\n

\n See the attached\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

See the attached
\nQuestion Evaluate the definition of knowledge as \u201cjustified true belief\u201d. Do you agree with it as a working definition? If not, where does the definition go wrong? What is a counterexample to the definition? Meghan Discussion post The definition of knowledge as \u201cjustified true belief\u201d was described in the lecture as a set of reasons that are used to support a belief an individual has. I do not agree with this working definition of \u201cjustified true belief\u201d for a few reasons. One reason is, what if the evidence at hand is not true, even though an individual believes it to be true? Then their knowledge is based on a faulty justification. The foundation of knowledge is built on both truth and belief. I agree with the idea that there can be a justified true belief, but that may not be the case for all of society. Society consists of many varying beliefs, that contradict one another. I don\u2019t believe there is a true or false belief, thus making it difficult to justify each induvial belief. The difference in beliefs for Christmas and Hannukah is a counterexample of this definition. They are two different holidays, based on two different beliefs, religions, etc. Each belief believes that it is true while thinking the other is false. I find this to be a faulty justification because each side has good reasons for believing it’s true, but which is the true, justified belief? William Discussion post COLLAPSE Top of Form Katelyn and Joshua, I think the issue you\u2019re both alluding to here points towards a deeper philosophical issue about\u00a0truth. Katelyn, you make a point concerning different perspectives entail different accounts of a faulty\/non-faulty justification. Joshua, you make a point that a belief can only be designated as \u2018true\u2019 via introspection (and so not: reason, perception, testimony, etc.). In epistemology, an important topic includes theories of truth (i.e., what is truth, how does one identify a truth, etc.). While we unfortunately will not have time to explore this topic in this course, let me say the following. First, similar to what I said about knowledge below, many philosophers consider truth to be\u00a0objective\u00a0and not\u00a0subjective. 2+2 =4 is considered an objective truth\u2014it holds, it is a fact, regardless of any single person\u2019s perspective\/point of view. Meanwhile, if I say, \u201cchocolate ice cream is the best ice cream in the world\u201d, I am less expressing a truth, and more so expressing my personal point of view. That sentiment may be \u201ctrue\u201d for me, but not \u201ctrue\u201d. I am merely expressing a subjective taste. So, while 2+2=4 is traditionally accepted as objectively true, \u2018chocolate ice cream is the best\u2019 is not. Furthermore, a traditionally popular theory of truth (since Aristotle) is the idea the correspondence theory of truth: briefly, a statement\/proposition is true when it\u00a0corresponds\u00a0to the facts that obtain in the world (independent of human consciousness\/perspective). Newton\u2019s law of gravity is often treated as objectively true. It is true because it represents the facts of the world. Gravity exists according to Newton\u2019s laws, even if there are no conscious human beings to perceive it. To connect to Kyle\u2019s point below, scientists aim to justify their working hypotheses (of which Newton\u2019s law is an earlier example) through the scientific method. Sometimes, outliers introduce hypotheses which fall short of this method of justification, such as the flat-earth theory. Now, Katelyn, you offer a challenge of justification on the grounds of different perspectives. This is a fair challenge. There are multiple ways we can explore it. First, let\u2019s assume there\u00a0is\u00a0objective truth and objective knowledge. Many scientists and philosophers would agree. At the same time, most would agree that often our personal perspectives can influence and distort our understanding and justification. Here, the goal would be to try to curtail cognitive biases and fallacious reasoning to try to come as closely as possible to an objective justification of the hypothesis. Scientists, philosophers, philosophers of science, etc. agree that this is not infallible. But it may be the best general course of action. Second, some philosophers, are skeptical about this notion of objective truth. Some flatly deny there is such a thing (think of Protagoras and other sophists). Others may hold an agnostic view\u2014we cannot know whether there is any objective truth because we do not have access to the real world outside of our human consciousness. Here, we are consistently bound by our perspective. Similarly, Joshua, you raise the idea that the \u2018truth\u2019 of a belief is established by introspection, suggesting the idea that it may come down to an individual\u2019s (introspective) perspective. Here, again, we have the emphasis on perspective. I\u2019ll close here for now. If either of you is interested in exploring these ideas further, the 19th\u00a0century philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, is one who endorses the view in epistemology that we cannot know whether or not there is such a thing as objective truth. In place, Nietzsche argues for\u00a0perspectivism, or the view that all of our knowledge claims are contextual, or dependent upon perspectives. If you\u2019re interested in a prominent similar view in science\/philosophy of science, see Thomas Kuhn\u2019s\u00a0Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn argues that over the course of the history of science, one finds that science is not moving progressively closer and closer to objective truth; rather it is shifting through different scientific paradigms, which are akin to scientific perspectives. Kyle Discussion post Evaluate Plato’s Metaphysics: Two Realms? Top of Form In Plato’s writing, he views existence in two distinct phases the sensible realm and the intelligent realm. These two realms are what divide facts and belief into two separate types of knowledge. Plato notes that the two phases of life tend to overlap with one’s religious beliefs, particularly the belief in a higher power. Those who believe in a god or multiple deities will consider religious scriptures on the same factual level as a science textbook in spite of the lack of a reliable source for these claims. With this in mind, the sensible realm and intelligent realm offer a way to appease the minds of religious faith without having to consider the possibility of their beliefs being fictional. I agree with Plato’s findings and find it a sound system Joshua Discussion \u00a0 RE: Do you agree with Plato’s idea of Plains and Realms? Top of Form Couldn’t it be argued that even these concepts exist in the lower realm as the puppeteers, constiuting beliefs and perhaps ignorance? A decent consideration is the theory of evolution, that is perhaps in the realm of the intelligible as a reasoning. This reasoning would interfere with the belief of the sensible realm and ultimately disparage the pursuit of education as blocked by that very belief? so does this not inhibit the prisoner in the cave from seeing objects in the end? Joshua\u00a0discussion post Evaluate Descartes\u2019 dream argument. Do you think his response resolves the skeptical hypothesis? Top of Form Descartes\u2019 dream argument states that sometimes dreams are as qualitatively vivid as the best perceptions. If we have dreams as qualitatively vivid as our best perceptions, we cannot with certainty distinguish between the two. We can never be certain whether we are perceiving objects under ideal conditions of observations or having a vivid dream, and if we cannot make such a distinction, our very best perceptions cannot supply us with certainty. Therefore, our best perceptions cannot supply us with certainty. The lecture also discusses the second skeptical hypotheses: focus on dreaming (dreams that are so qualitatively vivid, you don\u2019t realize that you are dreaming). Personally, I don\u2019t agree with Descartes\u2019 dream argument because it offers a significant amount to doubt through our sense perceptions, and I don’y believe his response resolves his hypothesis. We also determined in the lecture that all of our sense perceptions are dubitable (real world of experience? Physical world? Physical bodies?) I truly just don\u2019t believe that I can have a dream that is so vivid that I can\u2019t distinguish it from my perceptions. I have had vivid dreams before, but I have never questioned whether it was real or not, I am always able to identify it as a dream. Descartes\u2019 dream argument definitely has a lot of interesting aspects that different people could interpret in their experiences. Katelyn discussion post Evaluate Descartes\u2019 dream argument. Do you think his response resolves the skeptical hypothesis? COLLAPSE Top of Form As indicated in lecture, Descartes’ aim in analyzing dream-state experiences is to consider the topic of how awareness relates to doubting of knowledge claims. Sense-perceptions are distinguished from dream, indicating perspective on awareness. As the “Meditation” is written in the first person, engaging the “I” perspective; I question the role of subjectivity as it relates to the search for absolute concepts or truths. The writing is reflective of the process of observation as it relates to knowledge. The skeptical hypotheses relate to the dubitability of knowledge claims; and particular attention is extended to the notion that all dreams are based upon prior realities. The observational basis of interrogation, as noted previosly in this post; is complicated by a subjective bias, which impacts the location of the place of origin of the perception. How might Descartes’ writing differ, should the perspective of identifying the doubtable components of the connection between dream-state and non dream-state experiences be expected to convey further than contemplative meditation? The response to the skeptical hypotheses incorporates both observational analysis of principles, along with conclusive accounts of speculative reasoning. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form
\nSee the attached
\n Week 4 screenings: Asian cinemas Week 4 screenings: Asian cinemas Screen at least one of the following films this week What Time is it There?\u00a0(2001, d. Tsai Ming-liang) – Taiwan – connection and loss, gesture and the ineffible… Still Life\u00a0(2006, d. Jia Zhangke) – China – the permanence of change, the cost of “progress” Parasite\u00a0(2019, d. Bong Joon-ho) – South Korea – name another foreign-language film that’s won the Best Picture Oscar?! Criterion has been streaming a full-on Jia Zhangke retrospective this year… Honestly, a little digging will reward you with a wealth of Asian cinema streaming regardless of your platform(s) of choice! Readings in\u00a0World Cinema: Ch 7, “Asian Cinema” Readings in\u00a0A Short Guide to Writing about Film: Ch 5, “Style and Structure in Writing” Essay 4 (150 points) Remember Corrigan’s “Six Approaches” from his Chapter 4?\u00a0Once more into the breach, my friends, once more! Discounting the approach you used for Essay 3, pick one of the remaining five approaches to writing about film discussed by Corrigan, and apply it to one of the three films we’re screening this week. Again, use outside sources as necessary–make sure to properly cite those sources!\u00a0 This fourth essay (1000 words minimum) should be uploaded to Blackboard in MS Word or as a PDF by the end of Week 4 (6\/20). Discussion board (20 points) Discussion board (20 points) Asian film week in COMM 261–we’ve got screenings to discuss from Taiwan, China, and South Korea! We’ve got an extensive chapter on Asian cinemas in the\u00a0World Cinema\u00a0textbook, as well as a nuts & bolts reading in\u00a0A Short Guide to Writing about Film. Much to discuss! Jump in!\u00a0 Two posts for 20 points this week… One post per day for points–spread out the discussion across multiple days! This board closes at the end of Week 4 (6\/20)…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

See the attached See the attached Question Evaluate the definition of knowledge as \u201cjustified true belief\u201d. Do you agree with it as a working definition? If not, where does the definition go wrong? What is a counterexample to the definition? Meghan Discussion post The definition of knowledge as \u201cjustified true belief\u201d was described in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_joinchat":[]},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242301"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=242301"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242301\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":245354,"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242301\/revisions\/245354"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242301"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242301"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/qualityassignments.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242301"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}