Fifth Set of Critical Response Questions

Fifth Set of Critical Response Questions

Philosophy 350: Epistemology

Fifth Set of Critical Response Questions

Instructions: Sign up for one of the questions below. (Maximum 4 students per question.) Compose an argumentative essay that answers the question you have signed up for. Your essay should follow these rules:

 Begin your essay with these three words: “I will argue…” followed by a statement of your thesis.

 The remainder of your response must be in support of your thesis.

 No more than one page—single spaced if you must.

 Include page numbers of quoted text or where paraphrasing.

Make sure to include the following:

 Critical response number (top of page)

 Question number (top of page)

 Name (second line)

 Due date (second line)

Questions:

  1. Can science prove that REL (p. 173) is false? Answer yes or no and justify your answer.

Your answer should include a discussion of the following:

  1. An explanation of what is meant by ‘a priori’ and ‘a posteriori’ knowable.
  2. An explanation of why Feldman thinks REL is not a priori knowable.
  3. A discussion of the sort of evidence or experiment that science might use to prove that REL is false.

Note: REL is to be understood as being about the reliability of perception or memory in general.

Student Names:

1 / 2
3 / 4
  1. Can science prove that REL (p. 173) is true? Answer yes or no and justify your answer.

Your answer should include a discussion of the following:

  1. An explanation of what is meant by ‘a priori’ and ‘a posteriori’ knowable.
  2. An explanation of why Feldman thinks REL is not a priori knowable.
  3. A discussion of the sort of evidence or experiment that science might use to prove that REL is true.

Note: REL is to be understood as being about the reliability of perception or memory in general.

Student Names

1 / 2
3 / 4
  1. Is Feldman correct that R6 inevitably leads to A1, and so epistemic relativism is self-refuting?

Answer yes or no and justify your answer.

Your response should include a discussion of the following:

  1. An explanation of R6.
  2. An explanation of A1.
  3. An explanation of Feldman’s reasoning as to why R6 inevitably leads to A1.

Student Names

1 / 2
3 / 4
  1. Should Dr. J and Dr. K. suspend judgment about which treatment is better, as Feldman suggests (186); or, should we accept R8? Argue for one or the other.

Your response should include the following:

  1. A description of the disagreement between Dr. J and Dr. K. (You need only consider the “modified” version of the disagreement (185)).
  2. A description of R8.
  3. An explanation of Feldman’s reasons for rejecting R8.
  4. A discussion of whether suspension of judgment holds for other disagreements, e.g., a disagreement between two political science professors as to whether the Democratic or Republican party has the best plan for the country.

Student Names:

1 / 2
3 / 4
Top View