philosophy help

[skybytch 273]

My first test in Intro Philosophy is tomorrow. The instructor is cool; he gave us a list of the possible test questions and told us that he'll pick three from the list, one of which will be question #12. I'm ready for the test... sort of. I'm good on everything but question #12.

Here's the question and my answer. I'm totally not sure I'm going at this the right way. So all you edumacated people - break out your thinking caps and tell me why I'm wrong!

The question -

Suppose that someone paints a gold coin with gold colored pain made out of a nongold substance. The person shows me the coin and because it looks good, exactly like other gold coins I have seen, I believer that the coin is gold. In fact the coin is gold so my belief is true. I am also justified in believing that the coin is gold because it looks gold, having been painted that color, and because I have no reason to believe that any kind of hoax has been perpetrated. All told, I have a justified true belief that the coin is gold. But do I know that the coin is gold? Explain your answer in detail.

My answer -

No, you do not know that the coin is gold.

According to the standard account of propositional knowledge, you must have a justified true belief in something to know it. But as is shown by the Gettier job seeker's example, there are cases where you have a justified true belief and yet you cannot be said to know.

In this case, your justification for believing that the coin is gold can be defeated by the fact that the coin is not completely gold - it is covered by a non-gold substance. While it may look like gold, it is not. Without doing further investigation - ie scratching the coin, having it tested by a chemist, etc - you cannot know that it is gold.

.

[Icon134 0]

I don't care what Schrodinger postulated...

The cat is in fact dead... but only because I killed it.

Sorry (I really wish I could help but wasn't aware there was a "standard account of propositional knowledge" so... I really can't...)

Good luck on you're test tomorrow... btw: you're answer seems logical enough to me.

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

[ACMESkydiver 0]

You can't know that it is gold without the person with definitive knowledge of the coin's true composition telling you or you doing your own verification.

That's what I'd guess! But you used some *really* big words in your post and I have never taken philosophy.

~Jaye
Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

But you used some *really* big words in your post

Wull, yeah. I gotta use big words, specially ones that I don't know what they mean.

Cuz if I don't use big words, then how will anyone know I'm gettin all edumacated n shit?

[JohnMitchell 16]

I agree with your negative. How can you know the coin exists at all, or even the other person? Don't put Descartes before the horse. (Sorry, bad pun.)

In Science, the child of Philosophy, nothing can be known for certain, just differing degrees of likelihood, from nil to 99.99999%, but never for certain.

[Lindercles 0]

Can we ever really know anything? I mean, isn't knowledge just an abstract concept derived from perception, which is based solely on our five senses, none of which can definitively proven to be substantive?

But what I do know, I'm Pavlov's Pothead. Whenever I hear a bong clink my eyes begin to water.

[bob.dino 1]

Nope. You don't know anything. Everything you experience is mediated through your senses, and since they can be fooled, you don't know anything with absolute certainty.

JohnMitchell's answer also makes lots of sense.


edit: Bugger. Lindercles uses bigger words than I do .

[kbordson 8]

Quote

The cat is in fact dead... but only because I killed it.

No... the cat is alive. And the coin IS gold. Perception is reality.

But then again, I am idealistic and optimistic.

Awareness of an object is through use of the senses. Since things might not always turn out actually to be as they seem to us, there is some reason to wonder about the reliability of sense perception.

In philosophy, idealism is any epistemological theory that proposes a difference between what is inside and outside of the mind. The ideal, in these systems, is the realm of mental ideas, words, or images. The several varieties of idealism affirm the actual existence of such a realm; and often give this realm absolute, or at least perceptual or logical, priority over any reality outside the mind. It is usually juxtaposed with realism in which the real is said to exist prior to and independently of our knowledge.

But then again, others are "glass is half empty" and still others are "who pissed in my Mt. Dew to make it half empty!?"

I would pick how you stand personally on this issue and argue that cause.

Karen

[happythoughts 0]

Philosophy questions generally follow the "100% rule". The goal is to get you to think about your position by having to defend it.

The unfortunate problem is that life is not black and white, people live in the grey area in between. That is why philosophy class is usually exasperating for adults.

If I looked at a coin and it was gold, it would be a gold coin. If they require definitive proof, you have to take it to a professional metallurgist and have them melt it and test it.

If it's gold on the outside, it's gold until proven otherwise. If someone challenges that assertion, then they must provide the information and you will consider it.

I also hated the "You are in a prison camp with only food for 3 people..." questions. I don't live in a lifeboat, a prison camp, or a deserted isle.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Nope. You don't know anything. Everything you experience is mediated through your senses, and since they can be fooled, you don't know anything with absolute certainty.

Skeptic!

The view that knowledge depends on epistemic certainty - ie the assertion that to know there must be no possible way that you could be wrong in your belief - is too strict. Under this view the only things you can say you know are facts like 2+2=4 and "I exist."

We're not operating under that view. We're operating under the explanationist theory, which states that knowledge is a justified true belief in which the justification for believing is "truth resistant" - at the end of the day there are no true statements that defeat your justification for believing.

Gawd I love college.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

at the end of the day there are no true statements that defeat your justification for believing.

Ok. "The coin is gold until you can prove me wrong. I'll be at the pub with some beer and a sandwich if you need me."

[Zenister 0]

philosophically, 2+2 is not a fact..

but i think that is covered in philo 202

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.