DeRose

Question 1

What argument does DeRose’s paper center on?

Answer 1

Argument from Ignorance
(AI)

Question 2

What is DeRose’s aim in “Solving the Skeptical Problem”?

Answer 2

To show how the skeptic’s conclusion is false while also explaining why the Argument from Ignorance seems compelling.

Question 3

What is DeRose’s objection to those who say that the reason why we don’t know we are not brains-in-vats (BIVs) is because we cannot rule out that hypothesis?

Answer 3

Talking of “ruling out being a BIV” is just as much in need of explanation as talking of “knowing that you are not a BIV”; these are just different wordings of the same problem.

Question 4

What is DeRose’s main complaint against other contextualist efforts to handle the problem of skepticism?

Answer 4

They haven’t really explained how the skeptic manages to raise the standards for knowledge.

Question 5

When you are thinking about whether you know you have hands, why does DeRose think “I might just falsely believe I have hands” is not as compelling as a skeptical hypothesis as “I might be a handless brain in a vat”?

Answer 5

Because “I might just falsely believe I have hands” doesn’t explain how you end up believing something false.

Question 6

What is DeRose’s ultimate strategy for handling the “Argument from Ignorance” (AI) that he introduced back on p.1 of the article?

Answer 6

He shows why the first premise seems true, but argues that it only really expresses a truth if we set our standards for knowledge very high.

Question 7

What would be a “true but insensitive belief” in the sense that DeRose is using that phrase in this paper?

Answer 7

A true belief that you would still hold even if it were false.