ipl-logo

Examples Of Infallibilism

1951 Words8 Pages

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Infallibilism The philosophical term infallibilism is the argument that knowledge needs individuals to satisfy some level of infallibilism condition. However, the aspectsinfallibilism and fallibilism are often used in the literature of epistemology. Both terms are rarely defined and because of this, they receive diversified meanings that an individual may find the statements to be contradicting. All epistemologists virtually endorse the aspect of fallibilism. Despite the dramatic variations in the substantive accounts of the epistemologists, they accept that the Gettier Problem can only be solved when a belief is not conflicted with warranty and false, which is the definition of infallibilism. Considering the infallibilism …show more content…

Primarily, epistemic infallibilismmakes reference to an impact of the intuitive principle from epistemic closures and therefore it is not a reliable concept of infallibilism. Additionally, evidential infallibilism refers to the person’s inferential knowledge is based on deductive factswhere most of the epistemologists propose that the idea should be rejected. The modal infallibilismentails the central infallibilistmintuition, thus enables one to relate to Descartes’ infallibilismas well as evidential infallibilism. Thus, the paper purports that modal infallibilismcan solve the Gettier problem as well as account for the inherent human ignorance in scenarios and circumstances of slottery. Unfortunately, the modal infallibilism is also known to be a source of skeptical argument. Nonetheless, the paper argues that whether the arguments are sound they all depend on significant questions regarding the semantic of alethic modals and the metaphysics of possibility. Despite the arising issues, modal infallibilism is an aspect that individuals will have to accept. Work cited Churchland, Paul M. Matter, and consciousness.MIT Press, 2013. Pp. 1-153 Howard‐Snyder, F., and Neil Feit."Infallibilism and Gettier 's legacy." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66.2 (2003):

Show More
Related
1347 Words | 6 Pages

In Lara Buchak’s essay, Can It Be Rational to Have Faith? , she asserts that everyday faith statements and religious faith statements share the same attributes. She later states that in order to truly have faith, a person ceases to search for more evidence for their claim, and that having faith can be rational. Although she makes compelling arguments in favor of faith in God, this essay is more hearsay and assumption than actual fact. In this paper, you will see that looking for further evidence would constitute not having faith, but that having faith, at least in the religious sense, is irrational.

Read More
990 Words | 4 Pages

There is no way to know everything there is to know. This means that knowledge will always be inherently limited by numerous different factors. According to DesCartes, knowing can only be applied to what one has clearly observed to be true (111). Observable knowledge can be limited by things such as background and sex. However, the greatest limitation may be lack of skepticism, whether it be questioning oneself or an authority.

Read More
378 Words | 2 Pages

For this disputation, I had the pleasure of arguing against the topic of be it resolved that you can convince a non-believer to affirm the existence of God using philosophical arguments. As the opposing side, Sarah and I counter argued the following: the argument from motion, the ontological argument, Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. The argument from motion argues that it is only possible to experience that which exists, and people experience God, therefore God must exist; however it can be counter argued that since faith cannot be demonstrated or experienced, as it is unseen, God cannot exist.

Read More
777 Words | 4 Pages

In “Evil and Omnipotence”, J.L Mackie argues that solutions provided for the problem of evil are implausible. Mackie claims that the problem of evil is God’s inability to be both omnipotent and omni-benevolent yet have evil exist. This contradiction cannot be physically disproven; and therefore, must be logically disproven. Mackie uses a novel method of providing solutions to this problem and elaborating on their lack of logic. In this paper, I will further explain the problem of evil, expand on the solution “Good cannot exist without evil,” and argue for Mackie’s view against this solution.

Read More
623 Words | 3 Pages

Lewis proved he was not one for hesitation when it came to voicing his theories about the universe. Carefully manufacturing his first theory with inductive reasoning, Lewis is sure to incorporate logical thinking in his argument for the Law of Human Nature by pointing out different pieces of evidence to larger, more universal statements. He makes general observations after comparisons with different universal laws as well as different civilizations throughout time. Following these remarks, he delves further into his theory that people don’t need to be taught the Law of Nature, but that almost everyone knows it by nature. In the second paragraph, Lewis further establishes logical persuasion by pointing out his “Power Behind” theory with deductive reasoning.

Read More
771 Words | 4 Pages

In this essay, Elbow leans towards the believing game and tries to persuade the reader to leave the doubting game behind. Elbow states rules for each game that are used to form a plausible conclusion. The

Read More
1170 Words | 5 Pages

Misunderstandings and faulty ideas are direct results of human reasoning digesting and misinterpreting ideas. Knowledge, in short, fuels reasoning. External concepts are taken in, where human reasoning then extrapolates and comprehends the knowledge. But what we take in from our senses can be misleading. Petrarch expresses in a faithful, crystalline, and unclouded Christian manner that he may not be able to trust ideas from the outside, but “it is He in whom I can trust” (101).

Read More
1261 Words | 6 Pages

In the 1963 philosophy paper titled “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”, Edmund Gettier attempts to deconstruct and disprove the philosophical argument that justified true belief is knowledge. Justified true belief, also commonly referred to as JTB, is used as a certain set of conditions that are used to explain someone s knowing some sort of proposition p. More specifically, JTB is used to say that s has knowledge of p if and only if p is true, s believes that p is true, and s is justified in believing that p is true. Gettier offers main points as the conclusion of his argument against this claim. First, he states that s can be justified in believing that p is true while p is actually false.

Read More
630 Words | 3 Pages

Under this situation people choose to believe in god because they can gains infinite benefits but not keep their logical mind. Thus, people's thinking is not always keep

Read More
1357 Words | 6 Pages

Anh Nguyen - PHIL 256 Final Descartes’s arguments for the existence of God and its fallacies Descartes (1596 – 1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician and scientist. At an early age, he received his education from the Jesuits and the experience with the Aristotelian ideals there upset him, yet the field of mathematics fascinated him with its precision, uniform certainty and necessity. This dissonance eventually planted a seed into his mind and drove him to question about the nature of knowledge, namely whether it can match mathematics’ indubitableness. Descartes’ attempts in resolving the problem resulted in his Meditations of First Philosophy (1641), which was written in response to queries regarding his new philosophical basis for a novel way to approach the system of knowledge. Upon its publication, Descartes’ Meditations provoked controversy among the Aristotelians – indeed it was an assault on the Aristotelian

Read More
2041 Words | 9 Pages

Ironically, in arguing that he has been deceived by his senses, Descartes also argues that we can see through these deceptions. I do not claim that we are never deceived, just that we can overcome such deceptions. Therefore we can trust our senses as long as we are aware and cautious. Thus, Descartes’ argument does not validate the degree of skepticism

Read More
925 Words | 4 Pages

Descartes, and Paley suggest that we can know God and that he is within our understanding. Throughout the readings they describe and argue how we can now the existence of God and the attributes that are associated with him. However David Hume would refute these claims saying through his dialogues more specifically through a character named Philo that we cannot know the attributes or even for that matter the existence. During this paper I will analyze Descartes and Paley’s arguments in comparison with David Hume’s arguments that we cannot know these things. In Paley’s argument he says that if we saw a rock lying on the ground and someone said that rock had always been there that is conceivable, whereas if a watch were lying on the ground that answer would no longer be acceptable.

Read More
1064 Words | 5 Pages

Fallacy • Fallacies are defects in an argument. • Fallacies cause an argument to be invalid, unsound, or weak. Formal Fallacies • Identified through discrepancies in syllogistic patterns and terms. • Only found in deductive arguments.

Read More
1082 Words | 5 Pages

In Epistemology, there are sub categories as well. These are called Rationalism and Empiricism. Rationalism will be discussed in this paper, and there are two philosophers that follow this method. There names are Rene Descartes and Plato. Plato and Descartes are two Greek philosophers that believe in Rationalism, yet both have a different perspective of it.

Read More
1084 Words | 5 Pages

My definition of knowledge is a true fact or justified belief that is acquired through a persons experience and education. To a great extent, faith does play a role in deciding if knowledge we acquire has purpose and meaning in our lives however, sometimes faith does not play a role. Personal lives refers to our day to day life and how knowledge provides us with meaning and purpose in it. Its how we take shared knowledge and apply it to our individual perceptions and perspectives of our lives. Knowledge provides with the understanding of the world and gives us meaning in life.

Read More

More about Examples Of Infallibilism

Related Topics

Open Document