A Hitchhiker's Guide To Epistemology

15 Points Per Correct Answer - No time limit  

1. It all started when I informed my friend Arthur (not Dent) that someone I worked with had a Ford Prefect (not a person, the car). "Ah," he remarked condescendingly, "but do you really KNOW that?" I was caught off guard. "Er…," I answered lamely. "You see," confided Arthur, "I've become a skeptic now." I sighed. "OK Arthur, will you accept justified true belief as your standard of proof?" I asked resignedly. Justified true belief has been used as a definition for knowledge and a standard for knowledge at least since the time of Plato. That would make JTB at least how many centuries old? 19 24 14 5

2. Arthur clapped his hands gleefully and positively cackled. "Justified true belief," he purred. "I adore JTB. Start trying to prove your contention using JTB." I replied, "You misunderstand me Arthur. I don't believe that you are a skeptic. You'll have to prove it to me before I'll answer you." "What!" Arthur sputtered. "Of course I'm a skeptic. I don't believe anything. I don't accept anything!" I responded,"Didn't you just accept justified true belief as your standard of knowledge?" What sort of thing had Arthur, the skeptic, just accepted? An unjustifiable ontological obfuscation An ontological premise An epistemological premise An a priori metalogical falsification

3. "Look here," fumed Arthur, "I am a skeptic. I don't have to justify anything. How dare you doubt my skepticism and insult me by saying I accepted a premise. It's not my job to tax my intellect trying to establish the truth of the self-evident to satisfy some insipid doubter. It's my job to be aloof, arrogant and to gratingly and repeatedly ask 'why', 'how' and demand that YOU 'prove it'". I replied, "You know, Arthur, you can't very well be a skeptic if you don't even exist. Before I'll even consider your assertion that you are a skeptic, you'll need to prove to me you exist." With what sort of problem am I asking Arthur to deal? The problem of consciousness An epistemological problem An ontological problem A metalogical problem

4. "Prove I exist?" Arthur protested. "Oh very well," he subsided. "I think, therefore I am." Arthur proclaimed loftily. Which Cartesian philosopher was Arthur quoting? Reid Locke Hume Descartes

5. "You think, therefore you are," I said. "Gosh Arthur, I'd like to accept that, I really would. But who's to say you're a skeptic and not just some butterfly dreaming it's a skeptic when actually the wicked machines have the poor butterfly wired into the Matrix." "That's absurd!" Arthur retorted. What issue is Arthur being forced to confront? Epistemology The issue of consciousness Ontology Metalogic

6. "Ok Arthur, I'm no skeptic and you're no butterfly." I conceded. "I'll accept that you've proven your existence to yourself. But how can I know you're real? How do I know I can trust my senses? How can I be sure that what I perceive corresponds in any way with reality, whatever reality is?" What would be the proper philosophical discipline to deal with these sorts of questions? Epistemology Phrenology Ontology Phenomenology

7. My last challenge left Arthur speechless. Not being one to miss an opportunity to take advantage of that rarest of species, the silent skeptic, I pressed my case. "See here Arthur," I continued, "even if I conceded your miserable existence within the real world you still can't justify your belief that you are a skeptic." Arthur began again diffidently. "What if I were to say," Arthur asked, "that I know I'm a skeptic and that self knowledge is fundamental and unquestionable?" I answered grimly, "I'd say that you'd fallen into the trap of Agrippa's trilemma." Which of the following characterizes the fallacy of Arthur's appeal to fundamental, unquestionable truth? Circular reasoning Unjustifiable metalogical obfuscation Infinite regress Requiring a dogmatic assumption without proof

8. The details of the next part of my discussion will be omitted. Suffice to say that Arthur would propose a justification and I would ask him to justify it much in the matter that a child keeps asking "why?" in response to each answer you give them. Arthur proved nearly tireless in argument and hours passed before he conceded that he was getting nowhere. I commented that Agrippa's trilemma was tough to beat. What fallacy did Arthur demonstrate this time? Infinite regress Unjustifiable metalogical obfuscation Circular reasoning A priori ontological falsification

9. A gleam appeared in Arthur's eye as he began a new chain of reasoning. Each reason seemed to justify the prior one satisfactorily. Finally he concluded with a statement that was simply a clever rewording of his original statement. "Arthur," I asked, "do you really expect me to permit you to use your premise as your conclusion and vice versa?" What fallacious justification was Arthur asking me to accept? A priori ontological falsification Infinite regress Circular reasoning Unjustifiable metalogical obfuscation

10. After our hours of discussion Arthur had a wide-eyed, hunted look. "It would seem," he said vacantly, "that to prove skepticism I have to accept, at the least, existence, consciousness and a standard of knowledge. But as a skeptic those are the very things I must challenge?" I nodded sympathetically not having the heart to introduce him to the assertions made by Edmund Gettier in 1963. What did Gettier do? Explode Agrippa's trilemma Write the first screenplay for "The Matrix" Turn into a butterfly and fly off during a lecture he was delivering Show that justified true belief was an inadequate description of knowledge