Fallibilism and Epistemology Essay

A fallacy is defined as a kind of error in reasoning. They can be persuasive and be created both unintentionally and intentionally in order to deceive others from the truth. Fallacies often indicate a false belief or cause of a false belief (dowden, 2006). An argument or situation commits a fallacy when the reasons offered do not support the conclusion. This defeats the purpose of the argument since its point is to give reason to support the conclusion. Fallacies affect the outcome of our everyday decision making process. There are three types of logical fallacies discussed in this paper along with the importance of utilizing critical thinking skills.

Clear your mind, if you will, of everything you have ever seen or known to be true. To begin understanding Rene Descartes’ method of doubt, you need to suspend all prejudice and prior judgments and start with a clean slate “for the purpose of discovering some ultimate truth on which to base all thought.” (Kolak, Pg.225). Discouraged with much skepticism from his own beliefs, Descartes was embarrassed of his own ignorance. He set out to try and accomplish the task of finding an absolute truth in which he would base his beliefs. Placing upon himself a task to find an axiom or absolute truth to base all thought, “he ventured as a youth in travel to collect a variety in experiences to derive some

His aim was to use this method of doubting everything you know to discover what we actually do know for certain. So we can prove them.

While Hume would disagree with Descartes’ proof for God’s existence as well as what influence God has on our thoughts, they would both agree that our knowledge and imagination do not come from within ourselves. Furthermore, both provide skeptical analyses of our experiences as humans that question reality, such as when Descartes’ recognizes the uncertainty of the existence of anything beyond his own mind, or when Hume questions whether we can conceive of anything we have yet to experience externally. Therefore, while the philosophers have marked differences, they share a fundamentally skeptical inquiry of the

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.

However, the Meditator realizes that he is often convinced when he is dreaming that he is sensing real objects. He feels certain that he is awake and sitting by the fire, but reflects that often he has dreamed this very sort of thing and been thoroughly convinced by it. On further reflection, he realizes that even simple things can be doubted. Omnipotent God could make even our conception of mathematics false. One might argue that God is supremely good and would not lead Descartes to believe falsely all these things. He supposes that not God, but some "evil demon" has committed itself to deceiving him so that everything he thinks he knows is false. By doubting everything, he can at least be sure not to be misled into falsehood by this demon.

This then leads him to question the existence of God, and then whether he himself truly exists as well. Descartes concludes his claim in stating, “So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind,” (25). Therefore, in spite of everything he is skeptical of, Descartes manages to believe that his true existence is not something worthy of doubt.

David Hume was a British empiricist, meaning he believed all knowledge comes through the senses. He argued against the existence of innate ideas, stating that humans have knowledge only of things which they directly experience. These claims have a major impact on his argument against the existence of miracles, and in this essay I will explain and critically evaluate this argument.

Currently, the Presidency of the United States is coming close to the final and whoever gets elected president is an accomplished liar. Both of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are using the political skills to argue because their major party candidates for president have to appear to be fully qualified to occupy the Oval Office. After watching of these videos of both Hillary and Trump’s speech, in my opinion, I analyze three types of informal fallacies from their speeches such as argument against the person, hasty generalization, and appeal to people; especially, appeal to vanity.

The Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes is a thorough analysis about doubt. Descartes describes his method of doubt to determine whether he can truly know something. One of his major arguments is the proof of the existence of God. In this paper, I will attempt to unravel the flaws in Descartes proof that God exists.

René Descartes was an extremely influential 17th-century philosopher and came up with many ideas that still persist to this day. One of those ideas was Cartesian skepticism, which states that “the view that we do not or cannot have knowledge in regard to a particular domain,” knowledge, in this case, is justified, true, beliefs. He first comes up with his idea of skepticism in the first part of his work “Meditations On First Philosophy,” aptly named “Of the things which may be brought within the sphere of the doubtful.” In his first meditation, he discusses his doubts with sensory illusion/error, possible dream states, and regarding deception by an evil demon. However, after dissolving his first two doubts, he gets stuck on the third and

David Hume was a Scottish empiricist who became renowned as a philosopher for his metaphysical skepticism and his account of the mind. Born in the 18th century, Hume follows Locke, a fellow empiricist and Descartes, an idealist, in the philosophic cannon. As a result he responds to each. From Locke Hume builds upon his concept of perceptions. Hume’s defining skepticism pertains to idealistic claims of substance, god, and the self.

These preconceived notions keep us from “the knowledge of the truth” (Descartes 193). In order to access the truth, we must doubt everything. Doubting everything will lead to the distinction between mind and body. Once you recognize that distinction, you will recognize that “neither extension nor shape nor local motion, nor anything of this kind which is attributable to a body, belongs to our nature, but that thought alone belongs to us” (195). This thought that we have produces ideas, and these ideas are given to us by God, they are innate. Since God gave us this “faculty for knowledge […], it can never encompass any object which is not true” (203). For we are able to see the truth clearly and distinctly this way. Descartes argues that God would be a deceiver if what he gave us was able to be distorted and that we can mistake what is false as true. This is not the case, because God is not a deceiver. Some would argue that people do believe things to be true when in fact they are false. This, however, is not the doing of God, it is of our own free will, and it is what Descartes calls “errors.” Errors do not rely on our intellect, but rather on our own will. Ultimately, doubting will lead to deductive reasoning, or a series of logical statements eventually

The ultimate question that Hume seems to be seeking an answer to is that of why is that we believe what we believe. For most of us the answer is grounded in our own personal experiences and can in no way be justified by a common or worldly assumption. Our pasts, according to Hume, are reliant on some truths which we have justified according to reason, but in being a skeptic reason is hardly a solution for anything concerning our past, present or future. Our reasoning according to causality is slightly inhibited in that Hume suggests that it is not that we are not able to know anything about future events based on past experiences, but rather that we are just not rationally justified in believing those things that

A central concern in the study of epistemology is what truth is. In general, it would seem intuitively wrong to claim that something is known if that claim to knowledge was not true. However, identifying what truth is and what it means for a proposition to be true has remained contentious and unclear. While some philosophers argue that it is unreasonable to expect truth to be accounted for by a single definition or necessary conditions (Sher, 2013), others state that theories of truth are able to answer what it is for something to be true (Hack, 1978; Audi, 1988; Feldman, 2003).