(Test Bank) The Norton Introduction to Philosophy

Rosen, 2

Religion, Philosophy & Belief

Test Bank

2nd Edition

• $10.00 $35.00

---

Description

Test Bank for The Norton Introduction to Philosophy, The downloadable file consists of 153 pages, and the total size of the file is 2.62 MB. Purchase now only for highly discounted price.

Author(s): Rosen

---

---

Study Note Preview

Chapter 1 Does God Exist? TRUE/FALSE 1. One might object to Anselm's argument by claiming that the being than which none greater can be thought is not something that exists in our understanding at all. a. True b. False ANS: T DIF: Difficult REF: p. 8 TOP: The Ontological Argument, Anselm | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Analyzing 2. You are a contingent being. a. True b. False ANS: T DIF: Medium REF: p. 14 TOP: The Five Ways, Aquinas | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 3. If successful, Aquinas's first way (argument from motion) proves the existence of God as understood by Christians, Jews, and Muslims. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Medium REF: p. 14 TOP: The Five Ways, Aquinas | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 4. The recognition of Darwinian evolution as a rival explanation for the complexity we find in nature (as with our eyes) immediately defeats Paley's argument for a designer. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Difficult REF: pp. 25-27 TOP: The Argument from Design, Paley | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Analyzing 5. According to White, accepting that the universe is fine-tuned amounts to admitting that there is an intelligent designer of the universe. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Medium REF: p. 29 TOP: The Argument from Fine-tuning, White | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 6. Antony thinks that the evidential problem of suffering succeeds in showing that there cannot be a God. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Medium REF: p. 41, p. 45 TOP: No Good Reason—Exploring the Problem of Evil, Antony | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 7. According to Stump, humans cannot directly make it so that they freely will the things they should. a. True b. False ANS: T DIF: Medium REF: pp. 53-54 TOP: The Problem of Evil, Stump | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. According to Anselm, everyone agrees that a. God exists in the understanding only. b. God exists in reality only. c. God at least exists in the understanding. d. God exists in both the understanding and reality. ANS: C DIF: Medium REF: p. 8 TOP: The Ontological Argument, Anselm| Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 2. One way to challenge Anselm's argument is to question a. the idea that existing in reality makes something great. b. the idea that existing in the understanding makes something great. c. the idea that the being he speaks of is not the Christian God. d. the idea that there is a difference between existing in reality and existing in the understanding. ANS: A DIF: Difficult REF: p.9 TOP: The Ontological Argument, Anselm | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Analyzing/Evaluating 3. Which of the following does Anselm believe about God? a. We can think about God as not existing. b. We cannot think about God as not existing. c. We come to believe in God after observing the world. d. We come to believe in God through divine revelation. ANS: B DIF: Easy REF: p. 9 TOP: The Ontological Argument, Anselm | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Remembering 4. According to Aquinas, the efficient cause of a cake is a. the ingredients. b. the person who bakes it. c. the recipe for how to bake it. d. the kitchen in which it is baked. ANS: B DIF: Medium REF: p. 14 TOP: The Five Ways, Aquinas| Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 5. An objection to Aquinas's second way (the argument from efficient causation) would be to a. argue that we do not understand what efficient causation is. b. argue that there must be an efficient cause of God. c. argue that efficient causes do not bring about effects. d. argue that God cannot be an efficient cause. ANS: B DIF: Difficult REF: p. 14 TOP: The Five Ways, Aquinas | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Analyzing/Evaluating 6. Paley uses the analogy of finding a ____ in a heath to help motivate his argument. a. phone b. shoe c. watch d. screw ANS: C DIF: Easy REF: p. 20 TOP: The Argument from Design, Paley | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Remembering 7. According to Paley, when we discover that an item, such as a piece of machinery, does not work perfectly, we should infer that a. the item had no designer. b. the item had a designer, nonetheless. c. the item is worthless. d. the item still has value. ANS: B DIF: Medium REF: p. 21 TOP: The Argument from Design, Paley| Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 8. Paley claims that one way to respond to doubts about a designer's skill that arise because a crafted item has imperfections is to a. argue that the imperfections are not really imperfections. b. argue that crafted items are more valuable when they are imperfect. c. argue that we cannot be sure as to what is really an imperfection. d. argue that there is some imperfection in the materials required to craft the item. ANS: D DIF: Medium REF: p. 26 TOP: The Argument from Design, Paley | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 9. Paley's argument is what kind of argument? a. Cosmological argument b. Ontological argument c. Design argument d. Phantasmal argument ANS: C DIF: Easy REF: p. 20 TOP: The Argument from Design, Paley | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 10. White's fine-tuning argument is best understood as a modern version of the a. argument from design. b. ontological argument. c. cosmological argument. d. argument from morality. ANS: A DIF: Medium REF: p. 29 TOP: The Argument from Fine-tuning, White | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 11. Which premise of White's argument does the multiverse hypothesis challenge? a. The premise claiming that inference to the best explanation can provide support for a conclusion b. The premise claiming that the fact that the universe is fine-tuned needs to be explained c. The premise claiming that positing that God adjusted the physical constants provides a good explanation of why the universe is fine-tuned d. The premise claiming that there is no available explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe that competes with the hypothesis that God adjusted the physical constants ANS: B DIF: Difficult REF: p. 35 TOP: The Argument from Fine-tuning, White | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Analyzing 12. According to White, if successful, the fine-tuning argument a. shows that fine-tuning means that God exists. b. shows that we should believe that God exists because of fine-tuning. c. shows that we have conclusive reasons to think that God exists because of fine-tuning. d. shows that fine-tuning provides some reason for thinking that God exists. ANS: D DIF: Medium REF: p. 30 TOP: The Argument from Fine-tuning, White | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 13. According to Antony, the logical argument from suffering a. succeeds in proving there is no God. b. succeeds in proving that the existence of God is impossible. c. actually proves that God exists. d. fails to prove that God does not exist. ANS: D DIF: Medium REF: p. 38 TOP: No Good Reason—Exploring the Problem of Evil, Antony| Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 14. The free will defense challenges which premise from the evidential problem of suffering? a. The premise that says an omnipotent being could always prevent suffering b. The premise that says that there probably is not a good reason that a morally good, omnipotent being could have for failing to prevent suffering c. The premise that says there is suffering d. The premise that says no morally good being would fail to prevent suffering when able to do so without having a good reason to permit the suffering ANS: B DIF: Difficult REF: pp. 41-43 TOP: No Good Reason—Exploring the Problem of Evil, Antony | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Analyzing 15. A problem for the free will defense is that it fails to account for a. suffering caused by humans. b. suffering experienced by humans. c. suffering experienced by non-human animals. d. suffering caused by non-human animals. ANS: C DIF: Medium REF: pp. 43-44 TOP: No Good Reason—Exploring the Problem of Evil, Antony| Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 16. According to Stump, all reasonable people are committed to accepting that a. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. b. there is evil in the world. c. God can exist even though there is evil in the world. d. God does not exist if there is evil in the world. ANS: B DIF: Easy REF: p. 47 TOP: The Problem of Evil, Stump| Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Remembering 17. According to Stump, God cannot fix the defect in humans' free will because a. doing so would be logically impossible because it would make humans no longer human. b. doing so would be logically impossible because the resulting will would not be free. c. doing so would be logically impossible because the resulting will would be morally bad. d. doing so would be logically impossible because the resulting will would be weak. ANS: B DIF: Medium REF: p.53 TOP: The Problem of Evil, Stump | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 18. One objection that could be raised to Stump's response to the problem of evil is that a. it does not explain why God would allow evil. b. it does not account for evil that humans suffer because of natural events. c. it does not explain why union with God is important enough to warrant evil. d. it does not account for the suffering that non-human animals experience. ANS: D DIF: Difficult REF: p. 57 TOP: The Problem of Evil, Stump | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Analyzing/Evaluating COMPLETION 1. Anselm thinks that existing in reality makes something ____ than if it existed only in the understanding. ANS: greater DIF: Medium REF: p. 9 TOP: The Ontological Argument, Anselm | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 2. Aquinas claims that since some things can be “more” or “less” when it comes to a particular property, there must be a thing that has the ____ of that property. ANS: maximum DIF: Easy REF: p. 15 TOP: The Five Ways, Aquinas | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Remembering 3. "Fine-tuned" means that the ____ fall within the narrow range required for life to exist. ANS: physical constants DIF: Easy REF: p. 29 TOP: The Argument from Fine-tuning, White| Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Remembering 4. Antony thinks that the problem of evil should really be understood as the problem of ____. ANS: suffering DIF: Easy REF: p. 37 TOP: No Good Reason—Exploring the Problem of Evil, Antony| Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Remembering 5. Stump thinks that ____ entered the world as a result of Adam's fall. ANS: evil DIF: Easy REF: p. 48 TOP: The Problem of Evil, Stump | Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Remembering ESSAY 1. Roger White claims that the fine-tuning argument is a contemporary version of the argument from design. How is White's fine-tuning argument similar to Paley's argument from design? ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should/might include a discussion of Paley's appeal to the parts of a watch working well implying a designer, as well as his claim that this is also true of the parts of our bodies and other features of nature. Additionally, it should/might include a discussion of how the fine-tuning argument requires that the various physical constants work together in very precise ways in order to fall within the range of values required for the universe to be life permitting. DIF: Medium REF: pp. 20-36 TOP: Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Understanding 2. One classic objection to Anselm's ontological argument is that one can use the same reasoning to argue that a fictitious item exists. For instance, a famous commentator on Anselm's argument claimed he could argue for a perfect island in the same way that Anselm argues for God. Create your own argument for something fictitious using reasoning analogous to Anselm's. ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should/might include discussion of Anselm's appeal to something than which a greater cannot be conceived. For instance, a valid response should make reference to a fictitious X that is such that no greater X can be conceived. A valid response will also provide an argument that mirror's Anselm's reasoning by pointing out that such an X either exists only in understanding or in both understanding and reality. DIF: Medium REF: pp. 8-9 TOP: The Ontological Argument, Anselm MSC: Applying 3. How are Antony's and Stump's presentations of the problem of evil different? Why might someone think that the differences in their versions of the argument are significant? Which of these two versions of the argument fares better? Why? ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should/might include discussion of the fact that Antony construes the argument in terms of suffering, while Stump puts things in terms of evil. It should/might also include discussion of Antony's emphasis on the difficulties posed by the suffering of non-human animals, and Stump's focus solely on human suffering. Though not as central, a valid response might also include discussion of Stump's focus on Christianity in particular when discussing/responding to the argument, as opposed to Antony's broader focus on traditional theisms more generally. DIF: Difficult REF: pp. 36-57 TOP: Chapter 1: Does God Exist? MSC: Evaluating 4. Compare Aquinas's first (motion) and second (efficient causation) ways for proving God's existence. How are they similar? Are there any important differences in their structures? ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should/might include discussion of how both arguments begin by noting that we see things in nature that are in motion or caused by other things. Additionally, a valid response should/might include reference to the denial of the infinite regressions of movers or causes. Finally, a valid response should/might include discussion of how, structurally at least, these two arguments are very similar, if not identical. DIF: Easy REF: pp. 13-14 TOP: The Five Ways, Aquinas MSC: Understanding 5. What is the multiverse hypothesis? How is this hypothesis thought to work as a response to the fine-tuning argument for God's existence? ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should/might include discussion of the multiverse hypothesis being the idea that our universe is one of a great many universes. It should/might also include discussion of how this claim is thought to be a problem for the fine-tuning argument; it calls into question the claim that the fine-tuning of our universe needs an explanation. Finally, a valid response should/might include discussion of the reason that the multiverse calls this claim into question. Namely, it should/might include discussion of how, if there are enough universes, it is to be expected that some would be fine-tuned for life. DIF: Medium REF: pp. 34-35 TOP: The Argument from Cosmological Fine-tuning, White MSC: Analyzing Chapter 2 Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? TRUE/FALSE 1. Pascal thinks that there is no argument that can settle the question of whether God exists or not. a. True b. False ANS: T DIF: Medium REF: p. 69 TOP: The Wager, Pascal | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 2. According to Pascal, if you wager that God exists, you risk nothing. a. True b. False ANS: T DIF: Difficult REF: p. 71 TOP: The Wager, Pascal | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 3. According to Hájek, the objection to the validity of Pascal's Wager may affect our reasoning in general. a. True b. False ANS: T DIF: Medium REF: pp. 83-84 TOP: Pascal's Ultimate Gamble, Hájek | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 4. Clifford thinks that we should not take anything on the authority of others. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Medium REF: pp. 90-91 TOP: The Ethics of Belief, Clifford | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 5. According to Clifford, our beliefs only affect us. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Easy REF: p. 87 TOP: The Ethics of Belief, Clifford | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 6. According to James, in general it is permissible to form beliefs because of our passional nature. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Difficult REF: pp. 100-101 TOP: The Will to Believe, James | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 7. Plantinga's position that belief in God is properly basic is a kind of natural theology. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Medium REF: p. 108 TOP: Is Belief in God Properly Basic? Plantinga | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 8. Buchak claims that your faith can remain epistemically rational as long as the utilities are high enough to warrant your acting in accordance with your faith. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Medium REF: p. 120 TOP: When Is Faith Rational, Buchak | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 9. According to Buchak, one way that faith is important is that it can help keep us from being misled over time. a. True b. False ANS: T DIF: Medium REF: p. 127-128 TOP: When Is Faith Rational, Buchak | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. Pascal argues that our knowledge of _____ is analogous to our knowledge of God. a. our own minds b. the series of numbers c. the thoughts of others d. the world around us ANS: B DIF: Medium REF: p. 68 TOP: The Wager, Pascal | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Remembering 2. According to Pascal, if Christians try to prove that God exists, they are a. going against their own claims. b. doing what is rationally required of them. c. performing their duty as Christians. d. doing the will of God. ANS: A DIF: Medium REF: p. 69 TOP: The Wager, Pascal | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 3. One way to challenge Pascal's argument is to question a. whether God exists. b. whether God rewards believing that God exists. c. whether we can understand an infinite. d. whether we can prove that God exists or does not exist. ANS: B DIF: Difficult REF: pp. 69-70 TOP: The Wager, Pascal | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Analyzing/Evaluating 4. In decision theory, _____ occur(s) when you know how good or bad an outcome is, but not how likely it is. a. dominance reasoning b. expected utility c. decisions under uncertainty d. decisions under risk ANS: C DIF: Medium REF: p. 75 TOP: Pascal's Ultimate Gamble, Hájek | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 5. According to Hájek, if you play a fair game you should expect in the long run to a. win significantly more times than you lose. b. lose significantly more times than you win. c. lose about the same amount of times that you win. d. win slightly more times than you lose. ANS: C DIF: Medium REF: p. 74 TOP: Pascal's Ultimate Gamble, Hájek | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Remembering 6. What is the expected utility of a coin flipping game where, when you flip a fair coin, you get $2 if it lands on heads, and you pay $4 if it lands on tails? a. +$1 b. -$1 c. +$2 d. -$2 ANS: B DIF: Difficult REF: p. 75-76 TOP: Pascal's Ultimate Gamble, Hájek | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Applying 7. Hájek thinks that the most significant objection to Pascal's Wager is that it a. establishes too much. b. establishes that you should not believe in God. c. establishes that there are many Gods. d. establishes that the probability of God existing is zero. ANS: A DIF: Medium REF: p. 82-83 TOP: Pascal's Ultimate Gamble, Hájek | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 8. According to Clifford, the shipowner who correctly believes his ship is sound on the basis of insufficient evidence is _____ the shipowner who believes his ship is sound on the basis of insufficient evidence causing people to lose their lives. a. not as bad as b. luckier than c. just as morally blameworthy as d. just as rational as ANS: C DIF: Medium REF: p. 86 TOP: The Ethics of Belief, Clifford | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 9. When does Clifford think it is lawful to stifle doubt? a. Most of the time b. Never c. Always d. On rare occasions ANS: B DIF: Medium REF: p. 89 TOP: The Ethics of Belief, Clifford | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Remembering 10. One way to challenge Clifford's view about it being always wrong to believe without sufficient evidence is to argue that a. sometimes sufficient evidence does not exist. b. it can be very difficult to gather sufficient evidence. c. sometimes we must believe one way or the other without having sufficient evidence. d. sometimes we might think that we have sufficient evidence when we do not. ANS: C DIF: Difficult REF: pp. 88-90 TOP: The Ethics of Belief, Clifford | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Analyzing 11. According to James, a hypothesis is _____ when it is forced, living, and momentous. a. an important one b. a genuine option c. a plausible option d. an insignificant one ANS: B DIF: Easy REF: p. 98 TOP: The Will to Believe, James | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Remembering 12. According to James, a hypothesis that is 50 percent likely to be true is a. live. b. dead. c. insignificant. d. momentous. ANS: A DIF: Medium REF: p. 98 TOP: The Will to Believe, James | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 13. James thinks that Clifford a. makes the mistake of being irrational. b. makes the mistake of treating the twin goals of knowers equally. c. makes the mistake of treating our goal of avoiding error as more important than the goal of knowing the truth. d. makes the mistake of treating our goal of knowing the truth as more important than the goal of avoiding error. ANS: C DIF: Medium REF: pp. 101-102 TOP: The Will to Believe, James | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 14. In order to show that James is mistaken, one would need to provide good reasons for thinking that a. in most cases we should believe only according to our evidence. b. in no cases we should believe only according to our evidence. c. in all cases we should believe against our evidence. d. in all cases we should believe according to our evidence. ANS: D DIF: Medium REF: p. 103-105 TOP: The Will to Believe, James | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Analyzing 15. According to Plantinga, your belief that you have a headache (when you do) is a. based on evidence. b. irrational. c. basic. d. groundless. ANS: C DIF: Easy REF: p. 107 TOP: Is Belief in God Properly Basic? Plantinga | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 16. What does Plantinga think the evidentialist objection to theistic belief presupposes? a. The truth of classical deontology b. The truth of classical foundationalism c. The truth of classical coherentism d. The truth of classical infinitism ANS: B DIF: Medium REF: p. 107 TOP: Is Belief in God Properly Basic? Plantinga | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Remembering 17. One objection to the claim that belief in God is properly basic that Plantinga addresses is that a. belief in God cannot be basic. b. no beliefs are properly basic. c. properly basic beliefs are groundless. d. we could make the same claim about bizarre beliefs. ANS: D DIF: Medium REF: p. 112 TOP: Is Belief in God Properly Basic? Plantinga | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 18. Plantinga's response to the Great Pumpkin objection assumes that a. classical foundationalism is true. b. god exists. c. there are good arguments for God's existence. d. irrational beliefs can be properly basic. ANS: B DIF: Difficult REF: pp. 113-114 TOP: Is Belief in God Properly Basic? Plantinga | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Analyzing 19. Buchak claims that believing without any evidence is a. a clear example of faith. b. not an example of faith. c. sometimes an example of faith. d. often an example of faith. ANS: B DIF: Medium REF: p. 117 TOP: When Is Faith Rational, Buchak | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 20. One way to challenge Buchak's position is to argue that a. we should always act based on what we have faith in. b. we should always act based on the actual utilities of our current situation. c. we should always act based on the expected utilities of our current situation. d. we should always act based on what we think is morally right in our current situation. ANS: C DIF: Difficult REF: pp. 118-119 TOP: When Is Faith Rational, Buchak | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Analyzing COMPLETION 1. Buchak claims that faith requires that you have a _____ toward the claim in question. ANS: positive attitude DIF: Medium REF: p. 116 TOP: When Is Faith Rational, Buchak | Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Remembering ESSAY 1. Would the sort of “properly basic” beliefs that Alvin Plantinga appeals to in his essay meet the requirements for epistemic rationality proposed by Lara Buchak? ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should/might include a discussion of the two requirements for epistemic rationality (i.e., coherence and fit with the evidence) proposed by Buchak. A valid response should/might also include discussion of Plantinga's view of properly basic beliefs, particularly his claim that they do not have to be based on any evidence. DIF: Medium REF: pp. 107-128 TOP: Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 2. How might Pascal (or someone who likes his view) best respond to the "many Gods" objection that Hájek discusses? ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should/might include discussion of the many Gods objection. Additionally, a valid response should/might include discussion of how the potential for an infinite payoff that comes from believing in God may make it so that it is rational to believe in some God or other, rather than withholding belief. DIF: Medium REF: pp. 74-84 TOP: Pascal's Ultimate Gamble, Hájek MSC: Analyzing 3. Why does Clifford think that it is always wrong to believe contrary to one's evidence? How does James attempt to refute Clifford's argument? ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should/might include discussion of Clifford's claims that our beliefs are necessarily connected with our actions. Additionally, a valid response should/might include discussion of Clifford's arguments that our beliefs (no matter how seemingly insignificant) have an effect on us and on society as a whole. Also, a valid response should/might include discussion of James's points that some decisions are forced (we have to choose); in such cases it may be rational to believe even without sufficiently strong evidence. DIF: Difficult REF: pp. 85-105 TOP: Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Analyzing 4. Hájek suggests that Pascal's argument faces a problem because any action we may undertake seems to have infinite expected utility. However, he goes on to suggest that everyone may face this problem. Why does he say this? How is it that this problem could be a problem for everyone, not just those who accept Pascal's Wager? ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should/might include discussion of how Hájek appeals to the problem of infinite expected utility to pose a problem for Pascal's Wager. A valid response should/might also include discussion of the fact that as long as the claims Pascal relies on in his argument do not have a probability of zero, any action we perform seems to have infinite expected utility. Finally, a valid response should/might include discussion of Hájek's point that it does not seem that we can reasonably assign a probability of zero to the claims of Pascal's argument. DIF: Medium REF: pp. 74-84 TOP: Pascal's Ultimate Gamble, Hájek MSC: Understanding 5. Are there important differences in how Pascal and Hájek each set up Pascal's Wager? How might these differences affect the plausibility of the argument? ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should/might include discussion of how each of these authors sets up the Wager’s argument. An important detail that a valid response should/might pick up on is the difference between how the two authors understand the outcome of believing in God in the case where God does not exist. Finally, a valid response should/might include discussion of how this difference can significantly affect what is being risked by believing that God exists. DIF: Difficult REF: pp. 68-84 TOP: Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Analyzing Chapter 3 What is Knowledge? TRUE/FALSE 1. Plato thinks that virtue (i.e., being good) can be taught. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Medium REF: p. 140 TOP: Meno, Plato | Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Understanding 2. According to Gettier, justified true belief is not necessary for knowledge. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Medium REF: pp. 143-145 TOP: Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Gettier | Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Understanding 3. Williamson thinks that attempts to solve the Gettier problem have gone fairly well. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Medium REF: p. 150 TOP: Knowledge and Belief, Williamson | Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Understanding 4. According to Williamson, justified true belief theory is false. a. True b. False ANS: T DIF: Medium REF: pp. 150-151 TOP: Knowledge and Belief, Williamson | Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Understanding MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. Socrates says that people who are good _____ do good. a. always b. sometimes c. most of the time d. slightly more often than not ANS: A DIF: Medium REF: p. 138 TOP: Meno, Plato | Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Remembering 2. According to Plato, when it comes to being a good guide, the person with true belief is a. not as good as the person who has knowledge. b. almost as good as the person who has knowledge. c. just as good as the person who has knowledge. d. better than the person who has knowledge. ANS: C DIF: Medium REF: pp. 138-139 TOP: Meno, Plato | Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Understanding 3. A possible way to object to Plato's argument for thinking that virtue is not a kind of wisdom is to argue that a. the fact that something is a kind of wisdom means that it is teachable. b. the fact that something is teachable means that it is a kind of wisdom. c. the fact that something is not taught does not mean that it is not teachable. d. the fact that something is taught means that it is teachable. ANS: C DIF: Difficult REF: p. 140 TOP: Meno, Plato | Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Evaluating 4. According to Plato, knowledge requires true belief and a. faith that the belief is true. b. conviction that the belief is true. c. determination to act as though the belief is true. d. an account of why the belief is true. ANS: D DIF: Medium REF: p. 139 TOP: Meno, Plato | Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Understanding 5. If Gettier were arguing that justified true belief is not necessary for knowledge, what would he have to show? a. There can be an instance of justified true belief that is not knowledge. b. There can be an instance of knowledge that is not justified true belief. c. There cannot be any instances of justified true belief that are knowledge. d. There cannot be any instances of knowledge that are justified true belief. ANS: B DIF: Medium REF: p. 144 TOP: Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Gettier | Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Understanding 6. One way to try to resist Gettier's conclusions about justified true belief and knowledge is to deny a. that justified true belief is knowledge. b. that one can be justified in believing a false proposition. c. that one can be justified in believing propositions about the future. d. that justified true belief is sufficient for knowledge. ANS: B DIF: Medium REF: p. 144 TOP: Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Gettier | Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Analyzing 7. Gettier claims that his examples also show that whose account of the conditions for knowledge fails? a. Bertrand Russell's b. Alvin Plantinga's c. Roderick Chisholm's d. Timothy Williamson's ANS: C DIF: Medium REF: p.143 TOP: Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Gettier | Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Remembering 8. According to Williamson, there cannot be a. true belief. b. false wisdom. c. false knowledge. d. true understanding. ANS: C DIF: Medium REF: p.149 TOP: Knowledge and Belief, Williamson | Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Remembering 9. Williamson thinks that when it comes to epistemology, we should take what as our starting point for explanations? a. Belief b. Wisdom c. Knowledge d. Understanding ANS: C DIF: Medium REF: pp. 153-154 TOP: Knowledge and Belief, Williamson | Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Understanding 10. One might challenge Williamson’s knowledge-first approach by questioning whether a. knowledge will always make one more persistent than true belief. b. belief is really entailed by knowledge. c. our mental states have content. d. there can actually be cases of false knowledge. ANS: A DIF: Difficult REF: p. 153 TOP: Knowledge and Belief, Williamson | Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Analyzing COMPLETION 1. Gettier argues that justified true belief is not ______ for knowledge. ANS: sufficient DIF: Medium REF: p. 144 TOP: Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Gettier| Chapter 3: What is Knowledge? MSC: Understanding ESSAY 1. How does Plato argue that virtue is not teachable? ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should include a discussion of Plato’s argument for the claim that virtue is not teachable. In particular, a valid response should include discussion of his claims that in order for something to be teachable, someone must be teaching it—and no one is teaching virtue. DIF: Easy REF: pp. 137-138, 140 TOP: Meno, Plato MSC: Understanding 2. Describe your own version of an example that shows what Gettier’s example does. ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should/might include discussion of an example with this key feature: there is someone with a justified true belief who lacks knowledge. A valid response should include discussion of how it is that the person’s belief fails to be knowledge and yet is still justified. DIF: Medium REF: pp. 143-145 TOP: Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Gettier MSC: Applying 3. What does Plato claim is required for a true belief to be “shackled”? Do Gettier’s examples pose a problem for the resulting account? ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should include discussion of Plato’s claim that shackling true beliefs requires “figuring out what makes them true.” Additionally, a valid response should discuss how Gettier’s examples pose a problem for justified true belief accounts of knowledge. Finally, a valid response might include reasons for either thinking that Plato’s “figuring out” is a justified true belief account, or thinking that Plato’s account is not such an account. DIF: Difficult REF: pp. 137-145 TOP: Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Analyzing 4. How does Williamson argue that blameless belief is not knowledge? In what ways is his argument similar to Gettier’s? ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should include discussion of Williamson’s case involving Barry and his belief about the capital of California. Additionally, a valid response should include discussion of the key components of Gettier’s cases. Finally, a valid response should include a comparison of these cases, paying attention to whether Williamson’s case is relevantly similar to Gettier’s. DIF: Difficult REF: pp. 143-154 TOP: Chapter 2: Is It Reasonable to Believe Without Evidence? MSC: Understanding 5. How does Williamson argue that mental content is not simply internal? ANS: Answers will vary. A valid response should include discussion of Williamson’s pilot example. In particular a valid response should discuss Williamson’s claim that the beliefs of the two pilots seem to be in large part dependent upon the planet that they happen to inhabit, instead of just the features of their internal psychology. DIF: Medium REF: pp. 149-154 TOP: Knowledge and Belief, Williamson MSC: Understanding Chapter 4 How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? TRUE/FALSE 1. Strawson thinks that induction can be justified. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Medium REF: p. 181-182 TOP: The "Justification" of Induction, Strawson | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Understanding 2. The problem with “grue” is that it would mean that emeralds change color. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Difficult REF: p.194 TOP: The New Riddle of Induction, Goodman | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Understanding 3. According to Harman, all inferences to the best explanation are valid. a. True b. False ANS: F DIF: Medium REF: pp. 201-203 TOP: The Inference to the Best Explanation, Harman | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Analyzing MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. According to Hume, all reasonings concerning matters of fact depend upon what relation? a. The relation of part to whole b. The relation of past to present c. The relation of present to future d. The relation of cause and effect ANS: D DIF: Easy REF: p. 167 TOP: Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding, Hume | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Remembering 2. Hume's challenge against our inductive (experience-based) inferences rests on what assumption? a. The future will be like the past. b. The future will not be like the past. c. There are only two ways to defend a claim via reasoning. d. There is no such thing as causation. ANS: C DIF: Difficult REF: p. 171-172 TOP: Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding, Hume | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Evaluating 3. If you were to observe that a particular kind of event X is always preceded by a particular kind of event Y, what would Hume say you can reasonably infer? a. Y events cause X events. b. X events are correlated with Y events. c. The next Y event will be followed by an X event. d. You cannot reasonably infer anything. ANS: D DIF: Medium REF: p. 172-174 TOP: Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding, Hume | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Applying 4. According to Hume, the problem we face when trying to justify our reliance on the assumption that the future will be like the past is that a. any demonstrative argument for this will be circular. b. any moral argument for this will be circular. c. any demonstrative argument for this will be too complex. d. any moral argument for this will be too complex. ANS: B DIF: Medium REF: p.172 TOP: Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding, Hume | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Understanding 5. Strawson claims that we are justified in thinking that a method of reasoning is successful when a. it includes repeated trials. b. it has deductive support. c. it has inductive support. d. there is proof that it works. ANS: C DIF: Medium REF: pp. 182-183 TOP: The "Justification" of Induction, Strawson | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Understanding 6. What would Strawson say about the person who is skeptical of whether we can be reasonable in accepting the conclusions of inductive arguments? a. The person does not understand what it means to be reasonable. b. The person needs to have a strong argument to support this skepticism. c. The person is committed to questioning deductive arguments, too. d. The person must rely on induction to do this questioning. ANS: A DIF: Difficult REF: p. 182 TOP: The "Justification" of Induction, Strawson | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Applying 7. Why does Strawson think that appealing to probability cannot justify induction? a. It is too complicated. b. It is too simple. c. We lack information about the population in question. d. We do not have a sufficiently large sample. ANS: C DIF: Difficult REF: pp. 180-181 TOP: The "Justification" of Induction, Strawson | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Understanding 8. Goodman claims that the justification of deductive inferences is a. Unsatisfactory. b. Circular. c. Infallible. d. Impossible. ANS: B DIF: Medium REF: pp. 189-190 TOP: The New Riddle of Induction, Goodman | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Remembering 9. What is paradoxical about the paradox of the ravens? a. It seems that things that are not ravens can provide evidence about the color of ravens. b. It seems that ravens can provide evidence about the color of things that are not ravens. c. It seems that ravens will be one color before a certain time and a different color after. d. It seems that we have no reason to prefer thinking that all ravens are black rather than all ravens are “bleen.” ANS: A DIF: Medium REF: p. 192 TOP: The New Riddle of Induction, Goodman | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Evaluating 10. According to Goodman, if we accept that confirmation embraces the converse relation, then a. we end up with the new riddle of induction. b. we end up claiming that nothing confirms anything. c. we end up claiming that everything confirms everything. d. we end up claiming that only familiar predicates confirm things. ANS: C DIF: Difficult REF: p. 191 TOP: The New Riddle of Induction, Goodman | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Understanding 11. One thing that makes the new riddle of induction so challenging is that it seems that predicates like "green" and "grue" a. mean the same thing. b. are equally simple. c. can be used in lawlike statements. d. fail to be projectable. ANS: C DIF: Difficult REF: p. 193-196 TOP: The New Riddle of Induction, Goodman | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Analyzing 12. Harman claims that inference to the best explanation involves inferring that a particular claim is true because a. it is the only explanation of the relevant evidence. b. it is a good explanation of the relevant evidence. c. it is better than all other explanations of the relevant evidence. d. it follows deductively from the relevant evidence. ANS: C DIF: Easy REF: p. 202 TOP: The Inference to the Best Explanation, Harman | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Understanding 13. How would Harman argue that the following instance of enumerative induction is an instance of inference to the best explanation: all observed emeralds have been green, so the next observed emerald will be green? a. The best explanation of our observation of green emeralds is that there is something about emeralds that causes them to be green. b. The best explanation of our observation of green emeralds is that we have been looking for green emeralds specifically. c. The best explanation of our observation of green emeralds is that we do not call emeralds that are not green "emeralds." d. The best explanation of our observation of green emeralds is that we have only looked for emeralds in specific places. ANS: A DIF: Medium REF: pp. 203-204 TOP: The Inference to the Best Explanation, Harman | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Applying 14. Which of the following would pose a problem for Harman's argument? a. An instance of warranted inference to the best explanation that could be explained as enumerative induction b. An instance of warranted enumerative induction that could not be explained as inference to the best explanation c. An instance of warranted inference to the best explanation that yields a false conclusion d. An instance of warranted enumerative induction that yields a false conclusion ANS: B DIF: Difficult REF: p. 205-207 TOP: The Inference to the Best Explanation, Harman | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Evaluating COMPLETION 1. Hume thinks that all inferences from experience assume _____. ANS: the future will be conformable to the past DIF: Difficult REF: p. 171 TOP: Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding, Hume | Chapter 4: How Can We Know About What We Have Not Observed? MSC: Understanding 2. Strawson suggests that one might try to take the phrase “____” to be the supreme premise of inductions.