proposition
the content of a belief that can be expressed in a declarative sentence
what are the 3 conditions in the traditional view of knowledge
belief, truth, and justification
what do weak sceptics believe?
we cannot know any belief about the external world because we cannot be certain
beliefs gained and justified via sense experience
a posteriori
beliefs gained and justified via reasoning
a priori
3 criteria for evaluating arguments
validity, clarity, soundness
if p then q
p
therefore q
modus ponens
deductive argument
the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion
validity
if the premises were true, the conclusion must be true
the premises are true but the conclusion is false
denying the antecedent
soundness
a valid argument with true premises
epistemic beliefs
beliefs that cannot be false
there are basic beliefs and there are non-basic beliefs, which derive their justification from basic beliefs
foundationalism
I am, I exist
cogito ergo sum
the special epistemic status of the cogito and first person beliefs
they are incorrigible and self-verifying
what are the 3 possible sources for descartes’s idea of god?
innate, adventitious, invented by me
capable of independent existence
substances
depend on something else for their existence
modes
if p, then q
not q
therefore, not p
modus tollens
3 conditions moore’s proof satisfies
premises are different from the conclusion, conclusion follows logically from the premises, and the arguer knows the premises to be true
in order for an argument to be sound, it must be
valid with true premises
in order for an argument to be valid, it must be
hypothetically sound given the premises are true
begging the question aka circular reasoning
assuming the truth of the conclusion you are trying to establish
who pointed out the cartesian circle in descartes’s cosmological argument?
antoine arnauld
abductive argument
begins with an observation and seeks the conclusion that best explains the observation
observation
if hypothesis is the case, then observation is explained
therefore, h
general form of ‘inference to best explanation’
rationally compelling but open to revision in light of new info
deductively invalid
vogel’s 3 standards for evaluating hypotheses
no ad hoc beliefs, simplicity, and depth
vogel’s 2 hypotheses
real world hypothesis and computer sceptical hypotheis
essence of a mind
thinking
essence of a body
extension
metaphysics
branch of philosophy that tries to answer what kinds of things exist
ontology
a list of things that exist
what is the epistemic goal?
rejection of scepticism
3 mental properties
beliefs, desires, emotions
3 physical properties of bodies
brain, neurons, neurotransmitters
does the mental influence the physical and vice versa?
causal problem
thesis of materialism
all things that exist are material and behave strictly according to physical laws
what 2 commitments are in tension when it comes to the mind-body problem?
thinking of ourselves as having physical and mental aspects and the idea that everything in the universe is material
superman example aka
argument from doubt
leibniz’s law
if A and B are identical, then A has all of the same properties as B and vice versa.
why is the superman argument invalid?
it commits intensional fallacy
in the CSH, what explains why PO’s can’t have the same PL as one another
extra empirical regularity
what are descartes’s aims in the meditations (4)
to overcome weak scepticism, to provide a firm foundation for science, to establish god’s existence, and to establish substance dualism