The Pursuit Of Truth By Willard Van Orman Quine

The topic of knowledge and belief has been a subject of investigation and a primary field in philosophical research for centuries. Whether it was Aristotle or Descartes, multiple ideas on knowledge and belief arise, such as the epistemological theories of foundationalism or coherentism, which provide philosophical explanations to this debate. For the sake of this essay, and in my own opinion, knowledge should be distinguished from belief. Everyone is subject to different types of beliefs based on upbringing, however knowledge of basic items is universal, therefore it immediately becomes apparent that there is a clear distinction between the two concepts.

Jonathan Vogel wrote Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation as a solution to accept the real world hypothesis over any skeptical hypothesis. Vogel presents a compelling argument for a definitive reason to accept that the world we are experiencing is in fact the real world. I believe that Vogel’s argument falls short of proving a reason for accepting the real world hypothesis over a skeptical one. In this paper I will clearly explain Vogels argument, explain some important concepts to understand, and attempt to refute the argument.

John M. Barry uses the various different types of rhetorical strategies to characterize scientific research by comparing the opposites of both certainty and uncertainty, by referring to life in the woods as a metaphor towards the mind and creation of science, and a series of rhetorical questions that shows the process and mind of the scientists portrayed in John M Barry’s essay.

“The Power of Mysteries” by Alan Lightman and “I Could Be Wrong” by Allan Barger reveal a commonality of the appreciation of uncertainty. Lightman’s essay describes his experiences in question asking, answer seeking, and coming to realizations. The essay provides a retrospect into Lightman’s younger years where he asked questions such as, “Does time go on forever?” (Lightman). As Lightman grew older and became an astrophysicist, he found that he could not answer any of the questions he asked himself as a child. The feeling of not being able to establish an answer to the unknown continues to give Lightman exhilaration, and it is greatly shown in his essay. He treasures the concept of not being able to solve a mystery. Lightman reveals

(Francis) Bacon stressed experimentation and observation. He wanted science to make life better for people by leading to practical technologies. (Rene) Descartes emphasized human reasoning as the best road to understanding. In his Discourse on Method, he explains how he decided to discard all traditional authorities and search for provable knowledge. (Ellis, Elser

Before reviewing the responses to the “knowledge argument”, one must first have an understanding of the experiment. “Mary’s Room” begins by supposing that a scientist (Mary) has been locked

Previous to starting this course I had given philosophy little thought. Yes I did often ponder the questions that I have now explored in the text “Problems from Philosophy”, by James, and Stuart Rachels. However it was not until reading the text became mandatory, and I was prompted to think more deeply about these questions, that my mind began to open. I had not had any previous experience with philosophy is my past academic career. Although I did faintly know that philosophy was about asking the “big questions” of life. That alone made me very uncomfortable, and overall reluctant. Still Philosophy is a mandatory core class, so I signed up and prepared myself for stepping out of my comfort zone.

The ensued parochial tug of war has transformed into an endless mental altercation and every strand that breaks away from the rope leads to more placid chaos and a different viewpoint. My mind stands amongst a smorgasbord of ideologies of the known and unknown. Some are within the sensory knowledge and awareness whereas a few are beyond the noetic realm. Plantinga’s theistic arguments espoused by Swinburne’s doctrine obfuscate me and my own quintessence voice of reason, backed by Charvaka ideologies ,George Carlin’s and Richard Dawkin’s philosophies flummox me. During this struggle I hear their voices saying:

For nearly a thousand years, the ontological argument has captured the attention of philosophers. The ontological argument was revolutionary in its sequence from thought to reality. It was an argument that did not require any corresponding experiment in reality; it functioned without the necessity of empirical data. Despite flaws and problems found in some ontological arguments and the objections raised to those arguments, ontological arguments still provide a phenomenal vehicle for ontological discussion through St. Anselm’s original ideas and argument, objections raised, and revisions of previous arguments. The ontological argument still intrigues philosophers despite potential objections and flaws

What is Science? When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to it, a theory, scientific words or scientific research (Beyond Conservation, n.d.). Many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. It illustrates that each person can identify science in some form. It indicates that the ‘science’ plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it correctly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park, 1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and pseudo-science. Then it will discuss possible responses to the question that what should we do when there is a clash between scientific explanation and non-scientific explanation. Then it will present a brief examination about the correct non-scientific explanation.

Quine begins his paper by discussing our knowledge of external things and how we can come to know what we know. On page two of Things and their Place in Theories, Quine states, “there is nothing we can be more confident of than external things,” meaning that the pieces of knowledge we can be most sure of are things that are discovered a posteriori, after sufficient empirical evidence is gathered. This quote shows that Quine denies the notion of foundationalism and believes that there is no piece of knowledge that can be said to be a base for all other knowledge. Instead of having a foundationalist view on the world, Quine believes in naturalism.

When speaking about the analytic and synthetic meanings of utterances, it has been common to believe that there is a difference between the two. We see analytic truths being true in the meaning of the words alone, where with synthetic truths we use our knowledge of the words used as well as our knowledge of the world around us. One common example of analytics is the phrase “All bachelors are unmarried” and an example of the synthetic would be “All ophthalmologists are rich” which would require knowledge not solely based on the words, but society as well. In Quine’s paper Two Dogmas of Empiricism he argues, giving multiple reasons for why he does not believe there to be a distinction between the analytics and synthetic. While I believe that

Most individuals tend to base their understanding of the world solely on what they know; however they acquire this knowledge mostly through experience which can be deemed as problematic by different philosophers. The debate regarding knowledge through experience tends to revolve around philosophers who view experience as a limiting form of knowledge, in contrast to other philosophers who view experience as a stepping stone to acquiring the accuracy and credibility of a particular idea. David Hume and Charles Peirce are two philosophers whose ideas of reasoning fall within this debate. David Hume is a philosopher who believes that individuals naturally reason inductively; which is, using experiences to interpret and predict things. While Charles Peirce is a philosopher who believes that through abductive reasoning, individuals have a better chance of determining if a notion is true or false. Although both inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning stems from the same idea of reasoning through experience, the conclusion from both philosophers are at opposite ends. Where Hume finds inductive reasoning problematic, Peirce presents abduction as a solution. Therefore, this essay will compare the arguments of both philosophers to determine whose perspective is more persuasive and to find out what roles these arguments play in scientific knowledge.

In “The Refutation of Skepticism”, Jonathan Vogel establishes an “Inference to the Best Explanation” (hereafter, “IBE”) as a means to refute skepticism about the external world. In this refutation, Vogel acknowledges that skepticism about IBE still remains a possibility, but that this kind of skepticism would be rather outlandish in character and thus could be ignored. This paper shall both establish and evaluate Vogel’s reasoning as to why he confidently dismisses any skepticism pertaining to his IBE, and furthermore will illuminate some points as to why Vogel may have mischaracterized potential threats to his method, leaving his refutation of skepticism vulnerable to doubt that is not as

We live in a strange and puzzling world. Despite the exponential growth of knowledge in the past century, we are faced by a baffling multitude of conflicting ideas. The mass of conflicting ideas causes the replacement of knowledge, as one that was previously believed to be true gets replace by new idea. This is accelerated by the rapid development of technology to allow new investigations into knowledge within the areas of human and natural sciences. Knowledge in the human sciences has been replaced for decades as new discoveries by the increased study of humans, and travel has caused the discarding of a vast array of theories. The development of