Emmitt Adair
Theories of Knowledge 202
Tues, Thurs. 2:30
Notes for 4-18-2002


Causation:
1. Priority in time.
2. Contiguity.
3. Necessary connection.
Hume- Belief in necessary connection comes from psychological conditioning: ex. Pavlov’s’ Dogs. Bell Rings+Meat Appears=Salivation, Bell Rings+Meat Appears=salivation, ect, ect, Bell Rings=Salivation.
-Something is necessary when we cannot imagine it being false. 2+2=4, A triangle has three sides.
We can imagine a cause without it’s usual effect; ex. Jumping out of a window in a tall building would usually result in falling and dying, but we can imagine flying like superman instead.
We can imagine a cause without it’s usual effect.
The effect isn’t a necessary result from it’s cause.

Problem of Induction:
Inductive Reasoning- Gather evidence and come to a probable conclusion. (Vs. Deduction, where the conclusion follows 100% from premises.)
God is a perfect being. } This is an
Existence is a perfection. } All or Nothing Argument.
God exists. } Deductive.

Every swan I have seen so far is white. {Induction.
All swans are white. (F)

Any less than 100% certainty is more guesswork.
Criticism: Living life requires induction- even if you do not believe in an external world- need to avoid pain.
CONTEMPORARY
Dretske- Relevant Alternatives Argument against skepticism.
Zebra Example:
Even though we cannot prove (do not want or need to prove) they are not cleverly disguised mules, we are entitled to believe they are zebras. As long as other alternatives are not plausible, you are justified in your belief.
Contemporary approach- go from common sense examples to conclusions about the nature of knowledge.
The burden of proof, according to Dretske, is on the skeptic to show particular reason to doubt particular common sense beliefs.
Common Sense: Innocent until proven guilty.
How do you define a relevant or plausible alternative?
-Majority belief?
-Should everyone count equally?
-All cultures, all individuals?
-Ability to create results and make true predictions?