Unit 2 quiz.pdf

Epistemic Terms Epistemology is the theory of knowledge or understanding Examples of epistemic terms: certainty, knowledge, justification, reasons, rationality, evidence, warrant, and so on. Each term denotes a certain epistemic status. Epistemic status is hard to define in a non-circular way. Ba...

Epistemic Terms Epistemology is the theory of knowledge or understanding Examples of epistemic terms: certainty, knowledge, justification, reasons, rationality, evidence, warrant, and so on. Each term denotes a certain epistemic status. Epistemic status is hard to define in a non-circular way. Basically: what a lucky guess there was no evidence for your belief but one day you just believe it. Second pass Epistemic status is a quality a belief has that makes it better than a lucky guess. A belief can be based on evidence, or warranted, or justified, or something you have reason to believe, or knowledge, or something you are certain of, and so on. Epistemic status comes in degrees. The highest degree is something like indubitability or absolute certainty. A low degree of epistemic status is something you have only a tiny itty bitty reason to believe. Practical vs. epistemic reasons Practical : I will give you free tickets if you believe Justin is a vampire. Reason to believe that Justin is a vampire but not an epistemic reason. It's practical if it makes your life better. Skepticism Best skeptical arguments appeal to plausible constraints Implausible constraint: to be a doctor you have to be able to cure disease in one hour You cant check a method by using that source itself Begging the question is about asking yourself Descarte was a central figure in western philosophy; there's some recent debate about how original his ideas were. Aristotle's work survived through the arabic, persian, and jewish communities so they use his work. St. Thomas Aquians incorporated christian thought into Aristotle's work. In normal again is buffy able to trust her own memory, No `Skeptics argue that: a. for some group of your beliefs b. beliefs in that group lack an epistemic status you thought they had. So, for example, a skeptic might argue that (a) beliefs from memory (b) do not count as knowledge. A more ambitious skeptic might argue that (a) beliefs from memory (b) are not even justified. Another skeptic might argue that (a) moral beliefs (b) are not even justified. (That's know as moral skepticism.) You don't have to accept that skepticism is true. I just want you to understand how skeptics argue for skepticism. Descartes's methodological skepticism Can descate prove his sense is reliable without relying on his sense perception Doubt= suspend judgment Grounds for doubt= not completely certain and everything left is not subject to doubt and firm foundations Grounds for Doubt 1. Sensory illusion ex:the wax where your sight and touch doesnt line up once it melts 2. Insanity 3. Dreaming- taking stuff from reality and mixing it up. You aren't making up the facts in the dream, they come from somewhere but you can't be sure that they are actually happening. 4. Demon deceiver- he says he could be mistaken about a demon feeding him sensory Aristotle's notions 1. Mitirela, formal, efficient, and one more Descartes is not a skeptic. But he uses methodological skepticism as a way of distancing himself from the Scholastic tradition. Rather than base his beliefs on the authority of the Scholastic tradition, he instead wants to show that his beliefs rest of firm independent foundations. His method: 1. Doubt anything for which he can find some grounds for doubt. (Doubt = suspend judgment; grounds for doubt = not completely certain and indubitable.) 2. Anything left is not subject to doubt. These are the “firm foundations” 3. Build up from there. The grounds for doubt that Descartes comes up with are skeptical scenarios, scenarios in which the belief in question is false but where everything seems the same to you. E.g., you believe you are awake, reading the Unit 2 Review on your computer. But can you rule out that you are not asleep having a vivid dream about reading the Unit 2 Review? Descartes considers different classes of skeptical scenarios: 1. Skeptical scenarios based on perceptual illusions. 2. Skeptical scenarios based on vivid dreams (like the example just given). 3. Skeptical scenarios based on a demon deceiver. (Descartes also considers but then dismisses skeptical scenarios based on being insane.) We noted in class that 1) and 2) seem different from 3) because we think we have been fooled by perceptual illusions and vivid dreams before. By contrast, 3) seems like a mere possibility. Induction- inferring from the observed to the unobserved Due to HUME skeptical problems, the usual.. It is a means that in itself uses induction. There's not going to be sudden extreme changes. We can use induction in a controlled way to find out what is going to change. Two arguments for skepticism We covered two different arguments for skepticism. Rule out alternatives! You need to rue out evidential twins To have even a teeny itty bitty reason to believe that B: 1. You need to be in a position to rule out all skeptical scenarios in which B is false. 2. A skeptical scenario for B is a scenario in which B is false such that, if the scenario obtained, everything would seem the same to you. 3. Because everything would seem the same to you if the skeptical scenario were true, you have no way to rule it out! The skeptic thinks she can construct skeptical scenarios for beliefs from sense perception, from memory, and induction. Prove your methods! In order for you to have even a teeny itty bitty reason to believe B that comes from source M: 1. You must be able to establish that M is reliable. 2. To establish that M is reliable, you cannot use method M itself. (That would be begging the question.) The skeptic thinks you cannot show that methods like sense perception, memory, or induction are reliable without using those very methods. Value of Knowledge Should we care whether skepticism is true? Maybe all we care about is having quality experiences (where "quality" could mean pleasant, pleasurable, interesting, enriching, and so on). Doesn't matter whether I am in the real world, or in my own Truman Show, or in the Matrix, or having a vivid dream -- whatever situation I'm in, I can be confident about the kind of experiences I am having. Nozick Nozick argues that we can and should care about more than just experiences. He does so by considering the Experience Machine, and giving three reasons why we should not plug in: Reason 1: we value doing things. You don’t actually do things in the EM. We don't just want the experience but we want the action. Reason 2: we value being in touch with genuine reality. In the EM, you are in touch only with a human construction. Reason 3: we value ourselves. There is no you in the experience machine. You are not a person with defining characteristics. We discussed Reason 3 at some length; one issue here is that it seems like the experience machine can change not just what you perceive (like current VR systems) but also your internal characteristics. You could decide that the experience machine should make you funnier, more disciplined, more charismatic, and so on. Part of what the doing is what makes you you Vasiliou Hes trying to say that if you frame the matrix in the right way its not that different from our reality Under certain circumstances the matrix is different but if we tweak it a bit it would be like our reality Thing in the Matrix -- under the right circumstances -- are real. 1. The moral background of our situation matters. 2. A benevolent Matrix removes many of our worries about being deceived, manipulated, and exploited. 3. Whether something is real is partly a function of what we value. Usually, its physical or metaphysical composition does not matter. In the real world, we are subject to constraints and possibly (depending on your views) the will of God or gods. But merely being the real world doesn't necessarily involve deception, manipulation, or exploitation. The Matrix in the movie The Matrix does involve all those bad things. Benevolent Matrix removes most of Nozick's worries about the Experience Machine. We care that the things we encounter in our lives are real. But -- provided I'm not the subject of a certain kind of deception, manipulation, or exploitation -- the internal composition of a things isn't what makes it real. The human body I see when I look in the mirror is real, whether that body turns out to be made of cells, or whether it is composed of the four humors Links to an external site. , or even (if I'm in a benevolent Matrix) whether it is a computer simulation. Science in the benevolent Matrix. Truman show: financially free, and loving supportive family, and peace Vasilous asks are the things in the matrix real? The antagonists grows up and all of his beliefs are false If you're plugged into the matrix does it all have to be false under certain circumstances the things you encounter in the matrix are YES real things. Philosophers use thought experience Vas: lets adjust the backstory to see if it makes a difference and it does Who is responsible for us being deceived. The laws of nature or God. The matrix is not that different from the real world