Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Philosophy Test #1
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What is fallibilism? | it doesn't require certainty |
| How is knowledge reliable based on true beliefs? | True beliefs are believed because it's true, if it were false we wouldn't believe it |
| How could skepticism be self-refuting? | There is a possibility that it presupposes falsity. Ex. I do not exist |
| What is a transcendental argument? | Assumptions of a question forces one answer |
| What are contradicting views of Transcendental vs. Skepticism? | Show that the preconditions on posing the skeptical challenge presuppose skepticism’s falsity |
| What is the general problem of foundationalism? | It misses truths |
| What is the skeptic's claim on knowledge? | - "We don't really know" - There is always the possibility of being wrong & illusion |
| What are 2 necessary conditions in knowing? | Belief (Don't know unless you believe) Truth (belief isn't knowledge if it's a lie/false) |
| Examples of how truth & belief isn't sufficient for knowing. Why? | Lucky fortune teller, Tricked Jury - lack good justification |
| What did Gettier try to prove? | Justified true beliefs are not sufficient for knowledge |
| What were problems in Gettier cases? | Believing in something (P) wasn't because it was true |
| What is reliablilism | knowledge is true belief, believed because it’s true - wouldnt believe it if it were false |
| What is belief? | A reliable result of its truth in context where I believe in it |
| Reliabilism allows knowledge to be certain in what ways? | Based on true beliefs because they're true & what we actually know - if it were an illusion then we don't know anything about the world |
| What is priority of reference over meaning? | Reference is fixed by point/social use & the concept is molded to that idea |
| What is solipsism? | "Only my thoughts really exist" |
| What is abduction? | Inference to best explaination |
| What is induction? | Inference from samples of generalizations |
| What is analytic? | Meaning into necessary & sufficient conditions |
| What is stipulative? | Specify new necessary & sufficient conditions |
| What is theoretical? | Find real "essence" "best" definition |
| What is ostensive? | Point out referent (not meaning) |
| What are problems for cartesian & positivistic versions of foundationalism? | - Only saves certain things, misses too much - Won't get back important things - Missing truths |
| What is metaphysics? | What exists & how things are related to each other |
| What is epistemology? | What & how do we know? |
| What is meaning? | What makes expressions about things |
| What is the Theory of Reference? | Ability to specify meanings by giving necessary & sufficient conditions |
| What is the Old Theory of Meaning & Reference? | - Give analytic definition with necessary & sufficient conditions - Referent fits the definition |
| What are 4 types of definition? | Analytic, Stipulative, Theoretical, Ostensive |
| What is the New Theory of Meaning & Reference? | Ostension first, meaning later |
| What are sound arguments? | A valid argument with true premises and true conclusion |
| What is synonymy? | Specifying the same meaning |
| What are problems with the Old Theory? | - Meaning doesn't fix reference - Few analytic definitions - Other definitions don't cover all cases |
| What are positivist views? | - Secure sense data; build world by logical contruction - No God |
| What is the Cartesian version of skepticism? (DesCartes) | - Secure self & "seemings" - Infer world as seen - Argue non-decieving God |
| Without analytic definitions, how do we separate different referent from no referent? | Eliminate & identify |
| What are some problems with "meaning fixes reference"? | It is not based only on what we know in our head. Consider different references in world, galexy, etc. |
| What is linguistic division of labor? | Rely on others for "real" meaning |
| Which "definition" didn't give meaning but instead picked out a referent? | Ostentsive |
| What is a counterexample? | A possible situation where the premises are true but the conclusion could be false |
| What is reference? | What fits the definition |
| What kind of inference is: "Every F so far has been G so there's something in the Fs making them Gs" | Abductive inference |
| A counterexample to an argument's validity is a possible situation where the arguments... | Conclusion is false and premises are true |
| Which theory of meaning & reference define terms involved in an argument? | Old Theory |
| What makes an argument invalid? | If there is a counterexample |
| What is the strongest inference and why? | Deductively valid because it is impossible for premises to be true & conclusion to be false |
| What does invalidity with counterexamples show? | True premises and false conclusion |
| "Priority of reference over meaning" refers to which theory? | New Theory |
| What is "truth-valuable"? | What is true or false |
| What are "Twin-Earth" examples supposed to show? | Meaning doesn't determine reference |
| What do foundationalists worry about? | Avoiding falsehood |
Created by:
Mariahdulinayan
Popular Law sets