Mark Cruz
February 19, 2002
3A

1. What does it mean to say that knowledge is justified true belief? What are the reasons for characterizing knowledge that way?
	Knowledge is justified true belief  because one can only know what is true. If one thinks claims to know something that is not true, then it never really was knowledge in the first place; therefore, he or she never knew it. Only true beliefs can count as knowledge. Knowledge is characterized this way to establish the fact that knowledge cannot be false.
2. What is the difference between psychological certainty and epistemic certainty? Does your degree of psychological certainty always match the degree of epistemic certainty of what you believe? Can you think of cases in which it doesn’t?
	The degree of psychological certainty is a measure of how confident the believer is, of how much the believer is willing to risk or bet on the basis of the belief. Epistemic certainty is a matter of how probable a statement is, given the evidence.  The degrees of different types of certainty do not always match. For example a student who has just learned that the square root of 25 is 5 may not be very certain of the validity of the fact, even though the fact is epistemically certain.
3. What of the following statements would Malcolm say you know in the weak sense? The strong sense? Do you agree with Malcolm in all of these cases? Why or why not?
	A. All men are mortal	 strong
	B. Whales are mammals  weak	
	C. Water is wet strong
	D. You are now reading a book. strong
	E. No bachelor is married. strong
	F. Paris is the Capital of France weak
	G. Pain hurts strong
	H. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence weak
	I agree with what Malcolm says in all of these cases, because one only knows historical and scientific facts because of books or teachers. It is not entirely impossible that the books and teachers are all liars. Statements dealing with my personal senses, such as pain hurts, have stronger evidence supporting them.
4. What is skepticism? What arguments did we consider in support of skepticism? How persuasive do you find them? Why?
	The argument that we know little or nothing for certain, because we are rarely, if ever, justified in believing that nothing can turn up to prove us wrong. Arguments that support skepticism include the fact that our sense often deceive us, therefore one can never totally depend on them and the information we gather through them. Also, many skeptics argue that any belief we now have may be overturned by the advance of science. It was once thought that two parallel lines would never meet; however, Einstein asserted that in actuality, they could meet. I find these arguments persuasive because I believe that one can never really know anything, he or she simply believes they know something. Whether these beliefs correspond to the actual ultimate truth will never be known.

5. According to Malcolm, we can know things for certain even though it is not absolutely impossible that we are wrong. Why does he say that? Do you agree? Why or why not?
	Malcolm asserts that to require absolute certainty for beliefs to become knowledge "is to severely distort our ordinary conceptions of knowledge and certainty". He uses the example of one knowing whether a drawer is empty. After close examination, one will reach a point where he or she is certain enough that the drawer is in fact empty. He makes this assertion because finding some odd method to disprove the fact that the drawer is empty (like the mad scientist theory) misses the point completely. One can never be absolutely possible that he or she is mistaken (there will always be some minute chance or obscure scenario); thus, in life we must accept a high level of certainty for what we count as certain knowledge. I agree with this because of the scenario that was given where an individual wanted to borrow a book from a friend. When the flustered individual goes over his friend’s apartment after asking him multiple times if the book was there, the friend replies he never really knew if the book was there, because senses often deceive. Living in this world, we must accept certain things as knowledge (even if you don’t ever really know that it is knowledge at all) for practical purposes.
6. What is the correspondence theory of truth? Why does it appeal to many philosophers? What problems have other philosophers found with it?
	The correspondence theory states that a statement is true of it fits, agrees with, or corresponds to the facts. It is appealing to philosophers because it is the most intuitive of the three theories and it comes closest to capturing our common-sense conception of the truth; however, the theory does have its problems. There is an inherent difficulty one faces in discerning what exactly a fact is, as well as in discerning how many facts we are presented with in any given situation. the existence or non existence of negative facts also poses a problem.
7. What is the coherence theory of truth? The pragmatist theory? How are they similar? How does the pragmatist theory avoid the major objection to the coherence theory?
	Coherence theory of truth: statements are made true by other statements
	Pragmatist theory: the purpose of our beliefs is to predict future experience. If our beliefs lead us to unwelcome surprises, they are rejected. If they prevent unwelcome surprises, they are kept. It avoids the major objection to the coherence theory because it argues that there can only be one system, not two systems which are incompatible.