Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

paper 1 epistemology content > indirect realism content > Flashcards

indirect realism content Flashcards

1
Q

What is indirect realism?

A

A world of mind independant external objects exists which we percieve via mediation of mind dependant sense data

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What was the reason for moving from DR into IR?

A

Issues w/DR —>
- perceptual variation
- illusions
- hallucinations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How does IR coherently resolve the issue of perceptual variation with DR?

A

The object stays the same but our perceptions and sense data of the object change

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

How does IR coherently resolve the issue of illusion with DR?

A

Our perceptions of the object change but the object itself remains the same.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

How does IR coherently resolve the issue of Halluciantions which is faced by DR?

A

Hallucinations are perceptions that do not correspond to anything in real life and therefore dont actually exist

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are the four features of sense data?

A

1) Private - only introspectivly accessible through self reflection, subjective
2) Temporary - they are not perminant, exist only when being percieved
3) Immaterial - they are mental things not physical
4) Exactly as the seem - they are just the way we see them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the difference between the epistemological and metaphysical version of Ockhams razor?

A

The epistemological version is that the simplest possible option is often the best one whereas the metaphysical version is to not multiply entities beyond necessity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is unnecessary reification?

A

unneccisarily claiming that something exists

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Objections to IR - Unnecessary reification - Austin. What does Austin mean when he said that sense data are an example of unnecessary reification?

A

There is no reason for IR to claim the existance of sense data when disjunctivism already resolves the issue with DR. So, he thinks that sensa data doesnt follow the metaphysical version of DR – to not multiply entities beyond necessity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What are Primary qualities? give 5 examples
-objects that dont retain their shape when changed

A
  • size, shape, speed, number, solidity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the 6 natures (ontology) of PQs?

A
  • mind independant —> the qualities are inside the object
  • accuratly resemble the objects qualities
  • measureable and objective
  • physical qualities
  • cause SQs
  • make up reality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Whatare the 4 ways we know (epistemology) of PQS?

A
  • known indirectly
  • not subject to perceptual variation
  • can be measured
  • can be doubted and questioned
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What are secondary qualities? give 5 examples

A

Qualities that are altered and dependant by/on primary qualities
- temperature
- smell
- taste
- colour
- sound

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the nature (ontology) of SQs?

A
  • powers of objects to produce sensations in the mind of the perciever —> mind dependant
  • represent but do not resemble the object
  • subjective and not measurable
  • mental qualities
  • caused by PQs
  • make up experiences rather than reality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

How do we know (epistemology) of SQs?

A
  • known directly
  • subject to perceptual variation
  • knowable via introspection —> examining ones own mind
  • cannot be doubted
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is the difference between rationalists and empiricists?

A

Rationalists = reason, believe that we can deduce and rationalise things without having to experience them such as with maths or physics. empiricists believe knowledge comes from experiences.

17
Q

What are the 4 objections to IR?

A
  • unnecessary reification - Austin
  • there is no distinction between P+S qualities - Berkeley
  • we cannot know the nature of the external world - Berkeley
  • IR leads to scepticism of the external world
18
Q

Objections to IR - Berkley - There is no distinction between P+S qualities
What would Berkeley say about touching a hot object?

A
  • If we touch a hot object, the pain we feel is in our fingertips not the radiator which means that pain is mind dependant
  • Berkeley would say we have a unified perception because we cannot distinguish between our perceptions of heat or of pain.
    They must be located in the same place
19
Q

Objections to IR - Berkley - There is no distinction between P+S qualities
What conclusion is reached?

A

Both P+S qualities are mind dependant because our perceptions are unified because we cannot percieve objects without secondary qualitites also being present.

20
Q

Objections to IR - Sceptism
Give the formal argument for the objection of not knowing the nature of the external world — P1, P2 and C1

A

P1) Everything we percieve is either a P/SQ
P2) Both P+SQs are mind dependant
C1) Therefore, nothing we percieve exists external and independant of the mind, the objects of our perceptions are therefore fully mind depenedant.

21
Q

Objections - Sceptisism of the external world
What is philosophical sceptisism?

A

Doubting the usual justifications we have for the things we claim we know

—> Doubting the usual justification for the claim that the external world exists in this IR example

22
Q

Why is sceptisism convincing?

A
  • makes sense for P+S qualities to be MD
  • we cannot concieve or imagine objects without both of these MD qualitites
23
Q

Why is sceptisism unconvincing?

A
  • we can measure PQs so they must be MID as Locke argues
24
Q

what is the brain in a vat thought experiment and how does it link to IR leading to scepticism of the external world

A
  • a mad scientist has developed technology allowing them to store brains in vats connected to powerful computers
  • the computer stimulates the brain to produce sensations and is so powerful that it can induce the hallucination of actual experience
  • to the brain there is no difference between this fake simulation and the real world
  • brain in a vat links to scepticism of the external world (global)
25
Q

some argue IR puts a veil of perception over reality
- what is this
- why is this an issue

A
  • we can only be certain that we percieve the mind dependant intermediary (sense data/qualities) but cannot be certain that we percieve the mind dependant objects themselves
  • IR claims we percieve sense data immediately and directly which means we never actually percieve mind dependant objects. at best all we can do is infer that these objects exist —> we cannot know for certain
26
Q

what are the 4 responses to the objection that IR leads to scepticism of the external world

A
  • argument from the involuntary nature of our experiences - Lock
  • argument from the coherent nature of our experiences - Locke + Cockburn
  • scepticism of the xternal world is impractical - Locke
  • the existance of the external world is the best hypothesis - Russel
27
Q

summarise the argument that because our perceptions are involuntary it means they must be caused by mind independant objects

A
  • Locke reasons that through specific examples of involuntary perception, it is more likely that mind independant objects cause these perceptions
  • he rules himself out as the cause of these perceptions because if he were the cause then he would have control over his ability to percieve, but he doesnt, so MI objects are likely to exist
  • we can therefore infer the existance of mind independant objects as the most likely cause of our involuntary perceptions
28
Q

what are the counter examples to MI objects being the cause of our involuntary perceptions

A
  • we dont have control over our dreams
  • Locke response that dreams are incoherent so cannot be used as a strong enough example
29
Q

what does it mean for our senses to cohere

A

they work together and dont contradict

30
Q

summarise the argument that because our perceptions cohere, it means they must be caused by mind independant objects

A
  • when we percieve, we can use other senses to check those perceptions
  • straw in glass illusion = use our sense of touch to prove it isnt bent
  • we seem to get the same perception from our different perceptions —> fire = always a similar smell and sound, similar heat, similar image and light
  • we can then infer that the cause of this must be mind independant
  • this is another inductive argument
31
Q

what was the one way to prove to a sceptic that an external world of mind independant objects exists according to locke

A
  • Locke thinks that actually living life as a scetic would be dangerous because we wouldnt take things seriously enough
  • he also believed that no sceptic actually believes in scepticism enough to interact with the world in that way
  • he would tell a sceptic to put their hand on the flame of a candle but they would never do that because it would hurt
    —> this proves there are consequences to our actions which are outside of our control through which we can infer the existance of the external world
32
Q

how could the brain in a vat thought experiment respond to each of the three attempted defenses of indirect realism

A
  • a sceptic could argue that the evil scientist is programming our perceptions into being coherent and could programme consequences for our scepticism into the world
  • so our perceptions would still be involuntary and caused by the scientist
  • so those inductive arguments dont give us any certainty to the existance of the external world
33
Q

what is abductive reasoning - used by Russel to offer an alternative to Lockes inductive arguments

A
  • scientific, hypothesis based reasoning
  • take a hypothesis and see if it relates to the world and then explain why
34
Q

what is the formal argument from the best hypothesis theory to prove the existance of the external world

A

P1) Either physical objects exist and cause sense data or they dont exist and dont cause sense data
P2) Niether claim can be proved to be true or false
C1) Therefore, both have to be treated as hypotheses (a proposal which needs to be confirmed or rejected based on experience or reasoning)
P3) The hypothesis that physical objects exist and cause sense data is better
C2) Therefore physical objects exist and cause sense data

35
Q

what are the 5 waysof judging a hypothesis in abductive reasoning
- PASSC

A
  • simplicity
  • accuracy
  • plausability - fits with what we already know
  • scope - explains a wide range of evidence
  • coherence

paper 1 epistemology content (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions