One definition of knowledge is true belief based on strong evidence. What makes evidence “strong” enough and how can this limit be established? The making of knowledge is the process in which personal opinion is fortified by pragmatic evidence. It is to my belief that, evidence is a keystone in the justification of truth, because it is something solid and concrete. Significance of evidence is also magnified by our society as we develop.
There are many arguments for moral realism, one of which is presented by David Enoch, who posits a unique explanation of how normative truths can exist. He argues for moral realism by using his Indispensability Argument, which explains the necessity of normative facts in deliberation. I will argue that Enoch’s claim is valid in that it fairs well against opposition, however it shows weakness by not addressing moral subjectivity. To begin, David Enoch defends moral realism using his Indispensability Argument. Firstly, Enoch argues that universally objective and irreducible normative (and by extension moral) truths do exist, or at the very least people are justified in believing in them.
In Robert Nozick’s The Examined Life, he talks about his interpretations of the words in his chapter titled Value and Meaning and how we use their definitions in the dimension we know to be as reality. Value, defined by Nozick, is a word that gives an object meaning to a person or something that has one’s own intrinsic specialty. Meaning on the other hand, is defined to be having a connection beyond the boundaries of value. Both words can relate to each other and yet still have much more meaning than the definitions that are provided. Looking further into Nozick’s observations of value and meaning, there are parts of his supporting arguments that I support and others I face contradictions with.
Their analysis is uniform in that they make two assumptions: first that some community is relevant in every case, and second that every statement is analyzable in terms of knowledge. I think that both assumptions are false, so one thing I'll do today is to suggest truth conditions for statements failing of both assumptions-"individual, doxastic possibility statements." I will have time to contest only the first assumption, though, and will therefore help myself to my conclusion regarding the second; I will assume that the locution "It's possible that p" is not restricted to expressions of epistemic, that is, knowledge-based possibility, but may be used to express doxastic or belief-based possibility as well. The first assumption-that some community is relevant to every use of "It's possible that p"-will be my main concern, then. To make the assumption in its stronger form, as Ian Hacking and Paul Teller do, is to treat all uses of "It's possible that p" as statements to be translated as "For all we know, p." But the locution "It's possible that p" is used not only for statements of that sort-for, in my terminology, "community statements"-but also for what I'll call "individual statements"-statements properly translated as "For all I know, p." The assumption that some community is relevant to every use of "It's possible that p" is also made by Keith DeRose, but in a weaker form.
Epistemology is he study of our right to the beliefs we have. In a broader sense, we start from what we call our cognitive stances, and ask whether we are justified to have these stances. When discussing cognitive stances, we must include both our beliefs as well as what we take to be our knowing. At an even deeper level we examine our attitudes towards the various strategies and methods we use to get new beliefs and filter out old ones. Epistemology is concerned then with whether we have acted responsibly or irresponsibly in forming the beliefs we have.
Descartes main objective in his meditations is to question or doubt knowledge. It was important for Descartes to distinguish what people can identify as truth. He also believed that reason was the source for knowing what is the absolute certainty and knowledge. He uses radical form of skepticism in his investigation that resembles an “if and then” kind of reasoning. I think that Descartes wrote the meditations to reaffirm his beliefs and/or to justify his beliefs.
It’s trying to get the subjective truth to become objective, then subjective for each person. The idea of objectivity is that it is concrete, measurable, and tested. This idea of objectivity relates to the characteristics of what facts are. Throughout this honors ignition seminar, I have come to distinguish between two very useful, and powerful words: subjective truth and objective fact. Subjective truth, as I understand, is truth.
Belief in some perception is guided by the framework built by past experiences which leads you to make judgments about the world. This framework allows you to believe in what you observe, and to reject any ideas that do not make sense in regards to the custom. While Hume may not have been exact in some aspects, the writings provided remain strong, and this allows for an understanding of belief and fiction. Work Cited David Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding, in Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals: Third Edition, ed. P.H.
I shall do this by recounting the problems posed by Gettier to the traditional understanding of knowledge as 'justified true belief', and then present critical responses to it to get to the truth of whether Gettier problems are inescapable, most notably by attempting to answer it with the 'Causal Theory', the 'Defeasibility Theory', and finally by considering knowledge as 'true belief with sufficient warrant'. Gettier undermines the traditional understanding of knowledge by showing that a person can make an apparently proper inference from a belief one is justified in holding, but which is false. He proves that we can arrive at a justified true belief, but the truth of which is unrelated to the premises that it was inferred from. It is “possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is in fact false”. In his first example Gettier shows that one can infer a true statement from a false proposition.
In ethos, which means credibility, Gladwell covers his ideas so he can express his feelings towards the central problems of argumentation is the text to leave an impression to the reader that he is someone worth listening to. In other words he made himself stand on such a position in the authority on the subject of the paper that the audience will believe that he is someone who is likable and worthy of respect. 2. How does Gladwell develop exigency and purpose throughout these two texts? Explain how this relates to the essay as a whole.