Answer the following 5 questions. Each answer should be 200-300 words. 1. Expla

By
Responsive Centered Red Button

Need Help with this Question or something similar to this? We got you! Just fill out the order form (follow the link below), and your paper will be assigned to an expert to help you ASAP.

Order Form

Answer the following 5 questions. Each answer should be 200-300 words.
1. Explain the Pyrrhonian Problematic and the foundationalist response to it. Is the foundationalist response defensible? Explain why or why not by explaining the arguments of Bonjour (if you give a negative answer) or Chisholm (if you give a positive answer). What role does interpretation or conceptualization play in the generation of our introspective beliefs? Does the involvement of conceptualization render our introspective judgments inferential in justification?
2. Explain Goldman’s reliabilist theory of justification by listing and explicating its base, recursive, and closure clauses. Explain the case of the clairvoyant as we described it in class. Is the clairvoyant a counterexample to reliabilism? Explain the case of the properly stimulated brain in a vat as we described it in class. Is the brain in a vat a counterexample to reliabilism? Taken together, do the clairvoyant and the brain in a vat demonstrate that reliability is neither necessary nor sufficient for epistemic justification? Why or why not?
3. Quine argues that we ought to just do our best to describe (in a systematic way) how we come to make our perceptual judgments and hold our other various beliefs. We should no longer pursue the quest for certainty; we should instead limit ourselves to various projects in psychology and the sociology of science. Is Kim right that this an overreaction to the failure of Descartes and Carnap to establish certainty in science? Describe the method of reflective equilibrium (MRE). Is this a good method for epistemologists to utilize? How might it be integrated with the psychological and sociological projects Quine recommends as successors to traditional epistemology? Is MRE overly conservative? Why or why not?
4. Is it possible for S to be justified in believing p at t whereas S* is not justified in believing p at t even though S and S* are intrinsically identical (i.e. duplicates)? Explain why certain reliabilist theories of justification entail that this is possible. Bonjour thinks that a person is justified in holding a certain belief only if that person does not deserve epistemic blame or criticism for holding it. Is Bonjour’s view incompatible with the possibility of intrinsic duplicates differing as to the justification of their beliefs? Can it be a matter of luck whether someone is immune to epistemic criticism? Defend your answers with arguments.
5. Explain and critique Fricker’s view of justified belief via testimony. Is Fricker right that we need substantive evidence of the trustworthiness of a speaker’s testimony if we are to be justified in accepting that testimony? Does her view entail the skeptical thesis that we are rarely justified in believing what we are told? How does Fricker analyze the epistemic status of the beliefs of children? How does Fricker respond to the argument that we must be entitled to believe what we are told in the absence of evidence of the trustworthiness of a speaker if we are to gain knowledge of our native language? How does Fricker’s view apply to the testimony of the purported victim of a crime?

How to create Testimonial Carousel using Bootstrap5

Clients' Reviews about Our Services