As Key Words (All)

Front 1

A PRIORI

Back 1

Knowledge that is acquired/justified independent of (sense) experience. E.G. All squares have four sides.

Front 2

A POSTERIORI

Back 2

Knowledge that is acquired/justified via (sense) experience. E.G. Snow is cold.

Front 3

ANALYTIC PROPOSITION

Back 3

A proposition that is true in virtue of the meanings of the words. E.G. Bachelors are unmarried men.

Front 4

SYNTHETIC PROPOSITION

Back 4

A proposition that is true in virtue of the way the world is. E.G. Causes have effects.

Front 5

CONTINGENT TRUTH

Back 5

A truth that could be/have been otherwise and is therefore not true in all possible worlds. E.G. My name is Pam.

Front 6

NECESSARY TRUTH

Back 6

A truth that could not be otherwise and is therefore true in all possible worlds. E.G. 2+2=4

Front 7

INNATISM

Back 7

The view that we have some innate knowledge and/or concepts. For something to be innate it would be present from birth.

Front 8

HUME'S FORK

Back 8

Hume's division of knowledge in to 'relations of ideas' and 'matters of fact'. Although Hume accepts 'relations of ideas' are known a priori - they are trivial.

Front 9

EMPIRICISM

Back 9

The view that all significant knowledge and concepts are acquired via sense experience.

Front 10

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Back 10

An inductive argument concludes with a generalisation based on particular cases/examples. Therefore, even if its premises are true, its conclusion could still be false.

Front 11

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

Back 11

A deductive argument draws a particular conclusion from a generalisation. Therefore, if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false.

Front 12

PROPOSITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Back 12

Knowledge that something is or is not the case. E.G. Eagles are not reptiles.

Front 13

ABILITY KNOWLEDGE

Back 13

Knowing 'how' to do something. E.G. Knowing how to solve a quadratic equation.

Front 14

ACQUAINTANCE KNOWLEDGE

Back 14

Knowing where something is or who someone is. E.G. I know Michael Lacewing.

Front 15

TRIPARTITE DEFINITION

Back 15

Plato's definition of knowledge as a 'justified, true belief'. These three conditions are necessary and sufficient for propositional knowledge.

Front 16

INFALLIBILISM

Back 16

Descartes' definition of knowledge as that which is immune to doubt.

Front 17

RELIABILISM (AUSTIN)

Back 17

Austin defines knowledge as a true belief formed by a reliable cognitive process (one that generally leads to true belief, e.g. vision) in a situation where S is able to discriminate between relevant possibilities.

Front 18

TRUTH-TRACKING (NOZICK'S RELIABILISM)

Back 18

Nozick defines knowledge as a belief that 'tracks the truth'. S knows p if p is true, S believes it, S would not believe p if p weren't true and would believe p if p were.

Front 19

GETTIER CASE

Back 19

A problem case developed by Gettier to demonstrate that a justified, true belief is not sufficient for knowledge. In each case someone deduces a true belief from a false one, making their true belief arrived at through coincidence.

Front 20

NO FALSE LEMMAS

Back 20

A definition of knowledge that aims to strengthen justification in light of Gettier cases. It adds the condition that S knows p if p is true, S believes p, is justified in believing p and S has not inferred p from anything false.

Front 21

DIRECT REALISM

Back 21

The view that the immediate objects of perception are mind-independent objects and their properties.

Front 22

INDIRECT REALISM

Back 22

The view that the immediate objects of perception are mind-dependent objects (sense data) that are caused by and represent mind-independent objects.

Front 23

IDEALISM

Back 23

An anti-realist view which claims that the immediate objects of perception are mind-dependent ideas.

Front 24

SUBJECTIVE

Back 24

Something that is mind or perceiver-dependent.

Front 25

OBJECTIVE

Back 25

Something that is mind or perceiver-independent.

Front 26

SENSE DATA

Back 26

What we immediately perceive according to indirect realism. It is mental, subjective, private and infallible.

Front 27

PRIMARY QUALITY

Back 27

A quality of an object that is perceiver-independent, measurable and intrinsic to the object (i.e. cannot be separated from it). E.G. Extension, motion and shape.

Front 28

SECONDARY QUALITY

Back 28

A quality of an object that is not 'in' the object, but a power to produce particular sensations in a perceiver. Therefore, they are perceiver-dependent, not measurable and are not intrinsic to the object (i.e. they can be separated from it). E.G. Smell, taste and colour.

Front 29

OMNIPOTENCE

Back 29

An attribute of God which claims him to have the power to anything that is absolutely possible (i.e. anything within the realms of logical possibility).

Front 30

OMNISCIENCE

Back 30

An attribute of God which claims him to have perfect knowledge (i.e. knows everything it is possible to know).

Front 31

SUPREMELY GOOD

Back 31

An attribute of God which claims him to be perfectly good: metaphysically and morally.

Front 32

ETERNAL

Back 32

An attribute of God which claims him to have no beginning or end and exist for all time outside of time.

Front 33

EVERLASTING

Back 33

An attribute of God which claims him to have no beginning or end and exist for all time inside of time.

Front 34

LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL

Back 34

The classical attributes of God are logically incompatible with the existence of evil.

Front 35

EVIDENTIAL PROBLEM OF EVIL

Back 35

The existence of evil is sufficient evidence to deny the existence of God.

Front 36

DESIGN QUA PURPOSE

Back 36

A version of the design argument for the existence of God which regards evidence of design to be 'parts organised for a purpose'.

Front 37

DESIGN QUA REGULARITY

Back 37

A version of the design argument for the existence of God which regards evidence for design to be regularity - E.G. the laws of nature.

Front 38

AQUINAS' FIRST WAY

Back 38

A version of the cosmological argument which claims that as everything is in motion there must have been a first mover to put it all in to motion.

Front 39

AQUINAS' SECOND WAY

Back 39

A version of the cosmological argument which claims that as every event has a cause there must have been a first cause to start the causal chain.

Front 40

AQUINAS' THIRD WAY

Back 40

A version of the cosmological argument which claims that as everything which exists is contingent there must be a necessary being in existence that could cause everything else to exist.

Front 41

KALAM ARGUMENT

Back 41

A version of the cosmological argument which claims that as everything which begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist - it must have a cause (it is thought that this cause must me God).

Front 42

TRADEMARK ARGUMENT

Back 42

Descartes' version of the cosmological argument which claims that our concept of an infinitely perfect being must have been caused by such a being (as it could not have come from anywhere else).

Front 43

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Back 43

There are various versions of this argument - but they are all a priori, deductive arguments. They all aim to use the definition/concept of God to prove his existence.

Front 44

VERIFICATION PRINCIPLE

Back 44

A statement is only meaningful if it can be verified analytically or empirically.

Front 45

FALSIFICATION PRINCIPLE

Back 45

A statement is only meaningful if it is open to falsification, i.e. if we know of an experience that would be incompatible with the claim and prove it to be false.

Front 46

COGNITIVE STATEMENT

Back 46

A statement which informs, is factual and can be true or false.

Front 47

NON-COGNITIVE STATEMENT

Back 47

A statement which expresses an attitude or preference, so it cannot be true or false.

Front 48

ESCHATOLOGICAL VERIFICATION

Back 48

Eschatology is the study of 'last things', generally associated with death. A statement that is eschatologically verifiable is verifiable after death - so it is verifiable if true, but not falsifiable if false.