Time, Self and Mind (ATS1835) Introduc;on to Philosophy B Semester 2, 2017 Dr Ron Gallagher [email protected] Week 10 (1 le): Knowledge (Epistemology) & Scep;cism What is knowledge? What is jus3fed true belief? What is scepcism? What is doubt? What is jusficaon? Can any knowledge be jus3fied? Can ordinarily accepted statements be jusfied? Radical doubt is nonsensical, selec3ve doubt needs grounds for doubt. Week Beginning Topic Assessment Readings W1 24-Jul Time - Introduction and Time Travel 1.1 & 1.2 Time Travel; Freedom, Determinism, and W2 31-Jul Indeterminism 1.5 & 1.6 Short Answer 1 - W3 07-Aug Logic Primer August 10th 2.1 – 2.2 Mind- Dualism versus Materialism about W4 14-Aug the Mind 3.1 - 3.2 Mind - Can Machines Think? W5 21-Aug Computationalism and the Turing Test 3.3 Mind - Can Machines Think? Objections to Short Answer 2 - 3.4 W6 28-Aug Computationalism Aug 31st Self - Lockean Psychological Theory and W7 04-Sep Identity 4.1 – 4.3 W8 11-Sep Self - Identity, the Body & Person Stages 4.4 – 4.5 Knowledge What is Knowledge and Short Answer 3 – W9 18-Sep Gettier's Account Sep 21st 5.1 – 5.2 25-Sep Mid-semester break Knowledge - Nozick's Account and 5.3 – 5.4 W10 02-Oct Scepticism Essay - October 5.5 W11 09-Oct Knowledge - The Moorean Response 12th W12 16-Oct Revision (no lectures, no tutorials) Assessment Due Date Assessment Task Value Mondays 10am Reading Quizzes (10) 5% (bonus) Thu Aug 10th AT1.1 (@600 words) 10% Thu Aug 31st AT1.2 (@600 words) 10% Thu Sep 21st AT1.3 (@600 words) 10% Thu Oct 12th AT2 Essay (@1250 words) 30% TBA Exam 40% Hurdle Requirements to Pass this Unit Your overall grade for the unit must be at least 50% You must achieve a grade of 40% or more on the final exam You must submit all assessment tasks (not including Reading Quizzes) You must not fail more than one assessment task (not including Reading Quizzes) You cannot miss more than 3 tutorials AT2: Essay Assignment (Due: October 12th, 10am) General Instructions Word Limit: 1250 words Value: 30% Presentation Requirements: Your assignment should be presented in 12-point font and 1.5 or double-spaced. It will require references and a bibliography. Acceptable Formats: .doc or .rtf. (If you want to use some other format, clear it with your tutor beforehand.) Only submit an electronic copy; no hard copy submission required. File Name: Name your file using the following convention: [Question Number] [Surname] Example: "3Silva.doc," "5Smith.rtf", "1Jones.docx" Referencing and Citation: http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/philosophy/resources-for- undergraduate-students/ In your essay, you should try to fulfill the following requirements, especially the first: • The essay must address the question asked. • It should have a structure that is clear and organised to form a coherent argument. • You should explain, in your own words, views and arguments in the prescribed readings that are relevant to the topic. Be careful to present these views fairly and accurately, with adequate citation detail. • You should try to evaluate the arguments you have discussed, and in the process work out your own position. When you criticise a philosopher, try to think how she might reply to your objections. • You must carefully identify all connections between your essay and the writings of others. Chicago style (numerical citation, footnotes) with bibliography at the end. Harvard style (in-text citation) with bibliography at the end. ESSAY MARKING CRITERIA - from ATS1835 Unit Guide ESSAY FAQs • Essay Due Thursday 12th October 10am @1250 words 30% • The word limit is +/- 10% of 1250 words. • You are required to use at least one of the readings (not just the commentary or lecture slides) from the TSM Reader as your primary text. • You can reference the TSM Reader by page number, eg (Kane, 2007,TSM Reader p.56), you do not need to use the original page numbers of the individual papers in the Reader. • Begin the essay with a statement of YOUR thesis (eg You believe that machines do not think, and that Turing is wrong for such and such a reason and that Searle makes some good points) and how you are going to support it with arguments from the TSM Reader Essay Topics Write on one of the following topics. AT2 Essay - Thursday Oct 12th, 10am - @1250 words – 30% 5. Knowledge Gettier raises some serious challenges for the traditional account of knowledge. Nozick develops his tracking account in part to answer the problems identified by Gettier. After explaining both Gettier's challenge and Nozick's proposal, evaluate the strength of Nozick's proposal as a response to Gettier's challenge. Required reading: Edmund Gettier, 'Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?' Robert Nozick, 'Knowledge and Skepticism' 1. Knowledge as Justified True Belief There are three components to the traditional (“tripartite”) analysis of knowledge. According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge. The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge: S knows that p iff p is true; S believes that p; S is justified in believing that p. The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often abbreviated as the “JTB” analysis, for “justified true belief”. From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/index.html JTB? Derelict Juror: Imagine two Stubborn Evolu;onist: Henry jurors, Jenna and Nalie, has been exposed to a number deliberang about the case of of raonally compelling Mr. Mansour. Both jurors have arguments for the theory of paid close aen;on throughout evolu;on. Despite the trial. As a result, both have understanding these arguments, Henry refuses to accept good reason to believe that [evolu;on], through sheer Mansour is guilty. Each juror stubbornness. One day, Henry’s goes on to form the belief that tarot card reader tells him that, Mansour is guilty, which he in based on a recent tarot reading, fact is. Nalie believes he’s she has determined that the guilty because of the evidence theory of evolu;on is true. presented during the trial. Jenna Henry then finally accepts believes he’s guilty because he evolu;on on the basis of the looks suspicious. tarot reading. QUESTION: Does Harry know QUESTION: Does Jenna know that evolu;on is true? that Mansour is guilty? The Basing Demand General Issue: – S can have terrific evidence to think P true. – S can believe P is true. – But S can fail to believe P because of the evidence. = S can fail to base her belief in P on the evidence. = S can believe P for obviously irrelevant reasons. The Basing Demand: In order to know P one must have a jusfied belief in P. In order to have a jusfied belief one must base that belief on good reasons. Epistemic Luck (Russell) Alice sees a clock that reads two o’clock, and believes that the time is two o’clock. It is in fact two o'clock. There's a problem, however: unknown to Alice, the clock she’s looking at stopped twelve hours ago. Alice thus has an accidentally true, justified belief. Russell 3. The Gettier Problem In his short 1963 paper, “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”, Edmund Gettier presented two effective counterexamples to the JTB analysis (Gettier 1963). One of these goes as follows. Suppose Smith has good evidence for the false proposition (1)Jones owns a Ford. Suppose further Smith infers from (1) the following three disjunctions: (2)Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Boston. (3)Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona. (4)Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Brest-Litovsk. Since (1) entails each of the propositions (2) through (4), and since Smith recognizes these entailments, his beliefs in propositions (2)–(4) are justified. Now suppose that, by sheer coincidence, Brown is indeed in Barcelona. Given these assumptions, we may say that Smith, when he believes (3), holds a justified true belief. However, is Smith's belief an instance of knowledge? Intuitively, Smith's belief cannot be knowledge; it is merely lucky that it is true. In the first example, Gettier supposes that two people, Smith and Jones, have applied for a job. We suppose that Smith has a justified belief that Jones will get the job. The evidence for it is high enough that Smith justifiably believes it, “might be that the president of the company assured him that Jones would in the end be selected” Smith also believes (and indeed, knows) that Jones has ten coins in his pocket, which is true and was demonstrated to him, possibly by Jones counting them himself. From this he believes the logical conseqence of these beliefs, that “the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket”¹ It turns out that Smith was wrong, and that, for some unforseeable reason, it turns out that Smith gets the job, and Jones does not. It also turns out that Smith has ten coins in his pocket, though he didn't realize it. The question is, was Smith's belief that “the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket” knowledge? Gettier and Propositional Knowledge Gettier argues that one could have a true justified belief which is not knowledge in a situation in which one reasons from some already justified beliefs to a new belief that, as it happens, is coincidentally true. Since it would then be a matter of coincidence that one’s belief was correct, it would not count as knowledge, even though it was a justified belief because it was knowingly inferred from already justified beliefs.