Robert Nozick Reliabilism

James(1897) argues that certain actions and convictions need pre-existing beliefs which do not require sufficient evidence. He uses Pascal’s Wager as an example – James (1897) argues Pascal’s Wager may force individuals in choosing to either believe in God or not, regardless of there being sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the former or latter. However, James (1897) argues that different propositions

Clifford’s argument states that we shouldn’t believe anything upon insufficient evidence. Insufficient evidence is any type of evidence that has not been tested or proven for. Good sufficient evidence is accurately true without any doubts. He believes anything tested and proven builds up a society and strengthens it. In this paper, I will be discussing Clifford’s argument and the objections and Clifford’s responses to those objections.

The ability of a Self-fulfilling prophecy to effect whether

With this particular case, Gettier effectively challenges the relationship between the sufficient condition and the necessary conditions because Smith’s justified true beliefs are not jointly sufficient for him to know he is the man with 10 coins in his pocket who will get the job. In fact, even if Smith’s justified true belief turns out to be true; Jones actually gets the job, intuitively we are not convinced that his justified true beliefs is deemed as knowledge because in the case that he is correct, we intuitively regard his justified true belief as a lucky coincidence since he could have had a false justified true belief.

In this paper, I will argue that The Paradox of Confirmation, or, The Paradox of the Ravens is solvable by accepting the conclusion. My argument proceeds by first stating any major assumptions. I will then explain The Paradox of the Ravens and why it is considered a paradox. Next, I will detail the three ideas that compose this paradox. Finally, I will explain my solution.

The argument presented by William James in “The Will to Believe” covers theistic beliefs and also includes various philosophical issues as well as matters of practical life. James's primary concern is to argue that Clifford's Rule is irrational. According to Clifford's Rule, one should avoid error at all costs and ultimately risk the loss of certain truths. James claims that Clifford's Rule is just one intellectual strategy and then makes an argument to seek truth by any means available, even at the risk of error or being completely false. James is not arguing against conforming one's belief to the evidence. Nor is he arguing against the importance of evidence. His argument is against withholding beliefs whenever there is little evidence,

The purpose of this paper is to argue that Alvin Goldman's paper "A Causal Theory of Knowing" does not solve the problem in Edmund Gettier's paper "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" To argue the old view of knowledge, Gettier presents a case in which a Subject (S) is justified in believing that a proposition (P) and P entails another proposition (Q). S deduces Q from P and accepts Q. Then S is justified in believing Q. In the first Case that Gettier presents however, P is falsely justified, but Q is a true justified belief: Smith (S) is justified in believing that Jones is the man who will get the job and Jones has ten coins in his pocket (P). Thus, the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket (Q). S is justified in

To know any O (ordinary proposition), I must have prior and independent knowledge of not-SH (skeptical hypothesis).

This section provides us with two selections from the essays of William K. Clifford (1845-1879) and William James (1842-1910). Clifford's essay, The Ethics of Belief, is based on the concept of evidentialism. This concept 'holds that we should not accept any statement as true unless we have good evidence to support its truth'; (Voices of Wisdom, 346). James wrote his essay, The Will to Believe, as a response to Clifford's essay where he endorsed a philosophy called pragmatism.

Belief perseverance is the act of resisting change in our ideas and beliefs once they have been created. When there is evidence that leads us to believe in something, it is very hard to shift away from that belief despite any contradictory information about our original views (Nisbitt & Ross, 1980). Belief perseverance interferes with critical

Vogel’s second premise draws from the underdetermination principle. This principle is the idea that if there is no reason to believe one

As mentioned above, disjunctivism is concerned with the difference between perceptionsand hallucinations. Snowdon states that disjunctivism holds that O is seen so long as it is overalla case of something’s looking some way (F) to S, as opposed to its being to S as if somethinglooked that way, and O is the something that looks that way (159-160). For O to be thatsomething simply is for O to look that way (160). From these assumptions arise an alternativeexplanation to U-cases: “that what actually went on would have gone on whether the objectswere present or not” (160). However, as consistent with disjunctivism, there is a distinctionbetween cases in which the specified objects look some way and ones that do not. Fish notes anexample of

The first method used for fixing belief is the method of tenacity. The meaning is that when a person uses this method they simply tenaciously hold onto beliefs they previously hold, and discard beliefs they previously discard. For people who use this method, the gold standard of truth is what they already believe. Keep reiterating it and take no notice of all other things that might distract the belief. Tenacity method do not hold in practice and for that matter, pave way for us to know how other people think in a different way and their beliefs are just as good. This recognition wobbles one's beliefs and leads back to

Epistemology is purposed with discovering and studying what knowledge is and how we can classify what we know, how we know it, and provide some type of framework for how we arrived at this conclusion. In the journey to identify what knowledge is the certainty principle was one of the first concepts that I learned that explained how we, as humans, consider ourselves to know something. The certainty concept suggests that knowledge requires evidence that is sufficient to rule out the possibility of error. This concept is exemplified in cases like The Gettier problem in the instance that we suppose (S) someone to know (P) a particular proposition. As Gettier established the Justified True Belief as a conceptual formula for knowledge, certainty

Based on the financial ratios given, this section will compare and contrast the financial strengths of Company X and Company Y in order to suggest Tringale Ltd to take decision regarding which of the above companies to chose for investment. This section provides comments on financial performance areas based on the data given, and presents report to the Board of Directors of Tringale Ltd by recommending which of the two investment opportunities is better.