Epistemology

?
Define Direct Realism.
The immediate objects of perception are mind dependent.
1 of 57
What is the supporting evidence for Direct Realism?
It fits with our intuitions about perception, it fits with the laws of physics. We also have fossils and old rocks that shows that objects existed before humans were around to perceive them.
2 of 57
What is Sense Data?
What we are immediately aware of when perceiving objects - the content of our experiences/sensations.
3 of 57
What is Russell's argument from perceptual variation?
A table looks different colours depending on where the light hits it. However, it cannot actually be changing colours, so we don't see the table how it actually is.
4 of 57
What is the criticism of the argument from perceptual variation?
This is a relational property - a property shared between a perceiver and an object, not within the object itself.
5 of 57
What is the response to the criticism of the argument from perceptual variation?
Relational properties sound a lot like sense data...
6 of 57
What is the argument from illusion?
Our senses deceive us during an illusions - we see one thing when in reality it is another (a bent pencil in water (the pen isn't actually bent)). So, we can't see physical objects directly.
7 of 57
What is a response to the argument from illusion?
In the pencil example, there is nothing that is really crooked, the pen only has the quality of 'looking crooked' to you. This is a relational property.
8 of 57
What is the argument from hallucination?
When we hallucinate, we perceive things as having properties, so there must be something with those properties. however, there is no physical object, so we must see sense data. They are subjectively indistinguishable from reality (cont.)
9 of 57
(cont.) So we are always seeing sense data. For example, when amputees experience phantom limbs.
:-)
10 of 57
What is the response to the argument from hallucination?
Hallucinations and veridical perception are completely different, as there are not physical objects to perceive in hallucinations. It's not relevant.
11 of 57
What is the time-lag argument?
It takes time for light/sound waves to get from physical objects to our eyes. Sometimes we see things that don't exist anymore, (stars) and sometimes we see things differently from what they are (we see lightning before we hear it).
12 of 57
What is the response to the time-lag argument?
Either that light/sound waves are themselves physical, or that the criticism is confusing what we see with how we see it, we just have to accept that we see things slightly in the past.
13 of 57
Define Indirect Realism.
The immediate objects of perception are mind-dependent but represent mind-independent objects.
14 of 57
What is a primary quality?
The real, physical properties of things that cannot be separated from them (mass, length).
15 of 57
What is a secondary property?
The 'powers' of objects that produce experiences in humans - things not actually within the object itself. (colour, smell).
16 of 57
What is an issue with indirect realism and the existence of physical objects?
If we only ever see sense data, how do we know that physical objects even exist?
17 of 57
What is the corroboration argument for the existence of physical objects?
We can know that physical objects exist because other people see the same things as us!
18 of 57
What is the response to the corroboration argument?
How do we know that other people exist if we only see sense data?
19 of 57
What is the argument from lack of perceptual choice for the existence of physical objects?
We cannot choose what we perceive, so there must be something that influences these perceptions.
20 of 57
What is the response to the argument from lack of perceptual choice?
There are still too many unanswered questions to do with how we know physical objects exist.
21 of 57
What are the two reasons why we should accept the primary/secondary divide?
1. Primary qualities can be expressed in mathematical quantities which are objective. 2. Primary qualities are essential - the object cannot exist without them - whereas secondary properties are non-essential; the object is still itself without them
22 of 57
What is Russell's Best Hypothesis?
P1: either physical objects exists and cause sense data or don't so they can't. P2: We can't prove if either claim is true. P3: We can't prove if either claim is false C1: we have to treat them as hypotheses. (cont.)
23 of 57
(cont.) P4: The hypothesis that physical objects exist is better. C2: Therefore, physical object exist and cause sense-data.
:-)
24 of 57
What is the response to Russell's best hypothesis?
Just because something is easier to accept doesn't mean it's true! Solipsism is uncomfortable, but not necessarily false.
25 of 57
Define Idealism.
The immediate objects of perception are mind-dependent and all that exists are minds and ideas.
26 of 57
What is Berkeley's attack on the primary/secondary divide?
Berkeley says that we cannot separate primary and secondary qualities (we can't think of a triangle without a colour or texture), so if one is mind-dependent the other must be too. Also, what is small to me is big to an ant, so primary change!
27 of 57
What is Berkeley's master argument?
Berkeley asks us to think of a tree that has never been perceived by anyone. You may conjure up such a tree, but in doing this, the image is conceived in, and therefore dependent on, your mind. It is impossible, as all objects are mind-dependent.
28 of 57
What is the response to Berkeley's master argument?
Berkeley is confusing what we perceive with how we perceive it - it shows the limits of our imagination not the world!
29 of 57
What is the issue with idealism to do with unperceived objects?
It seems strange to suggest that objects don't exist when they aren't perceived - it goes against the laws of physics!
30 of 57
What is the response to the issue with unperceived objects?
God is always aware of everything, so his perception makes things exist all the time.
31 of 57
What is the issue with idealism to do with God's role?
We cannot have the same experiences as God as he is non-physical. Also, how can things be in both our and his mind?
32 of 57
What is the response to the issue with God's role?
God puts what he wants us to see in our minds?
33 of 57
What is the issue with idealism to do with scientific investigation?
We can use a microscope to find out that skin is made up of cells that still exist when we can't see them. Objects have a depth we can't always perceive.
34 of 57
What is the response to the issue with scientific investigation?
Skin and cells are two completely different ideas!
35 of 57
What is the issue with idealism to do with space and time?
If space and time are objective there must be at least some physical objects - put an apple in a drawer, it will still be there when you open it...
36 of 57
What is the response to the issue with time and space?
Time and space are objective in God's mind.
37 of 57
What is the issue to do with idealism do with with solipsism?
If everything is mind-dependent, does anything exist but the mind? Do minds exist or just ideas?
38 of 57
What is the response to the issue with solipsism?
Minds are active, ideas are passive - wondering whether you have a mind proves that you have one. Also, as we have a mind, we can recognise others?
39 of 57
What is the issue with idealism to do with illusions?
We can't say that objects look exactly as they do in illusions!
40 of 57
What is the response to the issue with illusions?
Illusions are two different ideas - the'normal object' idea, and the 'weird object; idea.
41 of 57
What is the issue with idealism to do with hallucinations?
Hallucinations are imaginary but not voluntary, how do we know that we're not always hallucinating?
42 of 57
What is the response to the issues with hallucinations?
Hallucinations are dim and vague, unlike normal perception which originates in God.
43 of 57
What is practical/ability knowledge?
Knowing how to do something, for example, "I know how to swim."
44 of 57
What is acquaintance knowledge?
Knowing a person, place, or things, for example "I know Italy."
45 of 57
What is propositional knowledge?
Knowing something is the case, facts, e.g. "2+2=4"
46 of 57
What is a necessary condition?
You cannot be x without y, for example, you cannot be a father without being a man.
47 of 57
What is a sufficient condition?
To have x guarantees y, for example, to be an unmarried man guarantees being a bachelor.
48 of 57
What does it mean for conditions to be jointly sufficient?
Conditions can be individually necessary (e.g. a bachelor being unmarried and a man) but be jointly sufficient - all you need to be a bachelor is to be unmarried and a man!
49 of 57
What is JTB?
The Tripartite account of knowledge states that knowledge is a justified, true belief.
50 of 57
Why is justification not necessary for knowledge?
True beliefs can be held without justification, for example, a judge thinking that I smashed up the bus shelter because I was wearing a hoodie, and I did do it. Would we call this knowledge?
51 of 57
Why is justification necessary after all?
We need justification, or else we are fallible/luckily true.
52 of 57
Why is belief not necessary for knowledge?
We can know things but not be sure of them, for example second guessing yourself in an exam. We would still call this knowledge.
53 of 57
Why is belief necessary after all?
One of two things is happening: either you did subconsciously believe it, or you didn't and it was just a lucky guess with subconscious justification.
54 of 57
Why is truth not necessary for knowledge?
A justified belief is nothing but a hypothesis until proven completely true, but most things cannot be definitely proven, so truth cannot be needed.
55 of 57
Why is truth necessary after all?
Knowledge should mean certainty. People may say that they have knowledge when they are not certain, but they shouldn't.
56 of 57
What is Gettier's Smith and Jones example?
Smith and Jones have both applied for the same job, but Smith knows that Jones is going to get it, because the boss told him. He also knows that
57 of 57

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What is the supporting evidence for Direct Realism?

Back

It fits with our intuitions about perception, it fits with the laws of physics. We also have fossils and old rocks that shows that objects existed before humans were around to perceive them.

Card 3

Front

What is Sense Data?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What is Russell's argument from perceptual variation?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

What is the criticism of the argument from perceptual variation?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

Goldsoozie

Report

According Direct Realism arguments; Objects are mind independent, not dependent as stated in the flash card. Please ammend. 

Similar Philosophy resources:

See all Philosophy resources »See all Descartes resources »