Conee And Feldman's Epistemic Justification

With this lesson, we begin a new unit on epistemology, which is the philosophical study of knowledge claims. In this first lesson on epistemology, we begin by examining the question “What do we mean when we say we know something?” What exactly is knowledge? We will begin with a presentation that introduces the traditional definition of knowledge. Wood then discusses some of the basic issues raised in the study of epistemology and then presents an approach to epistemology that focuses on obtaining the intellectual virtues, a point we will elaborate on in the next lesson.

While Sister A is talking to Sister James she ends the conversations by saying, “I have doubts! I have such doubts!” (Shanley 58). During this conversation with Sister James, Sister A explains how she has many doubts with this situation with Flynn and how he has left the school. This is important because this has more evidence to why I think Flynn is innocent. Sister A explain show she has many doubts after this situation has gone through. A sub point to this argument is that Sister A explains that she lied about making a phone call to the previous church Flynn went to: “I was Lying. I made no such call” (Shanley 58). Sister James had thought that Flynn left because Sister A made a phone call that explained that Flynn had a bad history at previous churches. This is an example of why Flynn is innocent because Sister A had lied about the phone call she made, so there was no true evidence that Flynn did anything bad a previous churches. With these two context clues you can conclude that Flynn should be innocent because there is no clear evidence as to why he should be guilty.

This impedes proper and delicate assessment of facts. Detectives, judges, prosecutors and juries are subjected to this bias. Sometimes, they subconsciously disregard any exculpatory evidence that will invalidate their assertion. The negative effect of confirmation bias was portrayed in picking cotton. The law enforcement officials believed Ronald committed the crime because of his past criminal record and Jennifer's eye witness identification. As a result, they searched for evidence to support their hypothesis and overlooked some facts that could have exonerated Ronald. They also exaggerated the reliability of their weak evidence and failed to notice the parallelism between the case of State v. Cotton, and Bobby Poole's previous cases. The judge even refused to allow Ronald's attorney bring in a memory expert. Similar situations like this occur frequently when the Authorities make up their mind about a defendant and fail to practice fair justice. Just like many cases that miscarriage of justice occurs, law enforcement officials become convinced of a suspect's guilt because of their criminal history or weak speculations. Once they are convinced, they are less likely to consider alternative possibilities. Picking Cotton demonstrates the negative consequences of confirmation bias and its importance in judgement and

Those who accused Martha Carrier of being a witch. May have say that she is a witch because something happen to them of someone they know cause of Martha Carrier. But that no reason to accused Martha Carrier for being a witch. Those who accused Martha Carrier may have experienced thing that they can’t explain like when Samuel Preston testified that about two years ago that, having some difference with Martha Carrier, he lost a cow in a strange and unusual manner. After a month Martha Carrier had

In Gettier’s argument he points out how it is possible for one to have a justified belief in something that is actually false. He goes on to provide evidence of this in his first scenario. Smith believes the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket (believing it to be Jones) will get the job based on prior knowledge that he had, makes this case completely justifiable through Smiths eyes. Yet Jones does not receive the job and Smith had ten coins in his pocket giving Smith a justified true belief that was not knowledge. He goes on to do a similar method in his second scenario but this time shows how one can have a justifiable true belief that just happens to be true based on luck, as shown in the Jones owns a ford example.

Clifford (1879) is a strong proponent of proof-based beliefs and of the continuous criticism of beliefs held backed by loose evidence. In order to advance as a fair and just society, our beliefs must be evaluated and supported by evidence which is fair and just, and not by apparent truisms which satisfy our personal power struggles, insecurities, and lack of interest.

The Narrator is convinced she is sick; however, her brother and husband do not believe her. She says, “You see, he does not believe I am sick…If a physician of high standing, and one’s own husband, assures friends and relatives that there is really nothing the matter with one but

I am going to argue that Weirob is wrong to claim that the survivor to the Julia-Mary case is Mary. (20 words)

Proving in this case that Margaret was right about how all the basic trouble in the world is brought on by people acting upon their

There are two main theories that make up the knowledge argument. The first is Physicalism, (or better known as materialism) which is the thesis that “All facts are dependent upon physical processes.”(Smart) The other main stance taken is property dualism. The thesis of property dualism states that there are “Non-physical properties of physical substances” (Calef) or that there are physical and mental properties. In this article, I will defend the stance of property dualism by acknowledging objections and replying to these objections to show why the argument for property dualism works.

Question One The conjugation fallacy refers to the probability that two events are more likely than one of the events occurring solely (Plous, 1993). This fallacy is a type of representative heuristic that can form stereotypes and generalizations. As discussed by the book and in class, a common example refers to Linda the bank teller. A description of Linda is given that portrays her as a well-educated philosophy major who is also active with controversial social issues and demonstrations.

We believe we have knowledge of many things: That the Earth revolves around the Sun; that an oxygen atom contains eight protons; that blood is pumped by the heart to all parts of the body; that we exist at all. However, where did such complex ideas come from? This idea of epistemology, or where our knowledge comes from, is not easy to answer. This is because we know we have ideas, and believe we have certainty about particular matters, but have difficulty in tracing these back to their source. This question of epistemology formed two basic camps: Those that favored the intellect as a means to reason to truth, and those that favored the senses in order to uncover truth. Rationalists and empiricists alike agreed that you needed to start

There are two main schools of thought, or methods, in regards to the subject of epistemology: rationalism and empiricism. These two, very different, schools of thought attempt to answer the philosophical question of how knowledge is acquired. While rationalists believe that this process occurs solely in our minds, empiricists argue that it is, instead, through sensory experience. After reading and understanding each argument it is clear that empiricism is the most relative explanatory position in epistemology.

Throughout history, philosophers have been trying to come up with a clear way to provide the justification of our beliefs and knowledge. Noah Lemos offers readers explanations of both foundationalism and coherentism for theories of justification. These two different theories offer very different ways to explain the basis of our beliefs. For a foundationalist, they believe that all of our beliefs can be broken down until we reach a basic belief. This belief would be largely independent of other beliefs and not derived from other beliefs. A coherentist feels that a belief can be reasonably justified if it is coheres with our other beliefs.

d. Speaker Credibility: My uncle smoked cigarettes for almost 25 years. My family would always tell him to stop but he wouldn’t listen. Soon he was diagnosed with lung cancer. My uncle stopped but his health wasn’t getting better.