Knowledge & Rationality

Question 1

Front

Answer 1

Back

Question 2

Circular Argument

Answer 2

An argument in which the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.

Question 3

Question-begging Argument

Answer 3

An argument that presupposes the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it.

Question 4

Deductive Argument

Answer 4

An argument where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

Question 5

Inductive Argument

Answer 5

An argument where the conclusion is likely but not guaranteed based on the premises.

Question 6

Abductive Argument

Answer 6

An argument that infers to the best explanation.

Question 7

Proof

Answer 7

A derivation of a conclusion from axioms using logical rules.

Question 8

Metaphysical Solipsism

Answer 8

The view that only one’s own mind exists.

Question 9

Epistemic Solipsism

Answer 9

The view that one can only be certain of the existence of one’s own mind.

Question 10

Skepticism

Answer 10

The view that we have little or no knowledge of X.

Question 11

Skepticism about the External World

Answer 11

The view that we lack knowledge of a mind-independent world.

Question 12

Skeptical Hypothesis

Answer 12

A scenario in which the world is radically different from how it appears.

Question 13

Closure Principle

Answer 13

If P entails Q, and you know P, then you are in a position to know Q.

Question 14

Idealism

Answer 14

The view that there is no mind-independent world; everything is perception.

Question 15

Propositional Knowledge

Answer 15

Knowledge that something is the case (know-that).

Question 16

Interrogative Knowledge

Answer 16

Knowledge of how, when, why, etc. (know-how/why/etc.).

Question 17

Objectual Knowledge

Answer 17

Knowledge of something or someone (know-of).

Question 18

Belief

Answer 18

A doxastic state where one takes something to be the case.

Question 19

Factivity of Knowledge

Answer 19

If someone knows P, then P must be true.

Question 20

Proposition

Answer 20

A statement that can be true or false.

Question 21

Fact

Answer 21

A true proposition.

Question 22

Necessary Condition

Answer 22

A condition that must be true for something else to be true.

Question 23

Sufficient Condition

Answer 23

A condition that, if true, guarantees something else is true.

Question 24

Justified True Belief

Answer 24

A theory of knowledge: S knows that P if P is true, S believes P, and S is justified in believing P.

Question 25

Gettier Case

Answer 25

A case where someone has a justified true belief that fails to count as knowledge due to luck.

Question 26

No False Premise Condition

Answer 26

A proposed fix to JTB: none of the premises leading to the belief can be false.

Question 27

Conceptual Analysis

Answer 27

The project of defining concepts in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions.

Question 28

Knowledge First Approach

Answer 28

The view that knowledge is a fundamental concept not analyzable into more basic parts.

Question 29

KK Principle

Answer 29

If you know P, then you know that you know P.

Question 30

A Priori Knowledge

Answer 30

Knowledge independent of experience.

Question 31

A Posteriori Knowledge

Answer 31

Knowledge dependent on experience.

Question 32

Epistemology

Answer 32

The study of knowledge, belief, justification, evidence, and rationality.

Question 33

Epistemic Rationality

Answer 33

Forming beliefs that fit with evidence and are coherent.

Question 34

Practical Rationality

Answer 34

Acting in ways that maximize expected utility.

Question 35

Credence

Answer 35

A degree of belief, represented numerically between 0 and 1.

Question 36

Utility

Answer 36

A measure of how much something is valued.

Question 37

Expected Utility

Answer 37

Probability of an outcome multiplied by its utility.

Question 38

Pascal's Wager

Answer 38

An argument that it’s rational to believe in God based on expected utility.

Question 39

Pascal's Mugging

Answer 39

A counter-example involving low probability but extremely high utility scenarios.

Question 40

Many Gods Objection

Answer 40

Critique that Pascal’s Wager assumes only one possible concept of God.

Question 41

Reductio ad Absurdum

Answer 41

An argument that shows a position leads to an absurd conclusion.

Question 42

Problem of Other Minds

Answer 42

The issue of how we can know others have minds.

Question 43

Mind (Philosophy)

Answer 43

Having conscious and representational mental states.

Question 44

Philosophical Zombie

Answer 44

A being that behaves like a human but lacks consciousness.

Question 45

Spectrum Inversion

Answer 45

Two people have reversed experiences (e.g., red/green) but identical behavior.

Question 46

Argument from Analogy

Answer 46

Reasoning that others have minds because they behave as we do in similar situations.

Question 47

Thomas Nagel

Answer 47

Philosopher associated with solipsism and the problem of other minds.

Question 48

René Descartes

Answer 48

Philosopher who proposed the evil demon scenario and 'Cogito, ergo sum'.

Question 49

Zhuangzi

Answer 49

Chinese philosopher who described the dreaming butterfly scenario.

Question 50

Boltzmann

Answer 50

Physicist behind the Boltzmann Brain skeptical hypothesis.

Question 51

Edmund Gettier

Answer 51

Philosopher who challenged the JTB theory of knowledge.

Question 52

Smith and Jones

Answer 52

Figures in a Gettier case involving a job and coins.

Question 53

Blaise Pascal

Answer 53

Philosopher behind Pascal’s Wager.

Question 54

Nick Bostrom

Answer 54

Philosopher who proposed Pascal’s Mugging.

Question 55

Lara Buchak

Answer 55

Philosopher (often miswritten as Pichler) who defined a rational account of faith.

Question 56

Alan Hájek

Answer 56

Philosopher who used a reductio argument to challenge infinite utility in Pascal’s Wager.