PHIL Midterm 2 (2)
Mackie
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Priori argument
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Posteriori argument
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Epistemology
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Traditional account of knowledge
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Analytic statement
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Synthetic statements
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Priori/posteriori distinction is an
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Analytic/synthetic distinction is an
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Rationalism
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Empiricism
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Descartes is a
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Hume is a
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Gettier problem
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Gettier's two conditions
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Foundationalism
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Cartesian doubt or universal doubt or methodological doubt
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Skeptical hypothesis:
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Structure of canonical skeptical argument
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Cogito
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Descartes Dualism
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Descartes Idealism
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Descartes Materialism
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Substance view
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Bundle view
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
Descartes Wax Example
Epistemic distinction: it is a distinction about how we know something
The view that knowledge has a foundational structure-certain basic beliefs which are self justifying.
Rests on premises or principles which can be known independently of our experience of the world. For example 2+3=5 or Interior angles of a triangle =180
The view that the human mind is capable of a direct apprehension of certain truths about the world.(rational minds can learn about the world: we can know meaningful things about the world a priori. More specifically, rationalists believe that there exist synthetic truths which are knowable a priori.
Linguistic distinction: it is a distinction about the kinds of statements or propositions we can know to be true.
Whose truth or falsehood is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms( what is affirmed in the predicate is not already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: The Beatles were very popular. The President is in Brazil.
A thing is composed of various properties, plus an underlying substance ( or substratum) to which all the properties belong
1. It is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is, in fact, false. Justification cannot be tantamount to certainty sometimes called fallibilism 2. For any proposition P, if S is justified in believing P, and P entails Q, and S deduces Q from P and accepts Q as a result of this deduction, then S is justified in believing Q.
Theory that claims that there is no distinct non-physical substance, and that what we call mental states are processes are really states and processes of a complex physical system:the brain.
It is a theory that claims that there is no-mental (physical substances. Things that we call physical objects are really our mental perceptions of them.
Edmund Gettier argues that a the traditional account of knowledge(the justified true belief account) is not the correct model for knowledge. Justification,truth, and belief are not sufficient for knowledge. You can still fail to have knowledge after meeting these conditions.
Empiricist
Descartes method is to doubt everything that can be doubted.
I think therefore I am . Cogito ergo sum
1. What is it to know something?2.How do we come to know things?3.What is the extent of our propositional knowledge?a)Can we know anything?b)If so, what can we know?
Rationalist
A logically possible scenario in which everything appears exactly as it now appears but all of our beliefs based on these appearances are false. You believe you are in utah but actually are being hypnotized in vegas.
If P is true then Q is true. Q is not true, than P is not true.
Theory that claims that their are two distinct substances, and mental states and processes that constitute a
The view that our empirical knowledge(knowledge of the world)arises entirely out of sense experience (we cannot know meaningful things about the world a priori). More specifically, empiricists believe that there do not exist synthetic truths that are knowable a priori.
1. P is true.2. S believes P. 3.S is justified in believing P. .........Need to be justified in believing something in order to have knowledge.
Whose truth is determined solely by the meaning of its terms(what is affirmed in the predicate is already contained in the concept of the subject) Example: All bachelors are unmarried.
A thing is merely a collection of properties.
Rests on premises which are all not known independently of our experience of the world. Lemon tastes sour. Long exposure to sun causes sunburn.
The wax example which attempts to show that the things which appear to be known on the basis of experience are actually more known by the mind than by the senses.
Evil and Ompnipotence: God is all powerful or God is all good. Cannot be both according to Mackie.
{"name":"PHIL Midterm 2 (2)", "url":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/QPREVIEW","txt":"Mackie, Priori argument","img":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/3012/images/ogquiz.png"}
More Quizzes
Eat Healthy, Stay Healthy
940
Which Diaper is Best for you?
210
Are You Ready for a Career in Music?
1360
Programming Quiz
63187
HTML Task
100
QCM DES 2 ème année, Module VII
85420
100
How professional are you?
740
Pick between these burger restaurants and we will tell you which smoothie flavor you should have next!
630
Which member of Team Minjarez are you?
840
Dental implants Dr.Poch Sothearoth 6dd
6432384
LAS DROGAS
100