• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/21

Click to flip

21 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
state and explain descartes dream argument
I can't be certain that I'm not dreaming right now. If I can't be certain that I am not dreaming right now, sense experience cannot be a source of knowledge. So, sense experience can't be a source of knowledge. According to this argument, the mind has the ability to feed us false neurological senses, and if the mind has done this before, sense experience cannot be completely trusted.
state and explain descartes evil demon argument
I can't be certain that i am not being systematically deluded now by a powerful being. If i cant be certain that i am not being systematically deluded by a powerful being, i know nothing. So, i know nothing. This argument states the possibility of an omnipresent evil being that has the ability to feed our senses false neurological information, therefor we cannot trust our senses or nonempirical truths.
What is a corrigible belief? Give two examples
belief of a kind such that it is logically possible for any belief of that kind to be false. Example, the sky is blue. Example, ice is cold.
According to a skeptic, does anyone know a corrigible belief to be true? Why?
No, becuase by definition corrigible beliefs can always be doubted, therefor it is not certain that it is true. A skeptic finds certainty in knowledge through the skeptics analysis of knowledge
P is true, I believe P, Therefor i am certain that P.
How does the dogmatist reply to the skeptic?
A dogmatists would tell a skeptic that corrigible beliefs sometimes lead to knowledge through the standard analysis of knowledge.

P is true, I believe P, My belief in P is completely justified.

completely justified means that we have so much evidence of a belief that is it irrelevant there is a logical possibility of error.
According to descartes, how does an individual have knowledge of empirical reality?
According to descartes, Knowledge requires not only true belief, but certainty. He believes in the skeptics analysis of knowledge

P is ture, I believe P, therefor I am certain that P.

He believes you can only have knowledge of the empirical world is empirical turths can be deduced from propsitions that are certain. If the argument is valid and the premises are certain, the conclusion will also be certain. Valid means that if all premises are true the conclusion must be true. These certain premises include "i think" and "i exist" and also propositions about the contents of one's mind like
"I seem to hear a bell..."
They state basic beliefs which are self-justifying beliefs upon which rests the justification of other, non-basic beliefs. Everything else is deduced from them through valid arguments by means of principles, such as the principle of clarity and distinctness...
state the principle of clarity and distinctiveness
If an argument is valid and the premises are certain, the conclusion will be certain. Indubitable = knowledge
according to a skeptic, if a perceptual belief meets the standard of the principle of clarity and distinctiveness, does it amount to knowledge?
a skeptic relies on the skeptics analysis of knowledge which states P is true, I believe P, therefor i am certain that P. This argument is valid and the premises are certain, therefor the conclusion will be certain or indubitable, amounting to knowledge in a skeptics point of view.
Difference between sound and valid argument?
A valid argument is once in which the premises are logically connected to the conclusion so that if all premises are true, the conclusion is true. A sound argument is valid with all true premises.
Epistemology
Brance of philospohy that inquires into what constitutes knowledge, belief and truth
Foundationalism
View that there are basic beliefs whose justification does not depend on other beliefs and that the justification of all other beliefs depends, at least in part, on the basic beliefs
Dogmatism
View that people possess the kind of knowledge we naturally assume they do, and lack the kind of knowledge we naturally assume they do.
Empirical Claim
on that can be shown to be true or false, at least in principle by observation or experimentation
Skepticism
View that it is possible we have no knowledge and our beliefs are delusive
Basic Belief
Self justifying belief upon which rests the justification of other non-basic beliefs
Argument
combonation of claim and reasons intetended to prove or support the given claims
Premise
Part of argument that contains the claim for which reasons are given
Beg The question?
one of an arguments assumptions relies on a statement that is equivilent to the conclusion.
Cogito Ergo Sum
I am thinking, therefor i am
two claims about reality that descartes believes whoever thinks them can know with certainity. You know something only if you are certain of it, foundation for all knowledge of reality.
Argument for Clarity and Distinctness
if god exists and is not a deciever, then whatever i clearly and distinctly percieve is true. God exists and is not a deciever, therefor whatever i clearly and distinctly percieve is true.
Who holds standard theory of knowledge?
dogmatists