The indistinguishability argument reminds me of previous scientific “facts” that seemed true but were later shown to be false. If there can be cases in which a person cannot introspectively distinguish knowledge from nonknowledge, then all ‘knowledge’ becomes potentially suspect.
Of the four main arguments discussed in this course, I think The Introspective Indistinguishability Argument is the most compelling argument for skepticism because it recognizes the fallibility of evidence and that knowledge on the basis of fallible evidence can lead to cases of knowledge that are indistinguishable from nonknowledge (Feldman 2003, 116) however, it seems wrong that there could be cases of knowledge that are indistinguishable from nonknowledge, otherwise those cases would not be cases of actual knowledge. Feldman (2003, 108) recognizes that skeptical arguments might challenge our confidence in the SV by questioning “whether the reasons we have for our ordinary beliefs are good enough to yield knowledge.” The “problem of skepticism” for the SV follows the latter view and presents arguments to doubt that we can or do possess any knowledge (Feldman 2003, 108 Watson 2018). Skepticism ranges from local skepticism, which questions our possession of knowledge within certain domains, to global skepticism, which claims that we don’t really know anything at all (Watson 2018). Skepticism views the SV as “too charitable and self-indulgent” (Feldman 2003, 6). Skepticism challenges the SV by claiming that we don’t actually know what we claim to know. In my view, the SV is the right place to begin a discussion about a theory of knowledge because it correctly reflects the common usage of knowledge, the assumptions most people have about what we can and do know, and includes appropriate sources for acquiring knowledge. Feldman recognizes the SV as the starting point in epistemology because it “reflects the way people ordinarily talk about knowledge and what they know” ( Watson 2018). Feldman (2003, 2) considers this the standard view because the categories are “sensible and considered judgements” that most people will accept, and the listed sources reflect what people normally rely on in some combination to acquire knowledge (2003, 4).
The sources of knowledge include the empirical sources, which are perception, memory, testimony, and introspection, as well as the a priori sources, which are reasoning and rational insight (Feldman 2003, 4). According to the SV, the sorts of things we can know include propositions about our immediate environment, our own thoughts and feelings, commonsense facts about the world, scientific facts, mental states of others, the past, mathematics, conceptual truths, morality, the future, and religion (Feldman 2003, 2). It describes commonly held ideas about what we know and how we know it. The Standard View (SV) “captures reflective common sense” about knowledge and rationality ( Feldman 2003, 2). I’m sure my views have matured since I wrote this, but it accurately reflects what I was thinking at the time I wrote the essay. Will be a good Reading copy.This essay sums some of my thoughts at the end of my course on the theory of knowledge. May not include supplemental items (like discs, access codes, dust jacket, etc). There may be underlining, highlighting, and or writing. Will show signs of wear to cover and/or pages. “ Book is in typical used-Good Condition. See all condition definitions - opens in a new window or tab
#Reason and argument feldman answers full
See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections. The majority of pages are undamaged with minimal creasing or tearing, minimal pencil underlining of text, no highlighting of text, no writing in margins. The dust jacket for hard covers may not be included.
Very minimal damage to the cover including scuff marks, but no holes or tears. A book that has been read but is in good condition.
0 kommentar(er)
