Uark Philosophy Midterm (Matthew Warren)

In logic, a list or sequence of propositions or statements:

Example: Premise 1: All humans are mortal. Premise 2: Socrates is a human. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

An argument is valid if it is absolutely impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

Example: Premise 1: All cats are animals. Premise 2: All animals have four legs. Conclusion: Therefore, all cats have four legs. (Valid but not necessarily true)

An argument is sound if it is valid and all of its premises are true.
Example: Premise 1: All humans are mammals. Premise 2: Socrates is a human. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is a mammal. (Both valid and true premises)

An argument is invalid if the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
Example: Premise 1: All humans are mammals. Premise 2: Socrates is a mammal. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is a human. (Invalid because the conclusion doesn't logically follow)

A statement or proposition in an argument that is offered as evidence or support for the conclusion.
Example: In the argument "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal," the first two statements are premises.

The statement or proposition that follows logically from the premises in an argument.
Example: In the argument "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal," the last statement "Socrates is mortal" is the conclusion.

The view that nothing is known about a certain subject matter or that we do not have justified beliefs about it.

Example: Cartesian skepticism doubts the reliability of senses and knowledge derived from them.

A skeptical hypothesis positing the existence of an all-powerful, malevolent being who deceives us about the nature of reality.
Example: Descartes' evil demon hypothesis suggests that an evil demon could be manipulating our perceptions, making it impossible to trust our senses.

A method of reasoning where the best explanation for a set of evidence or observations is inferred to be true.
Example: In science, when multiple hypotheses could explain an observed phenomenon, scientists often choose the one with the most evidence supporting it.

Mental experiences resulting from the stimulation of the senses.
Example: Feeling the warmth of the sun on your skin or tasting the sweetness of sugar are sensations.

The view that there is only one conscious subject, and that reality as a whole exists (or can be known to exist) only insofar as this subject is conscious of it.

Example: The solipsist might argue that they can only be certain of their own thoughts and experiences; they cannot be certain that anything external to their own mind truly exists.

Doubt about the existence of an external world beyond one's own mind or experiences.
Example: Descartes' methodical doubt led him to question whether the external world, including the existence of physical objects, could be known with certainty.

A skeptical hypothesis suggesting that reality could be structured in such a way that it systematically deceives our perceptions or understanding.
Example: The brain-in-a-vat scenario, where a brain is kept alive in a vat and fed false sensory information, is an example of an isomorphic skeptical hypothesis.

The belief or assumption that there exists a genuine external reality independent of our perceptions or experiences.
Example: Scientific realism holds that the external world exists independently of our observations and theories, and that scientific theories aim to describe this reality accurately.

Relating to knowledge or the study of knowledge.
Example: Epistemic justification concerns whether beliefs are well-supported by evidence and reasoning.

Knowledge that is gained through observation, experience, or sensory perception.
Example: Knowing that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level is empirical knowledge gained through observation and experimentation.

Knowledge that is independent of experience and can be known to be true or false without empirical evidence.
Example: Mathematical truths, such as "2 + 2 = 4," are often considered a priori knowledge because they can be known through reason alone, without relying on sensory experience.

The philosophical view that there is only one fundamental substance or principle underlying all of reality.
Example: Physicalism, which posits that everything that exists is ultimately reducible to physical matter or physical processes, is a form of monism.

The philosophical view that consciousness or mind is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the universe.
Example: According to panpsychism, even fundamental particles possess some form of consciousness or mental properties.

The conceptual framework that combines space and time into a single continuum, as described by Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Example: In general relativity, gravity is understood as the curvature of space-time caused by the presence of mass and energy.

Principles or rules that describe the relationship between causes and effects in the natural world.
Example: Newton's laws of motion describe how the motion of objects is influenced by the forces acting upon them.

The mental faculty that allows us to form ideas and concepts that are not present to the senses.
Example: When we imagine a unicorn, we form a mental representation of a horse-like creature with a horn, even though we may have never seen one in reality.

Roughly, the view that all (substantive) knowledge derives from experience, or is a posteriori.Concept empiricism is the view that all concepts are either acquired from experience or “composed from” concepts that are acquired from experience

Example: as the concept unicorn is said to be composed from concepts like horse and horn.

c. Its conclusion must be true.

a. Valid

b. Valid but not sound

c. It is impossible for its premises to all be true and its conclusion to be false.

c. It must be both valid and sound

c. The fact that we cannot prove there is not an evil demon gives us reason to doubt that, for instance, we have a physical body, and hence, we do not know we have a physical body.

b. False

a. True

a. True

b. False

d. the things we dream come from things that are real.

c. he is deceived all the time.

c. most of our beliefs.

b. believe.

c. explanatory grounds.

a. point out that any sensation is extended in duration, so the object of the sensation must exist over time.

d. This is not a problem for Hume's theory, since someone could form an idea of Superman by combining various simple ideas for which we have corresponding experiences.

c. unsatisfactory.

c. Three

b. whether he really knows that he has hands

b. he can prove that he has hands.

b. it satisfies the underdetermination principle.

a. Arguing that there is no real world hypothesis

c. it is employing circular reasoning.

a. it affects how the object relates to other objects.

a. question whether we can truly know relational properties without knowing the underlying intrinsic properties.

d. being cubical

b. phenomena.

b. False

d. we cannot be sure that there are other people.

a. Skepticism about the world around us

c. Cannot be certain that other minds exist.

b. an essential property of you

a. the problem of other minds cannot be solved because we cannot verify other minds

c. Point out that we use the term "I" in perfectly understandable ways when thinking of sensations.

a. Yes

b. False

b.

c. Without his body

c. A faculty that integrates the information from the five senses

d. Body is divisible, but mind is not.

c. To show that extension is essential to body.

d. this is accounted for by the brain's divisibility.

a. True

b. False

d. A and B

b. False

a. True

a. True

b. his own existence

According to Descartes, our senses can deceive us.

Descartes claims that dreaming calls into doubt all but the simplest and most universal things.

According to Hume, our opinion that objects persist over time comes from our custom or habit.

Vogel thinks that the underdetermination of theory by evidence provides a good response to external world skepticism.

According to Russell, we come up with beliefs connecting our thoughts with our actions.

Russell thinks that physics does not require knowledge of other minds but does require knowledge of the behavior of physical objects.

Kripke claims that scientific theories ascribe minds to all material things.

In Hume’s essay, "this philosophical system" refers to the skepticism. The "two principles" are empiricism and causation.

According to Descartes, the essence of mind is thought and the essence of body is extension.

Hume argues that the belief in the continued identity of objects or perceptions after an interruption cannot be grounded in reason but must instead stem from imagination. He contends that reason alone cannot establish such identity because it operates based on principles of causality and necessity, which do not account for interruptions. Reason cannot bridge the gap between past and present perceptions or objects without relying on some form of continuity, which it cannot provide in cases of interruption. Therefore, Hume posits that imagination fills this gap by creating a sense of seamless identity based on associative principles rather than strict rational deduction. Imagination allows us to infer identity where reason alone fails to provide justification, as it connects past and present perceptions through associative links rather than logical necessity.

Someone convinced by the skeptical doubts raised by Descartes might object to Moore's proof of the external world on several grounds. Firstly, they might argue that Moore's proof relies on the assumption of the reliability of sensory perception, which Descartes calls into question through his method of radical doubt. Descartes suggests that sensory perception can be deceived, leading to false beliefs about the external world. Therefore, a skeptic might question whether Moore's appeal to sensory evidence is sufficient to establish the existence of an external world independent of our perceptions.

In the First Meditation, Descartes introduces radical doubt as a methodical approach to philosophy with the purpose of establishing a firm foundation for knowledge. By subjecting all beliefs to doubt, Descartes aims to strip away any preconceived notions or assumptions that may be uncertain or false. This radical doubt serves as a tool for skepticism, challenging the reliability of sense perception, the veracity of memory, and even the existence of an external world. Through this process of doubt, Descartes seeks to find a belief or truth that is indubitable, something that cannot be reasonably doubted or called into question. By starting from a position of radical skepticism and systematically doubting all beliefs, Descartes aims to reach a foundation of knowledge that is certain and undeniable, upon which he can build a secure edifice of philosophical understanding.

Moore distinguishes between the premises and conclusions of his proofs because he believes that the premises are known with greater certainty than their conclusions. In his philosophical method, Moore employs a form of direct realism, asserting that we have immediate, non-inferential knowledge of certain basic facts about the external world. These basic facts serve as premises in his proofs. However, Moore acknowledges that his proofs often lead to conclusions about the external world that go beyond what we can directly perceive or know with absolute certainty. Therefore, while the premises are firmly grounded in direct perception, the conclusions may involve some degree of inference or extrapolation. Moore's recognition of this distinction reflects his epistemological modesty, as he acknowledges the limits of our knowledge and the inherent uncertainty that may accompany philosophical conclusions.

The Moorean view discussed by Vogel differs from Moore's proof of an external world and Moore's own presentation of his proof in several key aspects. While Moore's proof of the external world relies on a common-sense intuition about the existence of external objects, Vogel's interpretation of the Moorean view emphasizes the epistemological significance of ordinary perceptual beliefs. Moore's proof centers on the idea that we can have immediate and certain knowledge of the external world through our direct perception of external objects. However, Vogel's discussion of the Moorean view highlights the epistemic priority of ordinary perceptual beliefs over philosophical skepticism. In contrast to Moore's explicit proof, which aims to establish the existence of an external world through philosophical argumentation, the Moorean view as presented by Vogel emphasizes the foundational role of ordinary perceptual beliefs in shaping our overall epistemic framework. This view suggests that ordinary perceptual beliefs are fundamental to our understanding of the world, even if they cannot be conclusively proven through philosophical argumentation like Moore's explicit proof.

Moore would not consider the argument "It is snowing, therefore it is snowing" to be a valid or meaningful proof of the proposition that it is snowing. In Moore's philosophical framework, valid arguments typically involve premises that provide justification or evidence for their conclusions. In this case, the premise "It is snowing" does not provide any new information or justification beyond the conclusion itself, making the argument trivial and circular. Moore emphasizes the importance of providing genuine evidence or reasons to support our beliefs, rather than relying on mere restatements or tautologies. Therefore, while the statement "It is snowing, therefore it is snowing" may technically follow the form of a valid argument, Moore would not view it as a legitimate or persuasive demonstration of the truth of the proposition that it is snowing.

One example of employing inference to the best explanation is in forensic science when investigating a crime scene. Suppose there is a murder investigation where the victim's body is found with multiple stab wounds. In this scenario, forensic scientists might collect evidence such as fingerprints, DNA samples, and blood spatter patterns. When analyzing this evidence, they could employ inference to the best explanation to support believing a conclusion about the identity of the perpetrator. For instance, if fingerprints and DNA evidence found at the scene match a particular suspect, and the blood spatter patterns suggest a struggle between the victim and the suspect, then the best explanation for the crime would be that the suspect is the perpetrator. In this way, inference to the best explanation is used to infer conclusions about complex and ambiguous situations based on the most plausible interpretation of the available evidence.

Langton distinguishes Kant's "humility" from skepticism by highlighting their differing attitudes towards knowledge and certainty. While skepticism often involves doubt and questioning the possibility of knowledge, Kant's humility stems from his recognition of the limits of human understanding and the inherent constraints of our cognitive faculties. Kant acknowledges that our knowledge is necessarily limited by the structure of our minds and the conditions of experience. However, rather than leading to skepticism or doubt about the possibility of knowledge altogether, Kant's humility encourages an acknowledgment of these limitations and a cautious approach to metaphysical claims. Kant's project involves delineating the boundaries of human knowledge and understanding, rather than outright skepticism or denial of the possibility of knowledge. Therefore, Langton argues that Kant's humility represents a nuanced stance that recognizes the limitations of human cognition while still affirming the possibility of meaningful knowledge within those limits.

Russell argues that automata, or machines, cannot truly possess minds because they lack the capacity for genuine consciousness and subjective experience. He maintains that mental states, such as thoughts, feelings, and perceptions, are inherently tied to subjective awareness and conscious experience. While automata may be capable of performing complex tasks and exhibiting behaviors that resemble human actions, Russell contends that these actions are merely mechanical responses to external stimuli rather than genuine manifestations of mental states. He argues that consciousness involves a qualitative aspect that cannot be replicated by purely mechanical processes, regardless of their complexity. Therefore, even if automata were to exhibit behavior indistinguishable from that of conscious beings, they would still lack the subjective inner life characteristic of genuine minds. Russell's argument rests on the distinction between outward behavior and inner experience, asserting that the latter is essential for the possession of a genuine mind.

Descartes switches from considering the hypothesis that he might be dreaming to considering the hypothesis that God, or a malicious demon, is deceiving him because he seeks a more radical and foundational doubt to establish the possibility of universal doubt. Initially, Descartes entertains the idea that he might be dreaming as a means of casting doubt on the reliability of sensory perception. However, he realizes that even if he were dreaming, there must be certain truths, such as mathematical propositions, that remain indubitable. Therefore, dreaming alone does not provide a sufficiently radical doubt to undermine all knowledge. To achieve a more comprehensive doubt, Descartes introduces the hypothesis of a deceiving God or demon. By positing the existence of a powerful and malevolent deceiver capable of systematically deceiving him about the external world, Descartes confronts the possibility that all his beliefs, including those about mathematics and logic, may be fundamentally unreliable. This hypothesis serves as a more extreme form of doubt, challenging the very foundations of knowledge and belief, and thus allows Descartes to establish the need for a method of radical skepticism in his philosophical project.

Hume argues that reason alone cannot explain why we believe in the continued and distinct existence of objects present to our senses because reason operates based on principles of causality and necessity, which are insufficient to establish such beliefs. Reason deals with relations of ideas and matters of fact, but the continued and distinct existence of objects goes beyond what can be proven through these categories. Hume asserts that our belief in the continued existence of objects is based more on custom and habit than on rational deduction. He suggests that we form this belief through repeated experiences of objects appearing to us in a consistent manner, leading us to expect their continued existence even when they are not immediately perceived. Therefore, Hume concludes that our belief in the continued and distinct existence of objects is grounded not in reason but in the associative principles of the mind, such as custom and habit.

Vogel identifies two failings that an explanatory hypothesis may have: explanatory circularity and explanatory emptiness. Explanatory circularity occurs when the hypothesis presupposes the truth of what it is supposed to explain, leading to a circular justification. In this case, the hypothesis merely restates the phenomenon it aims to explain without providing any genuine understanding. Explanatory emptiness, on the other hand, occurs when the hypothesis fails to offer any substantive explanation for the phenomenon in question. Instead, it merely asserts the existence of an unexplained entity or posits an arbitrary correlation without providing a causal mechanism or explanatory framework.
To illustrate, consider the hypothesis that "God exists because the Bible says so." This hypothesis suffers from explanatory circularity because it relies on the truth of the Bible to justify the existence of God, which is precisely what it aims to establish. Similarly, the hypothesis that "rain dances cause rain" might suffer from explanatory emptiness if it fails to provide a plausible mechanism by which rain dances could influence the weather, instead merely asserting a correlation without causal explanation.

The underdetermination principle in philosophy of science suggests that for any given set of evidence, there are multiple, equally plausible theories or interpretations that can account for it. In other words, the evidence available to us is typically insufficient to uniquely determine which theory or interpretation is correct. This principle highlights the inherent uncertainty and indeterminacy in scientific inquiry, emphasizing the limitations of empirical evidence in conclusively establishing the truth of a particular scientific theory.
For Vogel's argument, the underdetermination principle is significant because it underscores the challenges of relying solely on empirical evidence to support a particular scientific hypothesis. Vogel uses the underdetermination principle to argue against the reliability of abduction, or inference to the best explanation, as a method for justifying scientific beliefs. He contends that because multiple hypotheses can equally account for a given set of evidence, the mere fact that a hypothesis provides the best explanation does not necessarily make it true or justified. Vogel's argument highlights the epistemic limitations of abduction and the need for additional criteria, such as coherence and simplicity, to evaluate competing hypotheses.

In the First Meditation, Descartes demands a standard of absolute certainty or indubitability for knowledge. He asserts that we should only consider something as true if it cannot be doubted or called into question under any circumstances. Descartes employs the method of radical doubt to systematically challenge the reliability of all beliefs, aiming to find a foundation of knowledge that is immune to skepticism.
Using Descartes' standard of absolute certainty, one could construct an argument along Cartesian lines to doubt the knowledge of taking an exam right now. Firstly, I cannot be certain that my perceptions of the exam environment are not illusions or hallucinations, as Descartes suggests that the senses can deceive us. Secondly, I cannot be certain that my memories of preparing for the exam are not fabricated or implanted by a malicious demon, as Descartes hypothesizes. Given these doubts, I cannot be certain that I am indeed taking an exam right now, as it fails to meet Descartes' standard of indubitability. Therefore, according to Descartes' method of radical doubt, I must suspend judgment on the belief that I am taking an exam until I can establish its truth beyond all possible doubt.