Register to read the introduction…
Many different interpretations of Descartes’ dream argument could derive from his theory. In lecture we interpreted Descartes’ Dream Argument as follows: 1. If I am dreaming, most of my beliefs about the things around me are false. 2. Therefore, if I’m dreaming, I lack knowledge of my surroundings 3. There are never any reliable signs to distinguish dreaming from being
…show more content…
This means that his premises make the conclusion more likely, but does not guarantee that the conclusion will be true. We interpreted Descartes’ conclusion as: if we never know if we are awake or dreaming, than we cannot be aware of our surroundings, ever. By coming to this conclusion from his premises, the conclusion is still not guaranteed; therefore making it an inductive argument. I don’t believe that it is a fair statement to say that every single person is never aware of their surroundings. This is a form of an enumerative induction. Enumerative Induction is the process of deriving a generalization about an entire group of things based on observing some of the members of that group. Similar to a stereotype; it is never right to assume the same thing for a group of …show more content…
An argument that has a conclusion that is directly based off of the premises is valid. In Descartes’ dream argument, he comes to the conclusion that he lacks knowledge of his surroundings because he doesn’t know when he is or is not dreaming. Since he is not sure about being in a dream state, than he really cannot reach a conclusion from that premise. His premises do not support a concrete conclusion. Therefore, the argument is invalid. However, Descartes argument could be seen as sound. I think that if a person were to read his argument for the first time, they might believe it without questioning his premises. His argument is not completely illogical and off base, but if it is examined more closely, I think people would question its soundness. For the most part, it seems like a logical and sound point,
This means that his premises make the conclusion more likely, but does not guarantee that the conclusion will be true. We interpreted Descartes’ conclusion as: if we never know if we are awake or dreaming, than we cannot be aware of our surroundings, ever. By coming to this conclusion from his premises, the conclusion is still not guaranteed; therefore making it an inductive argument. I don’t believe that it is a fair statement to say that every single person is never aware of their surroundings. This is a form of an enumerative induction. Enumerative Induction is the process of deriving a generalization about an entire group of things based on observing some of the members of that group. Similar to a stereotype; it is never right to assume the same thing for a group of …show more content…
An argument that has a conclusion that is directly based off of the premises is valid. In Descartes’ dream argument, he comes to the conclusion that he lacks knowledge of his surroundings because he doesn’t know when he is or is not dreaming. Since he is not sure about being in a dream state, than he really cannot reach a conclusion from that premise. His premises do not support a concrete conclusion. Therefore, the argument is invalid. However, Descartes argument could be seen as sound. I think that if a person were to read his argument for the first time, they might believe it without questioning his premises. His argument is not completely illogical and off base, but if it is examined more closely, I think people would question its soundness. For the most part, it seems like a logical and sound point,