Phi 205

Front 1

state and explain descartes dream argument

Back 1

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.

Front 2

state and explain descartes evil demon argument

Back 2

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.

Front 3

What is a corrigible belief? Give two examples

Back 3

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.

Front 4

According to a skeptic, does anyone know a corrigible belief to be true? Why?

Back 4

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.

Front 5

How does the dogmatist reply to the skeptic?

Back 5

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.

Front 6

According to descartes, how does an individual have knowledge of empirical reality?

Back 6

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...

Front 7

state the principle of clarity and distinctiveness

Back 7

If an argument is valid and the premises are certain, the conclusion will be certain. Indubitable = knowledge

Front 8

according to a skeptic, if a perceptual belief meets the standard of the principle of clarity and distinctiveness, does it amount to knowledge?

Back 8

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.

Front 9

Difference between sound and valid argument?

Back 9

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.

Front 10

Epistemology

Back 10

Brance of philospohy that inquires into what constitutes knowledge, belief and truth

Front 11

Foundationalism

Back 11

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

Front 12

Dogmatism

Back 12

View that people possess the kind of knowledge we naturally assume they do, and lack the kind of knowledge we naturally assume they do.

Front 13

Empirical Claim

Back 13

on that can be shown to be true or false, at least in principle by observation or experimentation

Front 14

Skepticism

Back 14

View that it is possible we have no knowledge and our beliefs are delusive

Front 15

Basic Belief

Back 15

Self justifying belief upon which rests the justification of other non-basic beliefs

Front 16

Argument

Back 16

combonation of claim and reasons intetended to prove or support the given claims

Front 17

Premise

Back 17

Part of argument that contains the claim for which reasons are given

Front 18

Beg The question?

Back 18

one of an arguments assumptions relies on a statement that is equivilent to the conclusion.

Front 19

Cogito Ergo Sum

Back 19

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.

Front 20

Argument for Clarity and Distinctness

Back 20

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.

Front 21

Who holds standard theory of knowledge?

Back 21

dogmatists