Given the scenario, Melissa has two relevant beliefs concerning the whereabouts of her keys. The first belief is that her keys are in her house. This belief is true because she spent time searching just her house. If Melissa did not believe her keys were in her house, she would not have wasted time looking there. However, according to the Cartesian standard of justification, Melissa’s belief is not justified. The Cartesian standard of justification employs indubitability to determine whether the belief can be doubted. If the belief is indubitable, a foundation can be built with that belief and built upon with reason (Descartes, First Mediation). Melissa’s belief can be doubted because the reason behind knowledge can be deceiving (Descartes, …show more content…
According to an ordinary standard of justification, the belief is justified. Melissa can look out her window or in her garage and she her car sitting there. This implies that her keys are around. In addition, we all have had those moments where we set our keys down in a different spot compared to where we usually set them. Melissa could have done this and not realized it until she needed them. Another relevant belief Melissa has is she does not know where her keys are. This belief is also true because of the fact that she spent thirty minutes searching for them. Moreover, the belief is justified according to the Cartesian standard of justification. Doubting whether someone does or does not know the whereabouts of an object is difficult to do. The belief is subjective to Melissa because it is in her mind. No other person can determine whether she is right or wrong in thinking that. Others may have had an experience similar to hers, however, the experience is not a carbon copy. Similarly, the belief is also justified according to an ordinary standard of justification. If Melissa did know where her keys were, she would have gone to where they were and grabbed
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
Of the various answers to this question, I'll start out with "faith cannot exist alongside doubt." The two ARE mutually exclusive. This goes with the fact that complete faith means just that. Faith means "complete confidence that a person or a plan etc" (according to WordNet). To us, to have faith you cannot doubt. One example of this would be when Owen keeps asking John whether or not the statue is there, even though he can't see it through the fog. John's only answer is "I just know it." Owen replies with "that's how I feel about God." Now, John's "belief" is based on the fact that he's seen the statue in this position before, and he reasons that it could not have moved since he last saw it. Owen takes it a step farther and calls it faith.
Ms. Fallsbauer is the one who opened the door for the police officers. (R. at 5.) She refers to the apartment as “my apartment.” (R. at 5.) She believes that the apartment is hers. She signed a consent form for the police officers to be allowed to search the apartment. (R. at 5.) Each of these moments alone was sufficient enough for a reasonable person to believe that Ms. Fallsbauer had actual or apparent authority over the premises. Once all of these factors are put together, however, it presents a much stronger showing that Ms. Fallsbauer had the authority to consent to the search. Any police officer off the street could be walked through the same situation and would reasonably believe that she had the authority to consent to search of the premises. There was no reason for the police officers to ask any further questions of Ms. Fallsbauer.
In “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement”, Thomas Kelly gives two responses to the question “How should awareness of disagreement, with those that you take to be your epistemic equal, effect the rational confidence you have in your beliefs?”. Kelly discusses two possible responses to the question. The first is Richard Foley's first person perspective argument. Adam Elga calls the second the right reasons view (Elga, 2007 pg. 485). Kelly pursues the latter, and does not go further than agreeing with Foley that we should only view these disputes with a first person perspective.
Conflict is definitions, examples and anecdotes. To respond you can discuss your problems with someone, protesting, ignoring and more. A conflict is a serious disagreement between people. When people sense disagreement they tend to feel uncomfortable. The best way to respond to conflict is by having an emotional outlet.
and that it can in fact be reasonable to hold a belief without sufficient evidence. Both
William Clifford author of the “Ethics of Belief” creates the argument that it is always wrong for anyone to believe anything upon ‘insufficient evidence’. What does Clifford define evidence as and what is sufficient? Clifford’s argument is more scientific. Basing our beliefs off methodical approaches. If we base all our decisions off sufficient and what we declare to be reliable then what do we stand for? We have our own credentials to believe things even if we do not know why. These beliefs could be innate and
If you were in this situation how would you feel? If you're patiently waiting for your husband to come home and you give him a kiss as he returns. As he walks and talks little to you then he puts it out there like it’s nothing. Would you cry or would you be shocked? would you fight or would you fall ? tell how you would feel if you were like mary maloney were your husband's going to leave you like he left her. I think that mary maloney is innocent because her husband was a cruel and not very kind man. Not only was he having an affair with another woman he was disrespectful to her he yelled at her and how do we not know he wasn't abusive to her. His fellow officers called him a “lady's man”. I think that mary should not be convicted of murder.
In this work we cover a debatable topic in our society and no matter how many diverse and opponent opinions are, abortion keeps being the interruption for pregnancy, it can be by choice or not. Abortion is seen as a human right just as the public health.
The Story of Anne Frank and the Holocaust should be edified in middle school. The reason for this is because kids nowadays infrequently relish to learn history and they didn’t even ken who those people did and how they reshaped society in convoluted ways, maybe a few apperceived or auricularly discerned of who did what or where. However, children cannot plenarily reach the point where they understand the main thing about all of it.
Cartesian Skepticism, created by René Descartes, is the process of doubting ones’ beliefs of what they happen to consider as true in the hopes of uncovering the absolute truths in life. This methodology is used to distinguish between what is the truth and what is false, with anything that cannot be considered an absolute truth being considered a reasonable doubt. Anything which then becomes categorized as a reasonable doubt is perceived as false. As Descartes goes through this process, he then realizes that the one thing that can be considered an absolutely truth is his and every other individual’s existence. Along with the ideology of Cartesian skepticism, through the thinking process, we are capable of the ability to doubt that which is surrounding them. This ability to think logically and doubt is what leads us to the confirmation of our existence.
“Properly open mind is just the most enjoyable way to live” Ronald Geiger said in his article about skepticism. Skepticism is one of the first steps on the road to open, creative and critical thinking that young people should take in their lives. It is important for the people in adolescence period, like high school students, to learn how to think properly and be critical toward some of the aspects in society. The course in skepticism in high school will allow students to have positive effects on their intellectual level, ethical standings, physical conditions and psychological status. Skepticism should be included in high school curricular and be one of the requirements for graduation because of its tremendous amount beneficial factors in
In 1977 Irene Pepperberg, a recent graduate of Harvard University, did something very bold. At a time when animals still were considered automatons, she set out to find what was on another creature’s mind by talking to it. She brought a one-year-old African gray parrot she named Alex into her lab to teach him to reproduce the sounds of the English language. “I thought if he learned to communicate, I could ask him questions about how he sees the world.”
Some of the objections, such as the ones made by Edmund Gettier, claim that three conditions are not nearly enough to justify a true belief, and that at the very least a fourth must be added. Gettier presents a very valid criticism of the JTB theory of knowledge, and his counter examples highlight flaws in the JTB theory that make it an inadequate theory of knowledge. Gettier claims takes an issue with the third part of the JTB theory, which states that proposition P must be true. Gettier makes the interesting observation that person S may very well be justified in believing in proposition P even if P is false
Whether someone's belief is true is not a prerequisite for belief. On the other hand, if something is actually known, then it categorically cannot be false. For example, if a person believes that a bridge is safe enough to support him, and attempts to cross it, but the bridge then collapses under his weight, it could be said that he believed that the bridge was safe but that his belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. By contrast, if the bridge actually supported his weight, then he might say that he had believed that the bridge was safe, whereas now, after proving it to himself, he knows it was