Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
SKEPTICISM (CONTINUED) & EPISTEMOLOGY
Transcript of SKEPTICISM (CONTINUED) & EPISTEMOLOGY
Why would I start with Skepticism? What does the Skeptic make you do?
Gettier Problem: The Fake Barn
WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?
SKEPTICISM (CONTINUED) & TRUTH
Why are the polls something to be skeptical about?
Is the reporter justified in being skeptical about the polls?
Did the second sign-in sheet, go around?
The basic form of the disjunctive syllogism is: Either A is true or B is true. (A exclusive-or B). Thus, if A is true, B is false, and if B is true, A is false. A and B cannot both by true.
Thus, if I am a BIV is true, than I am not a BIV is false,
and if I am not a BIV is true, I am a BIV is false.
A and B cannot both by true.
A fallacy happens here when it is assumed that the choices offered are the only choices. By offering alternatives, the listener is given the impression that this is all there is, and that other choices do not exist. This is the basis of the sales person's alternative close.
Another fallacy occurs where it is assumed that the two alternatives are mutually exclusive. So if one has a particular characteristic, the other is assumed not to have any of this characteristic. For example, you can cast yourself and your ideas as good by criticizing others as bad. The other guy is bad, which means I am good.
If I am a BIV, then my word ‘tree’ does not refer to trees.
My word ‘tree’ refers to trees. So,
I am not a BIV.
We begin to construct reality
And from reality, Truth!
Can a scenario occur where you are not a brain in a vat, but someone is still controlling your experiences?
What about God?
determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. The idea is ancient. Determinism is deeply connected with our understanding of the physical sciences and their explanatory ambitions, on the one hand, and with our views about human free action on the other. In both of these general areas there is no agreement over whether determinism is true (or even whether it can be known true or false), and what the import for human agency would be in either case.
A philosophy is a way of thinking about the world, the universe, and about society. A philosophy is a group of ideas, worked out by a philosopher (someone who has studied ways of thinking about the world). The ideas in philosophy are abstract, which means that they are "things that cannot be touched"
1. If someone believes something is true, is it true?
2. If something was true in the past is it true?
3. If someone lied but ended up stating something true, did they tell the truth?
4. If you cannot verify something is it true?
I. Knowledge as Justified True Belief
Plato: knowledge is distinguished from mere true belief by the knower having an "account" of the object of her or his true belief (Theaetetus 201c-d).
A knows that P iff:
P is true,
A believes that P,
A is justified in believing P
II. Nozick’s tracking theory
Attempted direct statement of the no-lucky coincidence between fact and belief.
S knows P iff:
2. S believes P
3. If P were not the case, S would not believe P (Sensitivity condition)
4. If p were the case, S would believe p (Adherence condition)
These are tracking conditions. A belief that fulfills them tracks the truth. For Nozick, a belief that tracks the true is knowledge.
1. No undefeated defeaters
2. No defeaters
3. No false lemmas
4. For knowledge A must have certain, infallible, truth implying justification
No false lemmas
: A salient feature of Gettier case 1 is that the reasoning that leads you to the belief that someone owns a Ford goes through a false lemma, namely the step where you believe that Nogot owns a Ford.
Suppose you are driving through a region that contains a lot of fake barns: mere wooden fronts that just look like barns from the road. But you don't know this, and have no reason to suspect it. You look off to your left and you see something that looks like a barn, so you believe "That's a barn." In fact, it is a barn. It's one of the few barns in the region. But you're just lucky. If you had looked at a fake barn instead, you would have believed that it was a barn.
Who Drive's A Ford?
You have a justified belief that someone in your office owns a Ford. And as it happens it's true that someone in your office owns a Ford. However, your evidence for your belief all concerns Nogot, who as it turns out owns no Ford. Your belief that someone in the office owns a Ford is true because someone else in the office owns a Ford. Call this guy Haveit. Since all your evidence concerns Nogot and not Haveit, it seems, intuitively, that you don't know that someone in your office owns a Ford. So you don't know, even though you have a justified belief that someone owns a Ford, and, as it turns out, this belief happens to be true.
Do we want to stick to this definition?
Do we want to come up with a class definition?
‘If p is the case, then q is the case’
‘If p is the case, then q is the case’ is true iff its not the case that p is true and q is false.
‘If p were the case, q would be the case’
‘If p were the case, q would be the case’ is true iff in the closest possible world or set of closest possible worlds in which p is true, q is true.
: Suppose I believe that there are more than 7 million people living in London, because I believe that there are exactly 8 million, but in fact there are 8.174 million. I intuitively still know that there are more than 7 million.
Feldman's case - You see Nogot waxing a Ford, humming Ford ad jingles to himself, and so on. On that basis, you conclude that someone in your office is waxing a Ford, humming Ford ad jingles, and so on. This belief is true. On the basis of that belief, you conclude that someone in your office owns a Ford. As before, Haveit owns a Ford so this belief is true.
To Be Knowledge, Truth Can't Be....
Get into groups and discuss this topic for 10 minutes. Com up with an answer. After time is up, let's discuss the answer your group came up with.
TIME IS UP!
What are your answers?
Do you disagree with this definition of Truth?
Time is up!
What color is this dress?
create an argument using what we've discussed in class.
a device used by philosophers to raise the standards of Truth.
"I think. I Am."