PHIL 240 FINAL EXAM QUESTIONS AND
CORRECT DETAILED ANSWERS (VERIFIED
ANSWERS); ALREADY GRADED A+
"painted mule" example - correct answer- You're at the
Abbotsford zoo, and you see a striped-horse like animal in front
of you. The sign says "Zebra".
Do you know that the animal is a zebra?(Suppose it is a zebra,
and you believe it is).
Dretske asks: what about the possibility it is just a cleverly
disguised mule?
•You may have some reason to believe it is not (e.g., Zoos don't
generally try to fool people in that way).
•However, your evidence does not seem good enough to know
that it is not a cleverly disguised mule.
•Still, Dretske wants to claim that as long as the mule hypothesis
is not a relevant alternative, you can know that the animal in the
pen is a zebra.
2 problems with Moore's external world argument - correct
answer- (1) Your proof is unsatisfactory because you don't
provide a proof of the premises used in your two proofs
- response: Moore says that he does not believe such a proof
can be given. How, he asks, can I prove that "Here is one hand.
,Here is another."? He says that he has conclusive evidence that
he is not dreaming, but that he cannot prove it (in part because
he cannot tell you what all his evidence is)
(2) If you (Moore) cannot give extra proofs of your premises,
then the proofs that you have given are not conclusive proofs at
all
- response : Even if I cannot prove that P, I can still know that P.
Moore thinks that he knows the premises of his two proofs,
even if he cannot prove them
a posteriori - correct answer- claim that can only be
justified or known through experience
a pragmatic objection to pyrrhonian skepticism - correct
answer- (1)According to Pyrrhonian Skepticism, the
appearances can be good or bad, and we should withhold
judgment about whether the world is really good or bad.
(2)However, if something appears good (or bad) to me, then I
believe it is good or bad for me. (3)Hence, there is no real
difference between an evaluative appearance and an evaluative
belief - e.g., the evaluative appearance (it appears to me that I'm
experiencing pain now and it appears bad) is the same as the
evaluative belief (I believe I'm experiencing pain now, and it's
bad).
(4)Hence, the Pyrrhonian skeptic can't live without beliefs.
,a priori - correct answer- a proposition (or claim) that
can be known or justified independent of any sense experience
(by reason alone) (mathematics, logic, definitions, philosophical
claims)
Abductive Argument - correct answer- Is one in which
the conclusion is the "best guess" that is judged to be the most
plausible explanation among competing alternatives, given that
the premise is true
Academic Skepticism - correct answer- at least some
truths are completely unknowable - the academic skeptics deny,
sometimes dogmatically, that knowledge is possible (accepts
probabilism, asserting that skepticism is true)
acquired - correct answer- developed or learned; not
naturally occurring
Agrippa's Trilemma - correct answer- consider any claim
P, it must be the case that either
(1) P is justified or supported by some further claim Q (circular)
(2) P is self-justified
, (3) P is unjustified
Anderson on epistemology of Democracy - correct answer-
Three important features of democracy
1. The epistemic diversity of the participants.
2. The interaction of voting with discussion
3. Feedback mechanisms (e.g, elections)
--> Anderson's main thesis: A Deweyan model of democracy is
superior to the alternatives in capturing and explaining the
epistemic value of these three features of democracy.
Austin's argument against skepticism - correct answer-
(P1) To raise a legitimate doubt about someone's knowledge
claim, one must suggest a specific way in which the subject
might be mistaken. (Dreaming?)
(P2) Dreams are qualitatively distinguishable from waking
experiences (they have that dream-like quality")
(P3) One only needs to rule out some possibility if there is
special reason to believe that possibility now obtains
(C) Hence, we don't have to worry about dreaming-skepticism
Barnes & Bloor's argument for relativism - correct answer-
(1) if there are absolute (non-relative) facts about what justifies
CORRECT DETAILED ANSWERS (VERIFIED
ANSWERS); ALREADY GRADED A+
"painted mule" example - correct answer- You're at the
Abbotsford zoo, and you see a striped-horse like animal in front
of you. The sign says "Zebra".
Do you know that the animal is a zebra?(Suppose it is a zebra,
and you believe it is).
Dretske asks: what about the possibility it is just a cleverly
disguised mule?
•You may have some reason to believe it is not (e.g., Zoos don't
generally try to fool people in that way).
•However, your evidence does not seem good enough to know
that it is not a cleverly disguised mule.
•Still, Dretske wants to claim that as long as the mule hypothesis
is not a relevant alternative, you can know that the animal in the
pen is a zebra.
2 problems with Moore's external world argument - correct
answer- (1) Your proof is unsatisfactory because you don't
provide a proof of the premises used in your two proofs
- response: Moore says that he does not believe such a proof
can be given. How, he asks, can I prove that "Here is one hand.
,Here is another."? He says that he has conclusive evidence that
he is not dreaming, but that he cannot prove it (in part because
he cannot tell you what all his evidence is)
(2) If you (Moore) cannot give extra proofs of your premises,
then the proofs that you have given are not conclusive proofs at
all
- response : Even if I cannot prove that P, I can still know that P.
Moore thinks that he knows the premises of his two proofs,
even if he cannot prove them
a posteriori - correct answer- claim that can only be
justified or known through experience
a pragmatic objection to pyrrhonian skepticism - correct
answer- (1)According to Pyrrhonian Skepticism, the
appearances can be good or bad, and we should withhold
judgment about whether the world is really good or bad.
(2)However, if something appears good (or bad) to me, then I
believe it is good or bad for me. (3)Hence, there is no real
difference between an evaluative appearance and an evaluative
belief - e.g., the evaluative appearance (it appears to me that I'm
experiencing pain now and it appears bad) is the same as the
evaluative belief (I believe I'm experiencing pain now, and it's
bad).
(4)Hence, the Pyrrhonian skeptic can't live without beliefs.
,a priori - correct answer- a proposition (or claim) that
can be known or justified independent of any sense experience
(by reason alone) (mathematics, logic, definitions, philosophical
claims)
Abductive Argument - correct answer- Is one in which
the conclusion is the "best guess" that is judged to be the most
plausible explanation among competing alternatives, given that
the premise is true
Academic Skepticism - correct answer- at least some
truths are completely unknowable - the academic skeptics deny,
sometimes dogmatically, that knowledge is possible (accepts
probabilism, asserting that skepticism is true)
acquired - correct answer- developed or learned; not
naturally occurring
Agrippa's Trilemma - correct answer- consider any claim
P, it must be the case that either
(1) P is justified or supported by some further claim Q (circular)
(2) P is self-justified
, (3) P is unjustified
Anderson on epistemology of Democracy - correct answer-
Three important features of democracy
1. The epistemic diversity of the participants.
2. The interaction of voting with discussion
3. Feedback mechanisms (e.g, elections)
--> Anderson's main thesis: A Deweyan model of democracy is
superior to the alternatives in capturing and explaining the
epistemic value of these three features of democracy.
Austin's argument against skepticism - correct answer-
(P1) To raise a legitimate doubt about someone's knowledge
claim, one must suggest a specific way in which the subject
might be mistaken. (Dreaming?)
(P2) Dreams are qualitatively distinguishable from waking
experiences (they have that dream-like quality")
(P3) One only needs to rule out some possibility if there is
special reason to believe that possibility now obtains
(C) Hence, we don't have to worry about dreaming-skepticism
Barnes & Bloor's argument for relativism - correct answer-
(1) if there are absolute (non-relative) facts about what justifies
