For an example, consider two alternative belief systems A and B consisting of beliefs A1, A2 and

This leads us to our next premise, premise II, which states there are rational beliefs that are not supported by sufficient evidence. Clark identifies these rational beliefs as those acquired through sensory experience and beliefs that are self-evident. He supports this premise by giving examples of some of these beliefs “..The sky is blue, grass is green ..”(139). He goes on to say, “ ...every proposition is either true or false..”(139). I think that by Clark including these examples of beliefs through sensory experiences and self-evidence, he seems to be saying that through our experiences, one can acquire beliefs even if our beliefs are false. It is rational to believe that the sky is blue because it is a belief we acquire through seeing the sky is blue. But according to Clark, seeing that the sky is blue is not enough sufficient evidence (like the sufficient

Consider how the effect of a new perspective has been reflected and developed in a literary text or texts you have studied. Discuss the ideas developed by the text creator about the effect an individual’s perspective has on personal beliefs.

It is my opinion that coherentists have a better argument for beliefs, and more specifically, this example. While I do think that there are many basic beliefs that are justified simply because they just are, I am not convinced that all the beliefs we have in this world can be broken down quite in this way. I do however, feel that many of our beliefs are based in a web of other believes that all support each other. I know that my coffee is hot for many reasons, one being that I can feel it. I don’t think that I necessarily need to break it down into experiences when I have many other clues that could more easily justify my belief. There are so many clues and beliefs around me to justify my belief that it’s not necessary to try and deduce anything. There are way too many complicated beliefs in the world that I do not feel they can all be traced back to basic

The reliability if an eyewitness testimony is questionable. The witness may be so certain that the person that thy are pointing out is one hundred per cent the suspect or they could be so certain when it comes to retelling the incident, although these people are so sure on what it is they are doing, their testimony cannot always accurate. Due to the lack of accuracy with eyewitness

May and Powles view evidence as ‘something’ which tends to prove or disprove something else. In the context of a trial this consists of information placed before the court for the purpose of proving or disproving facts in issue. Beecher-Monas states that in a system based on the rule of law and which aspires to ‘truth’, the accuracy and reliability of such information is essential. The mechanisms available to the court to determine the latter, centre on the presentation of evidence under oath, cross-examination and the observation of witness demeanour .

If the witness denies making the inconsistent statement, the federal rules allow other evidence to be offered to prove it if:

The article, When I Witnesses Talk, covers the issue of eyewitness testimonies and their reliability with memory conformity. Often when two people experience the same event they both have very different recollections of the occurrence. One event within the journal article incorporates the murder of Jill Dando, within this investigation there was a lineup where 16 witnesses were asked to identify the suspect, where only 1 of the 16 witnesses recognized him. The police conducted a second lineup where for example one witness stated that they were 95% sure that the suspect that they identified was at the scene of the crime, yet in the original lineup that person was unable to identify anyone from the lineup. One key piece of information was discovered,

There is a legal mist of uncertainty in acting upon this type of evidence, and by that alone. At best it could be tertiary supporting evidence provided other evidence either direct or secondary point to the events as stated by these types of witness. Such witnesses who have imagined the event, or confessed to things they never did, have actually hampered the proper administration of justice and have either caused harm to themselves and to other innocent persons. It is pertinent to submit here that most of

Explain the key beliefs within two religious traditions in a relation to a significant religious question.

God, in fact, has made a world where humans tend to believe him regardless of any facts. This sense of feeling the existence and presence of God, whether it be achieved through nature or love or hallucinogenic drugs, is perfectly reasonable for people to have. Its surety goes beyond argument or explanations brought about through infallible facts infallibly leading to infallible conclusions. Plantinga, then, through Reformed Epistemology, has broadened the horizons of a proper basic belief’s criteria. For a belief to be properly basic, it does not have to be based on other beliefs and it does not need to be justified by other beliefs or arguments. If one would agree with foundationalism, one wouldn’t be able to hold their beliefs about the presence of physical world or of other people, and that does not seem reasonable to

Leibniz, who wrote ‘On the Ultimate Origination of Things’, also supported the cosmological argument; his argument is sometimes called the ‘argument from

The cosmological argument is, “a family of arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of a Sufficient Reason or First Cause of the existence of the cosmos.” Historians trace an early version of the cosmological argument to Ibn Sīnā (c. 980–1037), and philosophers commonly differentiate argument variations into three basic categories. The first, the KCA, seeks to establish the First

In this paper, I will discuss the truth-belief-justification conceptual analysis of knowledge, which I will refer to as TBJ, Gettier cases, and an example that refutes TBJ. Conceptual analysis is an analysis of a proposition P with given premises to acquire knowledge of that P. The truth-belief-justification analysis of knowledge fails to provide sufficient conditions for someone to possess knowledge. For a condition to be necessary, it has to be satisfied to have knowledge of a proposition. If a condition is sufficient, then the person x will have some information to know something about proposition P. Jointly sufficient conditions are conditions that all need to be satisfied together to have knowledge about some P. They are necessary and supposedly jointly sufficient, but Gettier cases prove that extra conditions on top of TBJ are required to be jointly sufficient.

Despite knowing the unreliability of eyewitness testimonies, investigators still narrow in on suspects identified by these witnesses. To explain the effects of eyewitness testimony one can examine a few conditional probabilities:

Eyewitnesses are vital in the court of law, first amid law enforcement examinations, subsequently a wellsprings of confirmation when legal proceedings are conveyed to trial. When assessing the reported accounts of eyewitnesses, the relative importance of concern should decide whether it is accurate or inaccurate. Not in the lab, nonetheless, it’s by and large unrealistic to check the substance of witness reports equitably. All things considered, the factor of confidence communicated by an eyewitness turns into a possibly helpful indicator to separate amongst exact and mistaken recollections. Therefore, in general there is an instinctive conviction when confidence is communicated around recollected memories may in fact be utilized to construe it as accurate or inaccurate, in between the overall population and by experts of the criminal justice system. The confidence communicated by an observer in his or her affirmation gives off an impression of being a solid determinant of the apparent believability of the eyewitness.