1. According to the Traditional Analysis of Knowledge (TAK), the objective of analyzing knowledge is to state conditions that are jointly and individually necessary for propositional knowledge. Hence, propositional knowledge should be differentiated from knowledge of acquaintance. Propositional knowledge is justified true belief, this means that a person cannot know P if they do not believe P. Secondly, a person cannot know unless P is true and lastly, there is a need to justify true belief in order to rule out lucky guesses. This way of thinking is related to knowledge goes back to Plato and this way of thinking goes unchallenged for the better part of Western intellectual culture.
The reason the way of thinking was unchallenged was the power of persuasion, which was wielded by folks like Plato, Aristotle and Descartes. Additionally, while it is not the only show in town it has received top billing for the most part of history of western philosophy. Lack of dispute in the way of thinking was caused by the fit between the analysis of knowledge and the paradigm of propositional knowledge, which is considered by analysts.
Gettier challenged the analysis of knowledge by saying that a person can have justified, true belief without having or qualifying for knowledge. Therefore, a person needs more than justified and true belief to acquire knowledge. Therefore, people who think that JTB approach is correct must choose between two different strategies for solving the problem presented by Geitter. The first is to strengthen the justification condition, to amend the JTB analysis with a suitable fourth condition. The fourth condition succeeds in preventing justified true belief from geittiered.
In defense, of the Traditional Analysis of Knowledge it is necessary to identify a situation as knowledge and secondly is by using the traditional analysis of knowledge to by calling the true belief unjustified. However, skeptics may say that what people consider as justification is not always good enough and for that reason, there is a need to reduce the requirements of absolute knowledge.
Skepticism can be defined as an attitude of doubt or a nature to incredulity either in general or toward a meticulous object. Skepticism can also be referred as the doctrine that true knowledge in uncertain areas as well as the method of suspended judgment, criticism that is characteristics of skeptics and systematic doubt.
In philosophy, skepticism refers to an inquiry, the limitation of knowledge, a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing, as well as a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgement. It also refers to the arbitrariness, subjectivity and relativity of moral values.
The major difference between Cartesian skepticism and pyrrhonian skepticism is that Cartesian skepticism deals with strong negative epistemic evaluations. For example, Cartesian skeptics provide arguments that perception cannot provide people with knowledge of the outside world, but the pyrrhonnian do not make such claims. Another difference is that Cartesian skeptics raise doubts about the beliefs people have of the world, but the pyrrhonnian does not see a problem with the issue.
The dream argument argues that the act of dreaming provides preliminary evidence that senses that people trust to distinguish reality from illusion should not be fully trusted. Therefore, any state that is dependent on people’s senses, hence the need to be carefully examined. Moore in response to skepticism that there is proof of an external world in that condition for an argument should be proof and the premises need to be true because they entail the conclusion. Additionally, the argument does not beg the question of the dream argument.
2. In philosophy, skepticism refers to an inquiry, the limitation of knowledge, a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing, as well as a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment. It also refers to the arbitrariness, subjectivity and relativity of moral values.
Skepticism dogged claimants to truth and knowledge throughout the early modern Europe. It refers to the uncertainty, disbelief, and suspension of judgment and rejection of knowledge as well as doubt. Therefore, it means the holding of firm beliefs about reality or truth. There are various types of skeptics, which include academic skeptic, pyrrhonian skeptics and Cartesian skeptics.
The major difference between Cartesian skepticism and pyrrhonian skepticism is that Cartesian skepticism deals with strapping negative epistemic assessments. For example, Cartesian skeptics provide arguments that perception cannot provide people with knowledge of the outside world, but the pyrrhonnian do not make such claims. Another difference is that Cartesian skeptics raise doubts about the beliefs people have of the world, but the pyrrhonnian does not see a problem with the issue. Therefore, the two skepticism provide various views, but Cartesian skepticism seems to be more negative than pyrrhonian skepticism.
Pyrrhonism skepticism is the assertion that all perceptions tend to be faulty. In addition, the skepticism is extreme and absolute. Foundationalism is said to be the view about the proper structures of a persons’ justified belief and knowledge. Therefore, some believe are justifiable because they are known by people. However, if they were not known then, people would find it hard to justify them.
3. The problem of induction is the question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge as explained in the philosophy. David Hume brought the problem of inductive forth in 1700’s as philosophers were trying to solve it for many years. The problem asks what the justification is for and whether it is for either generalizing about properties of a class of objects that are based on a number of observations of instances of that class. The example that is given is of the inference that all swans people have seen are white; therefore, concluding that all swans are white. However, this is before people discovered that there were black swans.
The second justification is the presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past. For example, in the principle of uniformity of nature where people believe that the law of physics will hold as before and as people have observed them to hold. It has been held that inductive reasoning is impossible to use and it will never be proven as a theory. Reason being it will never exhaust the possibilities that it exists in the universe. The process of elimination is; however, used to determine whether the theory is true or false.
There are two main kinds of argument in the reasoning process of humans that are deductive argument and inductive argument. Deductive argument is the process of acquiring conclusions that apply in scrupulous circumstances from more wide-ranging principles. While Inductive argument, is the floor of the argument is from evidence to general theory, which is used to formulate the general principles that are used to make deductions from this is a general mode of argument.
