate, a matter of recollection of the soul's prior knowledge. The experiment is designed to show that the slave, who Meno admits has no knowledge of mathematics, can reach correct mathematical conclusions without being taught, solely through Socratic questioning. The Meno Thought Experiment The following questions will replicate the thought experiment Socrates offers to Meno's slave in the course of the "Meno" dialog. Complete the following series of questions in order:

Assume figure 1 is a square with sides of length two feet. This would give the figure an area of four square feet . Now suppose you wanted to create a new square with exactly twice the area of the square in figure 1 . Points: 1 / 1 If you doubled the length of each side of the square from figure 1, would this create a square with exactly twice the area? Figure 2 has more than twice the area of figure 1, 16 square feet, which is too big . Points: 1 / 1

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Now consider figure 3. A new square is drawn inside the square from figure 2, so that its corners touch the midpoints of the sides of the original square from figure 1. The sides of the new square divide the original square (figure 1) into two triangles (the shaded area at left). The shaded triangle has an area of 2 square feet . Points: 1 / 1 There are 2 of these triangles contained in the original square from figure 1. And there are 4 of these triangles inside the new rotated square. Points: 1 / 1 Therefore, the new rotated square has an area that is exactly double the area of the square in figure 1. Points: 1 / 1 Close Explanation Explanation: As you think through the Meno thought experiment, try to put yourself in the position of Meno's slave. If you had no mathematical training whatsoever, would you be able to reach the correct conclusion at

every step? What is the best way to interpret this form of Socratic questioning? Is it a way of recovering knowledge your soul already possesses as Socrates suggests? Or instead is it a subtle form of leading questioning, a way of eliciting the correct answer without resulting in genuine knowledge? Also notice the subtle connection between Socratic questioning such as that found in Plato's dialogs such as the "Meno" and the form of Socratic questioning used in digital homework assignments such as this. Are interactive questions such as this helpful for learning, or do they make it too easy to get the "right" answer without genuine understanding? In addition, is this sort of Socratic questioning useful for helping you improve your skills at thinking abstractly? So much of the modern world depends on abstraction, whether in the form of mathematics, computer programming languages, representation and discovery of scientific laws, and so forth. Whether for practical reasons such as these or for purely philosophical reasons, you should endeavor to train your mind for abstract, logical, and sequential reasoning. Your ability to find creative and innovative solutions to whatever problem life presents you with depends to some degree on your ability to abstract. Finally, is this sort of deductive, mathematical reasoning the best paradigm for knowledge in general? Or are there other forms of knowledge that rely on experience or intuition, and not solely on abstract deductive reasoning? Chapter 5 Descartes - The Wax Argument Descartes's Second Meditation - The Wax Argument René Descartes (1596–1650), in his Second Meditation , considers a thought experiment known as the wax argument . Meditating on candle wax melting before his eyes one evening, Descartes was thinking about the different states of the candle wax: solid wax and melted wax.

According to Descartes, all of the sensory properties of the wax (such as color, opacity, temperature, and so on) are different when the wax is melted as when the wax is solid. However, Descartes claims to know with certainty (what he calls "clear and distinct ideas") that the wax is the same substance, the same wax, regardless of its state. Points: 1 / 1 Descartes concludes that his knowledge of the wax being the same cannot be based on the senses but instead must be based on pure reason . Points: 1 / 1 Close Explanation Explanation:

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Descartes's wax argument is an argument for rationalism , the view that abstract and pure reason (as opposed to the senses) is the source of and foundation for knowledge. However, the wax argument is distinct from Descartes's other arguments in his Meditations because the wax argument does not involve Descartes's usual radical skepticism about the external world. (Recall that Descartes is usually remembered for his claims that the entire external world, including your own body, can be doubted.) In the wax argument, Descartes concludes that even knowledge of the external world is dependent on the judgments of the mind and its purely abstract/rational faculties. 6. Primary and Secondary Qualities - Locke and Berkeley on Perception John Locke (1632–1704) and George Berkeley (1685–1753) were both empiricists because they both believed that knowledge comes from sensory experience . Locke and Berkeley, however, have different views about what occurs when a perceiver perceives an object. Specifically, Locke and Berkeley have different views about primary and secondary qualities. Points: 1 / 1 Locke Berkeley According to Locke, primary qualities are things such as solidity, size, extension (occupying space), figure (shape), mobility (in motion or at rest), and number. For Locke, these primary qualities are inherent in objects . By contrast, Locke holds that secondary qualities , such as textures, colors, sounds, and tastes, are not inherent in an object. Instead, secondary qualities are produced in the perceiver by contact with the primary qualities. According to Berkeley, both primary qualities and secondary qualities exist only in the mind , which means that Berkeley casts doubt upon the existence of the entire external world . This means that the material world of matter (with extension in space) exists only as a mental perception . This is the meaning of Berkeley's phrase Esse est percipi , or "to be is to be perceived."

Points: 1 / 1 Close Explanation Explanation: Locke and Berkeley are in agreement about the distinction between primary and secondary qualities. They disagree, however, about where primary and secondary qualities are located. For Locke, primary qualities exist in objects themselves. An object's primary qualities give the object the power to produce secondary qualities through the interaction with our senses. Berkeley rejects this idea and believes that both primary and secondary qualities exist only in the perceiver as ideas or perceptions. Therefore, Berkeley rejects the notion that primary qualities are mind-independent properties of objects in an external world, but he accepts the distinction between "ideas of primary qualities" and "ideas of secondary qualities," but only insofar as both types of ideas are dependent on the mind and on sensory perception. Thus, while both Locke and Berkeley can be said to be empiricists in that they believe that genuine knowledge comes from the senses, Berkeley denies the connection between the mind and the external world that Locke attempts to make. In fact, Berkeley casts doubt on the entire external world because he believes both primary and secondary qualities exist only in the mind. If only ideas exist, the existence of a material world is indeed open for debate. The following diagrams depicting a perceiver and an object (an ice cream sundae) illustrate the difference between Locke's views and Berkeley's views on primary and secondary qualities:

Using the diagrams as a guide, complete the following tables to indicate whether each feature of the ice cream sundae is a primary or secondary quality and whether that quality is located in the perceiver or the object according to each philosopher. Ice Cream Sundae Locke Location Quality Sweetness of ice cream Secondary Perceiver Viscosity of syrup Primary Object Shape of cherry Primary Object Color of sprinkles Secondary Perceiver Smell of whipped cream Secondary Perceiver

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Ice Cream Sundae Locke Location Quality Points: 1 / 1 Ice Cream Sundae Berkeley Location Quality Sweetness of ice cream Secondary Perceiver Viscosity of syrup Primary Perceiver Shape of cherry Primary Perceiver Color of sprinkles Secondary Perceiver Smell of whipped cream Secondary Perceiver David Hume - Sunrise/Sunset Thought Experiment The philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) argues that our belief in necessary causal relations (laws of nature) is not justified by our experience. For example, how do we know that the sun will rise tomorrow? A scientist might appeal to the laws of nature (for example, the laws of angular momentum governing Earth's rotation around its axis). However, Hume believes that our experience does not justify the conclusion that the relation between cause and effect holds by necessity. Run the following animation as many times as you wish. How many times did you see the sun rise and set? 5

time(s) Points: 1 / 1 Note: The following two questions about your experience with this animation are ungraded, but you must answer every question to receive full credit. If you were to run the animation again, what would you expect to happen? I would expect the sun not to rise again. I would expect the sun to rise again but not set. I would expect the sun to rise and set again. Points: 1 / 1 Do you believe it is absolutely necessary that the sun would rise and set again the next time you run the animation? No Yes Points: 1 / 1 Skepticism and the Laws of Causation David Hume argues that we are not justified in concluding that there are necessary laws of causation. Hume believes that we never directly perceive the link, or the tie (which he calls the "connexion"), that binds two events together by necessity. Instead, Hume argues that we perceive two events, one event following another, in sequence. Points: 1 / 1 As we continue to perceive this sequence again and again (event A followed by event B, event A followed by event B, and so on), our minds develop the habit of expecting that event B will follow event A the next time. However, this is merely an expectation because we never directly perceive the necessary link, or tie, that binds event A to event B by necessity. Points: 1 / 1 In other words, what we ordinarily call a law of causation (the necessary connection between events) is really just the mind's expectation that the future will resemble the past based on the constant conjunction between event A and event B. Out of habit, we call the first event (event A) the cause , and we call the second event (event B) the effect . But Hume claims that we are never justified in claiming that event A is necessarily linked to event B.

Therefore, Hume concludes that we are not justified in thinking that nature is uniform and that the future must necessarily resemble the past. Points: 1 / 1 In the example of the sun rising and setting, Hume claims that you experience the sun rising and setting many, many times during the course of your lifetime. You develop the expectation that the sun will continue to rise the next day based on all of your past experience. However, Hume would say that all of your past experience of the sun rising and setting is compatible with the sun not rising tomorrow. Therefore, you are not logically justified in thinking that the sun must rise tomorrow. 8. Immanuel Kant - Transcendental Idealism - The Synthesis of Rationalism and Empiricism Thought Experiment - Rose-Colored Glasses Imagine what the world would look like while you are looking through rose-colored glasses: Now imagine wearing rose-colored glasses that you are unable to remove, from the moment you are born and for the rest of your life. If you were to spend your entire life wearing rose-colored lenses, then you would naturally think that everything in the world is rose colored . In this case, you would not have a way of knowing whether reality matches the appearances you perceive. Points: 1 / 1 Immanuel Kant - Transcendental Idealism The example of unremovable rose-colored glasses is a good metaphor for the epistemology of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Kant's philosophy of knowledge is called transcendental idealism . Kant claims that our perceptual and conceptual categories (for example, time and space, cause and effect, and so on) are a priori , necessary , and innate . In other words, we cannot help but perceive the world, and make judgments about it, in terms of these categories: Points:

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

1 / 1 Since our conceptual categories (such as time and space, cause and effect, and so on) are an essential part of what it means to think and perceive, we naturally perceive the world in terms of those categories. Because those categories are objective , the knowledge we gain from using those categories is also objective . Points: 1 / 1 Because there is no way to experience the world without using our conceptual categories, there is no way to know what the world is really like apart from our perceptions and judgments of it. Therefore, Kant is a skeptic about knowledge of reality as it really is, which he calls "things in themselves," or noumena . Points: 1 / 1 However, despite the fact that we cannot have knowledge of reality itself, we can have empirical, objective knowledge of the way reality appears . Therefore, scientific

knowledge is possible. But, according to Kant, scientific knowledge is actually knowledge only of appearances . Kant calls the objects of our knowledge and experience phenomena . Points: 1 / 1 According to Kant, each person experiences a constructed world of appearances (phenomena) that is the product of things in themselves (noumena) filtered through the objective "lenses" of time and space and through categories such as cause and effect, necessity and possibility, and so on. Although each person experiences a constructed world of appearances, everyone experiences these phenomena in the same way because everyone has the same perceptual and conceptual categories. Therefore, according to Kant, objectivity is "universal intersubjectivity. 10. The Hypothetical Method - Verifiability versus Falsifiability - Karl Popper Should a scientific hypothesis be verified or falsified? Suppose you were conducting empirical research on the scientific hypothesis that all ravens are black . There are two ways you could go about this. You could attempt to verify the hypothesis, or you could attempt to falsify the hypothesis.

Verification of Hypothesis To verify the hypothesis that all ravens are black, you should try to locate as many black ravens as possible. Each one you find counts as a confirming piece of evidence. To prove the hypothesis with certainty, you would need to: Find every single raven in existence and show that none of them are black Find every single raven in existence and show that they are all black Find only a single black raven Find only a single non-black raven Points: 1 / 1 Close Explanation Explanation: To verify or "prove" the hypothesis that all ravens are black, you would need to find every single raven in existence and show that they are all black. This is because the claim "All ravens are black" is a universal claim about all ravens. Scientific laws can be thought of as universal claims about causes and effects that are supposed to have the same results in all cases, given identical background conditions. As in the case of counting

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

every single black raven, it is either impractical or impossible to find every single piece of confirming/verifying evidence for a hypothesis about a law of nature. Falsification of Hypothesis To falsify the hypothesis that all ravens are black, you need only a single piece of disconfirming evidence. To disprove the hypothesis with certainty, you would need to: Find only a single non-black raven Find every single raven in existence and show that they are all black Find only a single black raven Find every single raven in existence and show that none of them are black Points: 1 / 1 Close Explanation Explanation: To falsify or "disprove" the hypothesis that all ravens are black, you would need to find only a single non-black raven. This is because it takes only a single counterexample to show that a universal claim is false. To falsify a scientific hypothesis, it takes only a single genuine disconfirming instance. For example, if a particular theory of gravity makes a prediction about the movement of a falling body, and if an experiment shows that the body does not actually fall as predicted (all other things being equal), then the theory is disproved by the experiment. Karl Popper - Criteria for a Scientific Theory The empiricist philosopher of science Karl Popper (1902–1994) was concerned with trying to provide criteria through which genuinely scientific theories and hypotheses can be distinguished from nonscientific (or pseudoscientific) theories and hypotheses. According to Karl Popper, genuinely scientific theories are those that can be falsified . Not only is it impractical to find every single piece of confirming evidence (such as counting all black ravens) to verify or "prove" a hypothesis, advocates of many nonscientific or pseudoscientific theories claim to be verified by evidence or experience. (Think, for example, of the way in which an astrologer

or a psychic claims to be justified by citing pieces of evidence that happen to be consistent with their claims.) Points: 1 / 1 So, according to Popper, any genuinely scientific theory should have precise criteria for falsification . Points: 1 / 1 A successful scientific theory is one that has survived repeated attempts to disprove the theory.

Attempts

Related Documents