STUDY GUIDE FOR TEST 3 - STUDY GUIDE FOR TEST 3...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
STUDY GUIDE FOR TEST 3 Introduction to Philosophy Jeff Strayer 1. Stace and the ‘refutation’ of realism. . How do both Stace and Gould define ‘realism?’ What does the realist believe? For the realist, does a person’s knowledge or awareness of an object make a difference to the existence of the object? Or, is there a necessary relation between mind and object for realism? What view does Stace say that we need to refute in order to refute realism? Does Stace say that he can prove that objects do not exist when not being perceived, or only that we have no reason tobelieve that they do? What does Stace say about the realist’s ability to know or prove what he thinks he knows? Who does Stace say has the burden of proof in this matter, the realist who asserts that objects exist when not being perceived, or the philosopher who denies that we have any evidence that they do? Does Stace’s refutation of realism depend on thinking of external world objects as being mental rather than physical? Why does Stace say that the existence of unperceived objects is like a unicorn(s) on Mars? Are there any satisfactory philosophical proofs for realism according to Stace? What is the only way in which we can know, for Stace, that an object in the external world exists? Can we know through perception that physical objects exist when not being perceived? If so how, and if not why not? Can we know through inference which is based upon perception that physical objects exist when not being perceived? If so how, and if not why not? Does a conclusion follow necessarily or only probably from true premises in a deductive argument? What is the ‘principle of consistency’ in deduction? Does a conclusion follow necessarily or only probably from true premises in a inductive argument? How does induction relate to observation? How does induction relate to the past and future? Can we infer either inductively or deductively that an object which exists when perceived continues to exist when not being perceived? If neither of these ways will work, then why won’t they work? What can I say inductively about an object of past perception in the future? What must inductive reasoning concern? In an argument of the form if P then Q (P e Q) if Q cannot be false while P is true, then what kind of relation do we say holds between P and Q? What does Stace mean by saying that no valid from an experienced to an unexperienced existence is possible? Is there anything logically contradictory in the objects of daily perception not existing when not being perceived? What is A. O. Lovejoy’s argument for the existence of unperceived objects? How does Stace respond to Lovejoy’s causal argument for objects existing when not being perceived?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 4

STUDY GUIDE FOR TEST 3 - STUDY GUIDE FOR TEST 3...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online