Copyright © 2009 Bruce W. Hauptli
The examination will be in-class objective essay exam. It will be designed to assess the students’ understanding of the philosophical theories, positions, topics, and methodologies studied. The following sample questions are examples of the kinds of questions I will be asking and they are distributed in advance of the exam so that you have an opportunity to organize your thoughts and integrate the readings and lectures around sample questions designed to indicate what your are expected to have mastered. The list of questions is far longer than a reasonable examination could be, and I will ask between two and three such questions on the examination itself. You will be asked to be as complete as you can in writing essays in answer such questions. While there is no “length requirement” for the examination, the questions and exam will be designed so that the average student in this class should need to spend most of the allowed time actively writing. Short answers are unlikely to be sufficiently detailed to earn high grades, and mere outlines or lists (of terms, principles, theories, etc.) do not provide sufficient explanation—they will not convince me that you understand the relevant material. As the questions clearly indicate, I expect you to explain specific points in answering the questions, and an essay which does not address these points is inadequate. The exam will be a closed-book, closed-notes exam, and you will not be allowed to consult dictionaries or other reference texts.
The midterm will be on Thursday, February 19.
1. What, according to Chisholm, is the "problem of the criterion," what "resolutions of the problem does he discuss, and what "resolution" does he champion. Given that he says that his answer "begs the question" (explain what this means), what does his answer "have going for it," according to him?
2. In considering various arguments against skepticism, Lehrer considers philosophers who appeal to certain "basic beliefs" or "beliefs of common sense," and he offers his skeptical hypothesis about the Googols. While Lehrer does not maintain that there are such creatures, he indicates that this hypothesis places the "dogmatists'" claims under a cloud. The difference between the dogmatists and Lehrer at this point seems to boil down to a dispute over the location of the "burden of proof." Clarify Lehrer's "skeptical hypothesis," discuss the issue of the location of the "burden of proof," and indicate why Lehrer believes that "dogmatists" (who claim that the beliefs of common sense are "innocent until proven guilty") are wrong.
3. Explain what a "Gettier counterexample" to the traditional analysis of knowledge is by talking about one of the following:
(a) Smith, Jones, getting a job, ten coins in a pocket and a boss;
(b) Smith, Nogot, Havit, office workers, and Ford owners; or
(c) Smith, Jones, Brown, owning a Ford, and being in Barcelona.
In answering this question clarify what the traditional JTB analysis of knowledge is, how the "Gettier" counter-example is supposed to under-cut the traditional analysis, and what the problem (with the traditional analysis) the Gettier examples expose.
4. Goldman offers a causal theory of knowing. Explain what sort of knowledge he is offering an analysis of, what the sources of knowledge are which he discusses, what he claims is necessary if one is to be said to know in such cases, and illustrate his theory by discussing his "lava" example, his "testimony" example, or his "S's knowing that T will be going downtown" example. In discussing the example, clarify what sorts of connections are required for knowledge according to Goldman, and what breaking one of these connections does to a claim to know according to him, and how his account is supposed to avoid the sorts of problems Gettier points to.
5. Lehrer and Paxson offer a "defeasibility analysis" of knowledge. What sort of knowledge are they offering an account of, clarify the distinction they draw between "basic" and "nonbasic" knowledge, and indicate which sort(s) is (are) defeasible and why. In answering this question clarify what "defeaters" are and how they work against a knowledge claim.
6. Short Answer Questions:
(a) A proposition is: _______________.
(b) In addition to propositional knowledge, there are several "kinds" of knowledge which seem to resist reduction to propositions. Two such kinds of knowledge are: _______________ and _______________.
(c) Necessary conditions for an event are conditions which must be present if the event is to occur. Sufficient conditions are _______________.
(d) An analysis of knowledge is too strong if it rules out clear and unobjectionable cases of knowing, an analysis is too weak if ___________.
(e) Goldman offers an analysis of knowledge which emphasizes _______ relations between the world and the knower.
(f) Four traditionally identified sources of knowledge are: _________, _________, _________, and _________.
File revised on 02/07/2009.