Explain Descartes’ method of doubt.
Descartes’s method of doubt rests on the belief that knowledge is inherently anchored to the absence of doubt. Without doubt, we can believe in anything that sees, but doubting can challenge all the tenets of truth. Unexamined truth is not considering, and doubting lays the foundation for testing the grounds of reality and its premises. For him, if doubt persists in anything, then there is no need to believe. Doubt is the ultimate test of truth, and as long reason surpasses an argument, then its right to call it null. Therefore, knowledge cannot exist without certainty.
- What is the dreaming argument, and what does it show?
The dreaming argument is a method of philosophy that uses doubt and possibility in determining the nature of appearances. The argument ascertains that we can doubt everything that we see and cannot see. Everything in this world exists between the known and the unknown. What we do not know can only achieve validity through doubt and assessing the possibilities surrounding it. Through the argument, we see that things are the way they are because we have ascribed some preconceived thoughts or judgment about them.
- What is skepticism?
Skepticism is a method of trying to test and ascertain the reality of things. It holds that there is nothing specific and true, and knowledge is a just but of a faction of beliefs. What we believe in is not always true, and making deliberate efforts to test its credibility helps in deciphering the truth from lies. Therefore, we can challenge everything as false and through skepticism and find absolute tenets to conclude that we know.
- Explain what acquaintance is.
Acquaintance is the cognition that people have with objects. Perception is different from knowledge because it concentrates on what we see the brain’s interpretation. It is the knowledge of the things that we can see and test their credibility and existence. For instance, we know a color or an object because we have some definitions of characteristics about it in our minds. We can have acquaintance with the things that our senses have a rapport with only.
- Explain Russell’s claim that we are not acquainted with physical objects.
Russell asserts that we cannot be acquainted with the physical objects. He argues that we can only know the things that we know through the description we get. Definition does not give the actual image or knowledge of something but someone else understanding about the object. Therefore, it is challenging to conclude we have acquaintance with a physical object because of what we read about it. We need more illustration and facts about the physical objects, which is impossible before concluding that we have acquaintance with them.
- What is knowledge by description?
Knowledge by description is the use of sense data to describe objects. For instance, we tell that an object is a table because we have sense data about it. We must use acquaintance with universals for us to describe things. Universals are the things that have been accepted by standardization to be what they are, and we have nothing we can use to test their existence. Therefore, knowledge with description cannot occur without pre-existing ideas about the things we want to know or describe.
- What is Moore’s argument for the existence of external objects?
Moores attempts to prove that there is an existence of external objects by making the use of premises to draw conclusions. He illustrates these by proofing that we have two hands. Therefore, evidence is imperative in proofing the existence of external objects because nothing can test its foundations. Although his premises are different from the conclusion, the assumptions are correct, and it follows that the conclusions are right. However, evidence may sometimes be misguiding when making inferences about abstract things or things that we do not know about.
- What is the JTB analysis of knowledge?
The JTB analysis is a method test for the validity of knowledge. Knowledge claim must be justified with adequate evidence for it to be valid. The process of justification must be supported with coherence from previous data and be clear in language and logic. The claim must also be valid by corresponding to what is known or facts. Besides, a supposition must be convincing where it must win the knowledge of those holding it.
- Construct your original Gettier case.
- John is playing football
- Jane is cooking
- John is playing football or Jane is cooking
I believe by the justification that john is playing football. I do not believe, nor am I justified in believing Jane is cooking, but I deduce (iii) from (i) on logical grounds. Being justified in believing (i) an also justified in believing that john is playing football and Jane is cooking. Even if one of the premises is wrong, the conclusions are justified by the truth of the other premises. Therefore, my belief in (iii) rests on the knowledge of the JTB analysis.
- What is fallibilism?
Fallibilism is the belief that knowledge is independent and valid without proof. We do not need evidence to validate what we know. Most people think that having a defeasible justification for their understanding. The assumption makes people have perceptual knowledge that does not have premises or support with the existing evidence. Fallibilism drives many people to have a perceptual bias because they do not allow evidence and other people’s insights into their knowledge. Unlike fallibilists, dogmatists believe in other people without question.
- Explain what perceptual dogmatism is.
Perceptual dogmatism is the belief in the things we see without having an assessment and reflection. People having this perceptual problem will make inferences on things without thinking beyond what they perceive with their sensory organs. For instance, when one sees a bicycle approaching from a distance and concludes it is a bicycle without having to rely on other things to make the judgment. Unfortunately, perceptual dogmatism may sometimes hinder our quest for knowledge because we do not examine the things we see with we know or others say about what we see.
- How does perceptual dogmatism support Moore’s argument for an external world?
Perceptual dogmatism supports Moore’s argument for an external world by offering a foundation on which the external world rests. Moore’s external world delineates the perception of the things around us through the pre-existing features and illustrations we know about them. Perceptual dogmatism is an illustration of how we perceive things through the things we know about them with the due reflection of what we may not know. Therefore, both perceptual dogmatism and the external world are dependent on our understanding and inference of the things we see.