Arguments
What is a circular argument?
An argument in which the premises include its conclusion
What is epistemology?
The philosophical study of topics such as knowledge, belief, evidence, justification, rationality, and inquiry.
According to the JTB Theory of Knowledge, what is knowledge?
Knowledge is justified true belief (i.e., it is something we take to be the case because its representation is supplied by the way the world is, and because it is formed on the basis of good reasons.
What is a thought experiment?
A thought experiment is a described scenario that’s intended to illustrate a conceptual point.
Expected Utility = The probability one assigns to an event, multiplied by the utility one assigns to that event
Distinguish the following types of reasoning: deductive, inductive, and abductive arguments.
Deductive argument: draws a conclusion that follows logically and necessarily from the premises (i.e., if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true).
Inductive argument: infers a generalized/predicted conclusion from repeated observations or patterns
Abductive argument: infers a "best explanation" kind of conclusion based on the most plausible explanation of a set of observations.
What is skepticism about X and what is skepticism about the external world?
Skepticism about X: We have little or no knowledge of X.
Skepticism about the external world: We have little or no knowledge of the external world.
What is the difference between propositional knowledge, interrogative knowledge, and objectual knowledge?
Propositional knowledge is knowledge that facts/propositions are true; interrogative knowledge is knowledge of answers to a question; objectual knowledge is knowledge of things/objects/people.
What is Searle's main argument around the CR thought experiment?
His argument is that implementing a computer program isn’t sufficient for having a mind.
What is the distinction between epistemic rationality and practical rationality?
Epistemic rationality refers to rationality in what you believe.
Practical rationality refers to rationality in what you do.
Explain whether this is valid, valid but unsound, or sound:
P1: All fluffy creatures are cute
P2: All cats are fluffy creatures
C: Therefore, all cats are cute
Valid but unsound because not all cats are fluffy (some are hairless)!
Suppose you know that you are in Toronto. You also know that Toronto is in Canada. According to the closure principle, what else are you in a position to know?
Closure Principle: If you know that P, and if P entails Q, then you’re in a position to know that Q.
If you know that you're in Toronto, and if Toronto is in Canada, then you're in the position to know that you're in Canada.
Why does the broken clock case show that justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge?
The belief is justified and true but true only by coincidence, so it isn’t knowledge.
What is the Turing Test and what is the problem with it?
The Turing Test says that if a machine’s conversational behavior is indistinguishable from a human’s, then it counts as intelligent. The problem is that matching behavior does not guarantee genuine understanding or consciousness.
What is the common view behind practical rationality?
You're practically rational insofar as you act in ways that maximize expected utility.
What does the phrase “one philosopher’s modus ponens is another’s modus tollens” mean?
Sometimes philosophers will find it more plausible to follow the premises and accept a counterintuitive conclusion, while others will think that the counterintuitive conclusion means that one of the premises must be false (i.e. the disagreement is on whether to accept a conclusion or reject a premise).
Explain why the closure principle creates pressure toward skepticism when combined with brain-in-a-vat hypotheses.
Closure Principle: If you know that P, and if P entails Q, then you’re in a position to know that Q.
If knowing ordinary facts (like “I have hands”) entails knowing you aren’t a brain in a vat, and you can’t know you aren’t a brain in a vat, then closure implies you don’t know the ordinary facts either.
Explain what a Gettier case is and why such a case undermines justified true belief.
A Gettier case is a case where a subject has a justified true belief that P, but at the same time, the subject arguably doesn’t know that P (usually because the belief happens to be true by sheer luck).
This indicates that justified true belief alone isn’t actually sufficient for knowledge.
Explain the Strong AI argument, according to Searle, and then explain his view on it.
Searle is against the view of Strong AI, which is the view that all there is to having a mind is implementing certain kinds of computational processes. According to Strong AI, the mind is like software while the brain is like hardware. Searle is against this view because implementing a program merely involves manipulating symbols according to formal rules (syntax), which is not sufficient for contents or meaning (semantics), both of which are essential for having a mind.
Explain the basic reasoning behind Pascal’s Wager using expected utility.
If God exists, belief yields infinite reward and non-belief yields infinite loss; if God doesn’t exist, the outcomes are finite (since you die at the end of your life), so believing in God maximizes expected utility here (i.e., appears to be the rational choice here). Tip -> belief is kind of treated like a gambal here
Translate into premise-conclusion form:
Everyone knows that people are usually responsible for what they do. But you’re responsible for an action only if your choice to perform it was a free choice, and a choice is free only if it was not determined in advance. So we must have free will, and that means that some of our choices are not determined in advance.
P1: People are usually responsible for what they do.
P2: You’re responsible for an action only if your choice to perform it was a free choice.
P3: A choice is free only if it was not determined in advance.
∴ We must have free will.
∴ Some of our choices are not determined in advance.
Explain how combining KK principle (if you know that P, then you know that you know that P) and skepticism could make knowledge extremely difficult to achieve.
Under the KK principle (if you know that P, then you know that you know that P), we can only know facts that we can be rationally certain of (e.g., 2+2 =4). However, the requirement that you must know that you know something demands near certainty and rules out many ordinary cases of knowledge (e.g., knowing your keys are on the desk).
Explain one potential "fourth condition" added to the JTB theory and explain what it aims to solve.
No False Premise or Causation; it aims to explain why knowledge is lacking in Gettier cases.
No False Premise: If S knows that P, then S didn’t infer P from a false premise.
Causation: If S knows that P, then P caused S to believe that P.
Sample ->
The Whole Systems Argument:
Even if the person in the room doesn’t understand Chinese, the Whole System (including the room) understands Chinese.
Describe one major objection to Pascal’s Wager and explain how it undermines the argument.
For example (there are others), the Many Gods objection: different possible gods reward different behaviors, so expected utility doesn’t uniquely favor belief.