Posted: February 28th, 2023

Crisis Of Belief study questions

Crisis of Belief x is instructions

Only use Source 1 & 2.Pdf for source

Student 1- x is an example

Study Questions 1 1

Study Questions 1 2

It is important in an argument to learn to evaluate whether it is correct, incorrect. It is also important to distinguish sound arguments from unsound ones, this is a fundamental step if we want to get to the final truth.

An argument is “a chain of reasoning designed to prove something,” (Rachels, Some Basic Points About Arguments, page 20) a premise is the supporting statement, while the supported statement is called a conclusion, together with the claim that the conclusion follows from the premises. Another important information that Rachels explains to us in her article is “an argument is valid only if its conclusion derives from its premises” (Rachels, Some Basic Points About Arguments, page 21), an argument to be sound needs two things: “the argument must be valid and its premises must be true” (Rachels, Some Basic Points About Arguments, page 21). An argument can also be unsound “when the premises are not all true” (Rachels, Some Basic Points About Arguments, page 21), and an argument is not valid when we have a bad argument and “the conclusion does not follow from the premises” (Rachels, Some Basic Points About Arguments, page 22). Finally, an argument is soundness when the argument is valid and all the premises are true.

Let’s take some examples:

Premise 1: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad.

Premise 2: If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.

Premise 3: It is easily within our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.

Conclusion: Therefore, we should do everything in our power to prevent others from dying from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.

I agree with this argument, by reading all the premises I can confirm that this argument is valid, because by reading the premises we see truthful statements on the subject, and by reading the premises we see how they provide us with the evidence to support our conclusion, so the conclusion derives from the premise, in fact it supports the affirmations we read in the premise; I also think that it is sound because we show that the argument is valid and its premises must be true. As we can see, the first premise is true because it confirms the truth that happens to us today. Reading premise two you might have some doubts about it because it is more of a prerequisite for moral judgment and trying to persuade someone to accept the evidence, therefore to me is a true premise. With the third premise it is difficult to understand if it is true or false because there is no evidence to support it, even here I believe that this premise is trying to persuade someone but without trying to prove it.

Premise 1: If God exists, our lives have meaning.

Premise 2: God exists.

Conclusion: Therefore, our lives have meaning.

This type of argument reminds me of the provability argument described in Rchels’ article, because it is a more general form of argumentation, in fact here we try to prove our point of view correctly. It’s a conditional argument, though using a different kind of reasoning with a conditional.

Analyzing the conclusion, it seems that it derives from its premises therefore the argument is valid, although the premises seem to be all true we do not have concrete facts to support them and they cannot be demonstrated, so as proof we can support our ethical judgments and think that the balance evidence with good reason supports a controversial premise such as 2. So, in my opinion this argument is valid because the conclusion derives from its premises and its premises are true.

Premise 1: Either scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy, or non-scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy.

Premise 2: Scientists do not have the necessary skills to determine federal government COVID policy.

Conclusion: Therefore, non-scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy.

I agree on this topic, for me the argument is valid because the conclusion derives from the premises, we could say that the argument is also soundness because all the premises are true, despite the fact that the reasoning of the argument in premise 1 is flawed, because in premise 1 there is a choice that is not inclusive, i.e. we have more than two options at our disposal. Comment by Maria Francesca Falanga: So this argument can be soundness despite the reasoning in premise 1 not inclusive?
Or is this argument unsound because one of the premises is wrong?

Peer Disagreement is: “Occurs when individuals who have all the facts, know everything there is, have the same ability, training, and virtues, and are interested in the truth” (Disagreement_IDS205_22, slide 18).

“Philosophers try to understand the epistemic significance of disagreement initially by examining
idealized cases of “peer disagreement.” People are “epistemic peers” about some matter when they are equally likely to be correct about that matter: they are roughly equal in terms of information, intelligence, and intellectual virtues, the factors that make them likely to have true beliefs.” (Jonathan Matheson, The Epistemology of Disagreement,14 May 2018).

An example of peer disagreement could be “when everyone is a mathematician, is interested in the truth and has good reasons to think they are right” (Disagreement_IDS205_22, slide 19). Another example could be the following: You and I are in the same room. We each have what we reasonably believe are equally reliable thermometers. We see that my thermometer reads ‘72’ and yours reads ‘74’. What should we believe about the room’s temperature? To believe that the temperature is 72, simply because that is what my thermometer reads, would be arbitrarily biased. To disbelieve that it is 72, since your thermometer ‘disagrees’, would be to be overly deferential. The rational response, it seems, is to suspend judgment as to whether it is 72 and for whether it is 74: we should have no belief about the exact temperature (Jonathan Matheson, The Epistemology of Disagreement, May 14, 2018).

The three main approaches to peer disagreement are:

–
Concession: is the approach that allows you to apply an equal weight view, so that you and your peers have the same equally reasonable belief, so that both peers meet in the middle. As this is a rational disagreement, the conclusion is that we should spend the judgment.

Example: “So, if one peer believed that God exists and the other peer disbelieved that God exists, the Equal Weight view requires that both peers should now suspend judgment as to whether God exists: any other response would be irrational” (Jonathan Matheson, The Epistemology of Disagreement, May 14, 2018).

–
Conciliation: makes intuitive sense when peers disagree (higher order evidence). It seems sensible when you take into account interpretation, background information, assessment of evidence, style of reasoning. The conciliation states that if a peer disagrees with you on the statement, you should change your belief in some way or decrease your confidence in your beliefs, if not give up your beliefs altogether. Example: “Five people go out to dinner. We all agree to split the check evenly, not worrying about who ordered what. Eve does the math in her head and becomes highly confident that the shares are $ 43 each. Meanwhile, her peer di lei Ava does the math in her head and becomes highly confident that everyone’s share is $ 45 each.

Intuitively, Eve should give up her belief that the shares are $ 43 upon learning that Ava disagrees. Again, given the disagreement, she should have no particular belief about each share of the bill, and neither should anyone else at the table” (Jonathan Matheson, The Epistemology of Disagreement, May 14, 2018).

– Steadfastness: This approach tells us that if a disagreement occurs we don’t have to change our trust or belief. Especially if we have evidence to support our thinking. We should continue to believe in ourselves, and above all it is important to have faith in ourselves.

Example: if I go shopping and I have to pay $ 30 and I pay with the $ 50 banknote, the cashier gives me the change of $ 10, I don’t have to lose faith in myself and think that I have miscalculated, but rather I have to continue to support my belief and my thinking, especially because I also have evidence to support my thinking.

The approach that seems most correct to me is that of Steadfastness, I believe it is the most correct because when we have a disagreement between equals, we must never abandon our idea or change what you believe in, or apply an equal weight, on a disagree, but you have to be stable on your ideas, think about the material you have, share the evidence you have to support your thinking. We must not be crushed by others, but assert ourselves and our opinions with supporting evidence.

Vallier’s approach to US politics is as follows: “low social and political trust leads to war-like politics. But high trust is generally infeasible in societies with diverse perspectives on moral matters “(Kevin, Must Politics Be War? In 500 words, October 4, 2019).

It highlights how the approach to peer politics leads to disagreement as peers do not have all the facts, unable to understand different topics and interests. Precisely for this reason it is difficult for these people to find trust in each other. So when there are evaluative disagreements between peers, we tend to see our peers rejecting our opinions. When there is disagreement between peers, we should rely on the hands of experts, especially in this political sphere. According to Vallier’s thinking we should be more open-minded, not trying to eliminate our opponents, and trying to overcome distrust with socially reliable behavior.

Vallier believes that political disagreement will no longer be a threat to society only when peers respect social norms and that both peers can see each other with reason and the others have reasons of their own. Neutral policies help to have a more open society, where social norms to which we are all subject can be justified for each member of the public, where legal norms are justified for every person, reliable social behavior can be sustained attitudes of trust even in the face of disagreements between equals, only in this way political disagreement cannot be a threat to society.

I think Vallier’s solution works is a very good idea, because he is trying to change the rules so that reliability is upheld as the main political point. By making each person’s behavior feel right and trustworthy, so that you have a peer-disagreement because the peers will all be on the same level and all know the same facts. With a peer having the same knowledge, plus a US politician that makes her peer confident, I think it’s the perfect combo. But opening our eyes to reality we would not have a peer disagreement, because there will always be individuals with different knowledge and skills in the political field, we will never be able to get the same opinion to the whole world there will always be someone who will have a point of different view.

References

1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. (2022, January 30).
The Epistemology of Disagreement. https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/05/14/the-epistemology-of-disagreement/

K. (2019, October 4).
Must Politics Be War? in 500 words. © 2022. All Rights Reserved. https://www.kevinvallier.com/reconciled/must-politics-be-war-redux-500-words/

Poenicke, P. A. (2022).
Disagreement_IDS205_22. Villa Maria College. https://villa.brightspace.com/d2l/le/content/19006/viewContent/124977/View

Rachels, J. (2004).
Some Basic Points About Arguments. Villa Maria College. https://villa.brightspace.com/d2l/le/content/19006/viewContent/122570/View

Crisis of Belief
2.14.2023

Study question 1 is due 2.23 @ 23:59.

Study questions require: (1) A length of at least 750 words, excluding the prompts; (2) Three citations of assigned or suggested materials via parenthetical citations; (3) A reference page (“Works Cited” page) providing information about works cited. APA format must be used for citations and references; (4) No citations of, or references to, outside sources and Power Points (
for this assignment, you can cite PowerPoints on Part A); (5) A brief, one-page outline of your answers. The outline should be submitted before the study questions answers.

***

A. (35 points) The following three arguments will be considered in the course. Identify their premises and conclusions. If you agree with the argument, explain why it is sound; if you disagree with the argument, explain why it is invalid or unsound.

I. 1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad.
2. If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.
3. It is easily within our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care. 
4. Therefore, we should do everything in our power to prevent others from dying from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.

II. 1. In some societies, infanticide is thought to be morally acceptable.

2. In other societies, such as our own, infanticide is thought to be morally odious.

3. Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right or wrong; it is merely a matter of opinion that
varies from culture to culture. 

III. 1. Either scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy, or non-scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy.
2. Scientists do not have the necessary skills to determine federal government COVID policy.
3. Therefore, non-scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy.  

B. (35 points) Disagreement among peers is a significant problem facing human beings. Discuss peer disagreement by presenting a case of peer disagreement (real or a thought experiment) and the three main ways philosophers would analyze that situation. Explain which approach seems best to you.

C. (30 points) Kevin Vallier believes he has a solution to US political disagreement. Consider Vallier’s solution in two stages. First, how does Vallier believe US citizens should treat one another? Should we be mean and attempt to eliminate our opponents? Second, how does trust and neutral policies play into encouraging the open society, where political disagreement is no longer a threat to society? After presenting Vallier’s solution, briefly present your opinion on whether you think Vallier’s solution works.   

*****

Uniqueness thesis and meaningful disagreements in science (Underdetermination of theory by evidence)

Vallier on contemporary US politics, carrots, and sticks

What’s Vallier’s answer? What’s the Open Society?