PHIL 450:  Study Questions for Foundationalist-Coherentist Hybrids

and Contextualist Theories

 

1.  Explain or distinguish the following terms.  You may use examples to do so:

Experiential S-evidence/experiential C-evidence (in Haack's account)

 

2.  (a) What is Haack's response to the boundary problem?  (b) What is the most important difference between Haack's and Chisholm's responses to the boundary problem? (c) How would you respond to the boundary problem?  Explain.

 

3.  (a) What is the analogy that Haack uses to explain her Foundherentism?  (b) In the analogy, what corresponds to an individual belief?  (c) In the analogy, what corresponds to experiential input?  (d) In the analogy, what corresponds to relations of explanatory integration among beliefs?  [In your answer, use the analogy to explain how explanatory integration can involve two (or multiple) directions of rational support among beliefs.] (e) In the analogy, what corresponds to a ratification of Haack's Foundherentism?

 

4.  (a) According to Haack there are two kinds of evidence for a belief?  What are they?  (b) According to Haack, each of the two kinds of evidence has two aspects?  What are they?  Explain them with examples.  (c) Suppose I have a premonition that the Red Sox will win the World Series.  According to Haack, can that premonition be evidence for my belief that the Red Sox will win the World Series?  Explain.  (d) According to Haack, can that premonition be good evidence for my belief that the Red Sox will win the World Series?  Explain.

 

5.  (a) Why is Haack not a foundationalist?  (b) Why is Haack not a coherentist?  (c) What is her solution to the input problem?  In your answer, give an example of how Haack would specify the content (or part of the content) of one of your experiences.  You must give the precise content of your experience with a proposition.

 

6.  (a) How does Haack's ratification of Foundherentism differ from a Meta-Justification?  (b) Why might someone object that her ratification of Foundherentism is circular?  (Explain the sense in which it would be claimed to be circular.)  (c) How might Haack respond to the claim that her ratification of Foundherentism is circular?

 

7.  (a) What does Annis mean by "contextually basic belief"?  Give an example of one.  (b) According to Annis, what other features of justification are context-dependent?  Explain them.  (c) Is Annis's theory an adequate theory of epistemic justification?  Explain your answer. 

 

8.  (a) Suppose that Author A has an account of empirical justification according to which beliefs with feature F are justified.  What would be required for there to be a meta-justification of A's account of empirical justification?  (b) For each of the following authors, either explain how they would give a meta-justification of their account of empirical justification or explain why they would deny that they needed to give one:

(i) Chisholm

(ii) Dancy

(iii) Haack

(iv) Annis

 

10.  For each of the authors on the following list, state whether their epistemology is top-down or bottom-up and explain: 

(a) Chisholm

(b) Haack

(c) Annis