Introduction to Philosophy Coursera Quiz Answers

Coursera was launched in 2012 by Daphne Koller and Andrew Ng with the goal of giving life-changing learning experiences to students all around the world. In the modern day, Coursera is a worldwide online learning platform that provides anybody, anywhere with access to online courses and degrees from top institutions and corporations.

Join Now

Week-1 Quiz Answers

Practice Quiz: What is Philosophy?

Q1. True or false: as a subject philosophy is unrelated to other subjects?

True
False

Q2. True or false: If a question or issue is philosophical, then it is important.

False
True

Q3. True or false: a valid argument is one in which the truth of its conclusion follows from the
truth of its premises?

True
False

Q4. What does Hilary Putnam think is essential to doing good philosophy? (Tick all that
apply.)

Vision
Argument
Humor
Ignoring the ‘Big-Picture’

Quiz: What is Philosophy?

Q1. How did we define philosophy in this week of the course?

It is the memorisation of philosophical arguments.
It is the activity of working out the best way to think about things.
It is sitting in an armchair

Q2. If we are doing the philosophy of physics which of the following would we be more likely
to be interested in?

Constructing experiments to probe, recording observations of, and the orising about the fundamental physical aspects of reality.
Asking what it is to construct experiments to probe, record observations of, and the orise about the fundamental physical aspects of reality.

Q3. According to this week’s lecture, in what sense is philosophy fundamental?

We would die without it.
Whatever we are doing or thinking about we can always try to articulate and justify the assumptions behind that action or thought.
Its impossible to think or do anything without doing philosophy f

Q4. Is the following argument sound: all men are mortal; the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was a man; therefore, Socrates was mortal?

Yes.
No

Q5. What did David Hume think was the most important constraint on a philosophical
theory?

It should discover the limits of language.
It should prove that God exists.
It should stay true to our experience of the world.
It should deduce all truths from philosophical speculation.;

Introduction to Philosophy Week 02 Quiz Answers

Practice Quiz: Morality: Objective, Relative or Emotive?

Q1. What exactly are we asking when we ask about the “status of morality”?

We are asking what is it that we are doing when we make moral judgments.
We are asking whether abstract moral judgments are correct or incorrect.
We are asking whether particular moral judgments are correct or incorrect.
We are asking whether or not we can have access to objective moral truths.

Q2. Dr. Chrisman has mentioned three main approaches that philosophers have taken to explain the status of morality (the question of what it is that people are doing when they make moral judgments). Which one of the following is NOT a theory we will be discussing?

Emotivism: the view that we are expressing our emotions towards the world when we make these judgments.
Objectivism: the view that we are representing objective facts when we make moral judgments.
Prescriptivism: the view that we are uttering moral imperatives when we make these judgments.
Relativism: the view that we are describing some kid of cultural or personal relative practice when we make these judgments.

Q3. Which of these statements are TRUE about the objectivist view of morality? (Check all that apply)

Moral judgments are like empirical judgments in that both are objective facts that can be true or false.
To an objectivist, polygamy can be both morally permissible and morally impermissible.
What makes our moral judgments true or false are generally dependent of the cultural groups we belong to.
Moral disagreements between people are basically disagreements over some objective fact about morality.

Q4. An objectivist and a relativist would disagree over which of the following? (Check all that apply)

Whether our moral judgments depend on the cultural groups we belong to.
Whether moral judgments are just like empirical judgments.
Whether or not moral judgments are the sorts of things that can be true or false.
Whether the truth or falsity of our moral judgments can vary from person to person.

Q5. Which of these theories contain the view that our moral judgments are the sort of things that can be true or false? (Check all that apply)

Objectivism
Subjectivism
Emotivism
Cultural Relativism

Q6. Which of the following statements are CORRECT? (Check all that apply)

A challenge to objectivism is that we do not seem to have an objective method for resolving moral disputes.
Since emotivism takes our moral judgments to be mere expressions of our emotional reactions, it faces the challenge of explaining how people appear to reason their way to moral judgments.
A challenge to relativism is that we do not seem to have a method for resolving moral disputes.
A challenge to emotivism is that it cannot explain the possibility of making moral progress.

Practice Quiz: What is Knowledge? And Do We Have Any?

Q1. If I know a proposition, I know *that* something is the case. Which of these statements could I have propositional knowledge of? (Select all that apply)

What’s that noise?
Ouch!
The monkey is in the tree
The egg is in the nest

Q2. What is the anti-luck intuition?

If you know, then your true belief is not a matter of luck.
If you know, then your true belief is based on prejudice.
If you know, then your true belief is a matter of luck.
If you know, then your true belief is down to your cognitive abilities in some significant way.

Q3. According to the classical definition of knowledge, which of these conditions are required for a subject to know a proposition? (Select all that apply)

The proposition must be true
The proposition must be interesting
The proposition must be justified
The subject must believe the proposition

Q4. A Gettier-style case is one where a subject has a belief that is true and justified. What else has to be in place before we have a Gettier-style case?

The subject has to be absolutely sure of the proposition.
The subject’s justification for the proposition that she believes has nothing to do with the truth of the proposition.
The proposition believed has to have less than twenty words in it.
The subject has to have thought hard about the proposition she believes.

Q5. According to the ‘no false lemmas’ account, knowledge is:

A belief that is justified, true and makes the subject happy.
A belief that is justified, true and about lemmings.
A belief that is justified, true and not based on any false assumptions.
A belief that is justified, true, and where the subject is not in a Gettier-style case.

Q6. Which of these is a sceptical scenario? (Select all that apply)

There is an evil and powerful demon controlling all my thoughts, feelings and beliefs.
What I think is the real world is actually a computer simulation – my real body is being kept in a pod, and fed with nutrients and information by super-intelligent machines.
I am very bad at forming true, justified beliefs – I try hard, but I almost always get it wrong.
I have a mischevous friend who often plays tricks on me to make me believe things that are false. I always have to be on my toes so as not to get caught out.

Quiz: Morality: Objective, Relative or Emotive?

Q1. Consider the moral claim “Polygamy is wrong”. Which of the following is an example of a question about the \textit{status}status of that moral claim? (Select as many options as appropriate.)

Is the claim false?
Is the claim merely the expression of emotion?
Is it possible for the claim to be false?
Is it possible for the claim to be true?
Is the claim true?

Q2. Objectivism is inconsistent with which of the following claims?

Most people’s morals are corrupted.
Truth’ is only a matter of opinion.
The earth rotates around sun.
Our senses can tell what is true.
Human reason cannot see the ultimate truths.

Q3. o which one of the following claims must any moral objectivist be committed? Any moral claim that is supported by objective evidence must be true

Moral claims are psychological claims
Moral claims are scientific claims
Moral claims must be supported by objective evidence, not mere feelings or opinions.
Moral claims can be true independently of what anyone thinks or feels about them

Q4. “No moral claim could ever be true.” Which, if any, view about the status of moral claims is committed to this statement?

No view is committed to this claim
Emotivism
Objectivism
Relativism

Q5. Which of the following claims are specific to moral relativism? (Select as many options as appropriate.)

Which moral claims are deemed false here and now depends exclusively on whether evidence supports them here and now.
Which moral claims are false here and now depends on the facts about you or facts about the group you are currently in.
What is fundamentally morally right and wrong can differ from one group of people to another.
What is held to be morally right and wrong is not really right or wrong, because moral claims simply cannot be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

Q6. Moral objectivism must endorse the assumption that all cultures, despite seeming to have very different moral codes, nevertheless share the same fundamental \textit{beliefs}beliefs about what is morally right and wrong. True or false?

True
False
Q7. Emotivism is the claim that:
Moral beliefs arise from our emotions.
Moral beliefs are not grounded in anything.
There will never be universal agreement on moral issues.
Emotions should tell us what is true or false.
Moral claims express emotional reactions.
Objectivism and relativism are false.

Q8. Which of the following is the best objection to moral objectivism?

Moral disagreements often seem unresolvable.
Moral facts are knowable.
What is considered morally right or wrong varies from culture to culture.
Morality is not within the providence of science.

Q9. An objectivist and a relativist would disagree over which of the following? (Check all that apply)

Whether the truth or falsity of our moral judgments can vary from person to person.
Whether or not moral judgments are the sorts of things that can be true or false.
Whether moral judgments are just like empirical judgments.
Whether our moral judgments depend on the cultural groups we belong to.

Q10. Which of the following is the \textit{best}best objection to emotivism about morality?

If emotivism is true, then it is unclear how we reason our way to moral conclusions, which we sometimes seem to do.
If emotivism is true, then genocide is not really wrong.
If emotivism is true, then polygamy is not really wrong.
What is considered morally right or wrong varies from culture to culture.

Quiz: What is Knowledge? And Do We Have Any?

Q1. Which of these expresses a proposition?

“Thanks.”
“The milk is in the fridge.”
“Shut that door!”
“What time is it?”

Q2. Duncan can ride a bike. What kind of knowledge does this require?

Knowledge-how
Knowledge-why
Knowledge-that
Knowledge-where

Q3. Knowing that Paris is the capital of France is an example of what kind of knowledge?

Propositional knowledge
Ability knowledge

Q4. Which of these methods of forming a belief is most likely to lead to a justified belief

Guessing
Careful consideration of evidence
Flipping a coin

Q5. On the classical account of knowledge what are the \textbf{three}three necessary conditions for propositional knowledge?

That the proposition is justified.
That the proposition is true.
That the person wants to know it
That the person memorises the proposition
That the person believes the proposition.
That the proposition is important to the person

Q6. Which of the following scenarios is a Gettier-case?

A man enters his house and does not see his wife. He nevertheless forms a belief that his wife is in the house. His wife is indeed in the house, but upstairs and out out of sight.
A man enters his house and sees a clever holographic image of his wife, which looks exactly like her. On this basis he forms a belief that his wife is in the house. His wife is not in the house.
A man enters his house and sees a clever holographic image of his wife, which looks exactly like her. On this basis he forms a belief that his wife is in the house. By coincidence, his wife is in the house, but upstairs and out of sight.

Q7. Gettier cases raise the question of whether a true belief’s being justified is enough for it to count as knowledge.

True
FalseAdvertisement.large-mobile-banner-1{text-align:center;padding-top:10px!important;padding-bottom:10px!important;padding-left:0!important;padding-right:0!important;width:100%!important;box-sizing:border-box!important;background-color:#eee!important;outline:1px solid #dfdfdf;min-height:315px!important}

Q8. The ‘No False Lemmas’ account of knowledge attempts to respond to Gettier cases by adding an extra condition to the classical account of knowledge. What is that condition?

That the belief is likely to be true
That the belief is not true due to luck
That the belief is not based on any false assumptions

Q9. Which of the following claims does the radical sceptic make?

We know that we are brains-in-vats.
We are not infallible.
We do not know that we are not brains-in-vats.

Q10. Which of the following claims does the radical sceptic make?

Knowledge of the external world has no value.
We have very little or no knowledge of the external world.
It is difficult to get knowledge of the external world.

Q11. The radical skeptic thinks that even if we cannot rule out the skeptical hypothesis (e.g. that we are just brains in vats without bodies) we can still know basic everyday things like the fact that ‘sugar is sweet.’1 point

False
True

Q12. Which of the following is the best argument for radical scepticism?

In lots of cases people disagree about what’s right. Therefore, we can never really know anything.
I am being deceived by an evil demon. If I am being deceived by an evil demon then I can’t have knowledge. Therefore I can’t have knowledge.
We can’t tell the difference between being a brain-in-a-vat and not being a brain-in-a-vat. If I can’t tell the difference then I can’t know very much. Therefore, I can’t know very much.
I know that I have hands. If I’m being deceived by an evil demon then I don’t have hands. Therefore, I don’t know anything.

Introduction to Philosophy Week 03 Quiz Answers

Practice Quiz: Do We Have an Obligation to Obey the Law?

Q1. Political philosophy is the part of philosophy that

Examines philosophical questions about the relations between citizens
Examines philosophical questions about the relations between states and between states and their citizens
Examines the problem of political obligation, among others

Q2. Do citizens have an obligation to obey the state and its laws?

Yes, because we always have an obligation to comply with the law
It depends on whether the problem of political obligation can be solved.

Q3. Acting in accordance with the law

Is necessary to obey the law
Is sufficient to comply with the law
Is sufficient to obey the law

Q4. The statement ‘Citizens can have obligation to comply with the law without having obligations to obey the law’

Is true
Is false
Might be true, might be false, depending on whether there is a solution for the problem of political obligation.

Q5. Socrates suggests grounds for political obligation including

Punishment
Gratitude
Consent

Q6. Does being benefited always generate obligations?

Yes, being benefitted always generate obligations to obey
No, we don’t have the obligation to obey someone just because they benefitted us

Q7. According to Fairness theory

Being part of a fair scheme of cooperation generate obligations
We have an obligation to obey unjust states

Q8. A problem for the consent theory is that

Sufficient people have given consent
It is too easy to escape the obligation to obey the law by refusing consent
Consent is not capable of generating obligations

Q9. The problem of political obligation

The problem of political obligation
Has no solution
Might have no solution

Q10. Philosophical anarchism is true

Because the problem of political obligation can’t be solved
If the problem of political obligation can be solved
If we don’t have an obligation to obey the law

Practice: Should You Believe What You Hear?

Q1. What is distinctive of “naturalistic” approaches to philosophy? (Select all that apply.)

No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of Nature.
No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of supernatural phenomena.
No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of God.
No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of human societies.

Q2. Which of the following captures Hume’s assumption about basing beliefs on testimony?

To properly base a belief on testimony, you must have independent evidence that testimony is true.
There is no species of reasoning more useful than that which is derived from testimony.
To properly base a belief on testimony, you must have evidence that testifiers are likely to be correct.
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

Q3. What assumption of Hume’s did Reid want to challenge?

That we do not have any good evidence for assuming that our senses are likely to be right.
That we have a reason to trust in testimony only provided that we know that it is likely to be right.
That we have a reason to trust in testimony only if our sense perceptions confirm it to be right.
That we do not have any good evidence for assuming that testimony can ever be right.

Q4. What did Hume think of Reid’s principles of credulity and veracity?

He agreed that they both are true.
He argued that both are false.
He argued that the principle of credulity is true, but the principle of veracity false.
He argued that the principle of credulity is false, but the principle of veracity true.

Quiz: Do We Have an Obligation to Obey the Law

Q1. What is the problem of political obligation?

It’s the problem of finding an explanation of why we have an obligation to obey the state and its laws
It’s the problem of showing why we ought to always obey the law
It’s the problem of understanding why we have an obligation to comply with the law

Q2. What is it to obey the law?

Doing what the law commands because the law commands it
Acting in accordance with the law

Q3. What is it to comply with the law?

To do what the law commands because the law commands it
To do what the law commands

Q4. What are the grounds of political obligation?

The facts that generate the obligation to obey the law
The punishment that we avoid when commanding with the law

Q5. Which of the following have been suggested as possible grounds for political obligation?

Consent
Gratitude
Responsibility
Fairness
Religion

Q6. The benefit theory of political obligation claims that

Citizens are obliged to obey the state because of the benefit they can gain if they obey the law
Citizens are benefitted by the state. Because of this, they have an obligation to obey it
Citizens are obliged to obey the state because of the benefits it has bestowed upon them

Q7. The consent theory of political obligation claims that

It is the consent to being governed that generates the obligation to obey the law
We have an obligation to obey the state because we have all explicitly expressed our consent to obey the state
We can avoid the obligation to obey the law by refusing consent
We have an obligation to obey the state because we have consented to the state and to having such obligations to it

Q8. Some examples of giving tacit consent to the state are

Remaining within the state
Expressing openly our decision to obey the state
Participating in the elections
Using public services

Q9. Philosophical anarchism…

Holds that we don’t have an obligation to obey the law
Is compatible with the thought that we have good reasons and obligations to comply with the law
Defends political anarchism

Q10. If the problem of political obligation can’t be solved,…

Philosophical anarchism is true
We still have an obligation to obey the law

Quiz: Should You Believe What You Hear?

Q1. Which of the following are instances of gaining a belief via testimony? (Select as many boxes as is appropriate.)

Forming the belief that you had breakfast this morning by reflecting on your experiences.
Forming the belief that theft is wrong by careful introspection.
Forming the belief that phenolphthalein turns colourless in acidic solutions by dipping phenolphthalein into an acidic solution.
Forming the belief that you are not a brain-in-a-vat by philosophical reflection.
Forming the belief that you have toes by looking at them.
Forming the belief that Hume mistrusted testimony by hearing it in a philosophy lecture.
Forming the belief that there is a sheep in a field by looking into the field.
Forming the belief that Hume mistrusted testimony by reading it in his book “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”.
Forming the belief that evolution by natural selection takes place by watching a television programme.
Forming the belief that a meteorite hit Russia by reading it in a newspaper.

Q2. What are miracles according to Hume’s definition?

Events that are inconsistent with the laws of nature.
Events that could not possibly happen.
Events that are very unlikely.
Events that present science cannot explain.
Events that happen just as a matter of luck.
Amazing events, such as childbirth.
Events brought about by the action of a supernatural being.

Q3. Why did Hume hold that any miracle is highly unlikely?

Miracles are highly unlikely because all testimony is untrustworthy.
Miracles are highly unlikely because laws of nature state what should happen, and a miracle would be a violation of that.
Miracles are highly unlikely because it is always more likely that someone is mistaken about events, and therefore saying something false.
Miracles are highly unlikely because unprecedented violations of the laws of nature are highly unlikely.
Miracles are highly unlikely because even an omnipotent God would be unable to intervene in the natural order.

Q4. Why did Hume and Reid think that we trust our senses without evidence that they are likely to be right?

We are ignorant of the scientific evidence regarding the unreliability of our senses.
We have been taught to trust our senses by our parents and general enculturation.
We can’t have good evidence that our senses are reliable.
Checking that our senses are reliable is too difficult in practice.

Q5. Question 5How did Hume think that one ought to assess the likelihood of an event taking place after having acquired testimony that it took place?

Work out what is more likely: that the testifier is mistaken or lying, or that the event actually happened.
Consider whether the testifier herself believes that the event took place on the basis of testimony.
Use neuro-linguistic programming techniques to assess the truthfulness of the testifier.
Work out whether the event actually happened by relying on our epistemic intuitions instead of testimony.

Q6. Reid criticised Hume’s position on testimony on the grounds that:

It supports atheism or agnosticim.
Testimonial knowledge is gained through the senses and our senses are reliable.
If it were correct, we would be deprived of much of the knowledge we in fact possess.

Q7. What was Reid’s “principle of credulity”?

That we are “hardwired” to believe only true testimony.
That we should not credulously accept people’s testimony, but only do so on the basis of evidence.
That we have a natural disposition to believe what others tell us.
That children are especially disposed to be truthful.
That we are “hardwired” to tell the truth.
That we are disposed to prefer beliefs formed via testimony over other beliefs.
That we have a disposition to be truthful.

Q8. How did Reid argue for the view that we should believe testimony without first seeking external evidence?

As a clergyman, he argued that the Church of Scotland had the authority to pronounce on matters without evidence.
He claimed that seeking evidence would lead to unorthodox views about morality, and hence that it was safer for society to trust testimony.
He claimed that knowledge by testimony was analogous to knowledge by sense perception, and that we should trust sense perception without first seeking external evidence that our senses are properly functioning.
As an early socialist, he argued that solidarity required trusting others in the community.

Q9. Hume argued for the view that we ought not to trust testimony without evidence on the grounds that humans are “hardwired” to be dishonest, and hence we ought not to trust their testimony. True or false?1 point

False
True

Q10. What did Kant take The Enlightenment to consist in?

Becoming “Renaissance men”: learning everything there is to know about both the sciences and the arts.
Using one’s own reasoning and understanding, rather than relying only on what others tell us.
Overturning undemocratic political authorities.
Rejecting testimony wholesale, and forming beliefs only on the basis of philosophical reasoning.

Introduction to Philosophy Week 04 Quiz Answers

Practice: Minds, Brains, Computers

Q1. Suilin has a human mind, but a tennis ball does not. This is a fact. What things can Suilin do that a tennis ball can’t that might make this fact true? (Tick all options that apply)

Think thoughts about thoughts.
Be in states (such as thinking, believing, desiring) that are about things.
Be in states such that there’s ‘something it’s like’ to be in them.
Bounce up and down.

Q2. Substance dualism (or Cartesian dualism) is the view that:

Mind and matter are very different kinds of things.
We can never know anything for certain.
We can never know whether our minds and our bodies are different kinds of things.
Minds and bodies are made of the same type of substance, but have different properties.

Q3. Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia objected to Descartes dualism because:

It is unclear how a non-physical thing can cause changes in a physical thing.
Everything is only made out of one kind of substance.
We can never know for certain whether a theory is true.
A malevolent demon could be deceiving us into thinking substance dualism was true.

Q4. From what Suilin has said so far, which of the following is the best definition of the identity theory of mental states?

Brain states are identical to mental states.
Substance dualism is false.
We cannot tell the difference between mental states and brain states.
Mental states correspond to brain states.

Q5. Which of the following claims would a type-type identity theorist reject?

There could be two creatures in the same type of mental state, but different types of brain state.
Every mental state is identical with some physical state.
Substance dualism is false.
For every type of mental state, there is a type of physical state which is identical to it.

Q6. Which of the following would be the best way of objecting to the identity theory on the basis of the ‘multiple realizability’ of mental states?

An octopus might be in the same type of mental state as me, but in a very different type of brain state.
There might be other species that have very different kinds of mental states to ours.
Brain states and mental states seem like very different kinds of things.
Science has shown that feeling pain is not the same as ‘having C-fibres firing’

Q7. Hilary Putnam thought that we should understand mental states in terms of their…

Function.
Subjective feeling.
Interaction with the brain.
Intrinsic properties.

Q8. In virtue of what, according to the functionalist, would it be possible for both an alien and a human—who have very different physical makeups—to be in a state of pain?

They both can be in mental states that have the functional role associated with pain.
Their physical bodies are both associated with the same kind of immaterial mind.
They both ultimately evolved from the same evolutionary ancestors.
They both are ultimately constituted from the same fundamental particles described by physics.

Q9. What, according to the functionalist, is the difference between things which merely have

functional roles (such as carburetors) and things whose functional roles amount to their having a mind?

The functional roles must be possessed by material substances.
The functional roles must be possessed by immaterial substances.
The functional roles must be sufficiently complex.
The functional roles must have evolved to avoid predators.

Q10. What must a computer do to pass the Turing test?

Respond to questions in such a way that one cannot distinguish between it and a human being.
Make as many errors performing calculations as a human being.
Experience the world in the same way as a human being.
Be subject to the same human rights as a human being.

Q11. What is the difference between the syntactic properties of a symbol and the semantic properties of a symbol?

The syntactic properties of a symbol pertain to its form whereas the semantic properties of a symbol pertain to its meaning or content.
Symbols have syntactic properties, but sentences only have semantic properties
Chinese languages such as Mandarin have syntactic properties, whereas European languages, such as English, only have semantic properties.
Understanding logic and mathematics only involves recognising syntactic properties whereas understanding poetry only involves recognising semantic properties.

Q12. What is the bearing of the hard problem of consciousness on functionalism?

Providing a functional analysis of something doesn’t explain why it has conscious experience.
It is hard to produce functional analyses of things.
It is hard to produce a computer that can pass the Turing test.
Producing a functional analysis of something doesn’t explain why that functional role has evolved.

Practice: Are Scientific Theories True?

Q1. What is meant by “saving the phenomena”?

Providing a good story about the phenomenology of science: what it is like to do science.
Providing a good analysis of available scientific data and observations.
Providing a true story about what causes scientific data and observations.

Q2. According to Duhem, how did ancient Greek astronomers view the status of their scientific claims?

Sophisticated hypotheses that can explain the apparent celestial motion of the planets, but that do not necessarily provide a true description of their motion.
Sophisticated hypothesis that provide an entertaining account of the phenomena, but do not aim to be true.
Sophisticated hypotheses that can explain the apparent celestial motion of the planets, and that probably also provide a true description of their motion.
Mathematical contrivances that fail to provide a good formula for predicting the celestial motion of the planets.

Q3. Scientific Realism has a semantic aspect and an epistemic aspect. What is the semantic aspect about?

The semantic aspect is about scientific theories – why we should believe they are important.
The semantic aspect is about the language of scientific theories – the terms of a theory, how they should be spelled in English, how many syllables they contain, and so on.
The semantic aspect is about the language of scientific theories – the terms of a theory and how they should be understood.
The semantic aspect is about our attitude towards scientific theories – what we believe about a theory when we accept it.

Q4. Scientific Realism has a semantic aspect and an epistemic aspect. What is the epistemic aspect about?

The epistemic aspect is about realism – about what is real and what is not.
The epistemic aspect is about the language of scientific theories – the terms of a theory and how they should be understood.
The epistemic aspect is about our attitude towards scientific theories – how we learn the terms that a scientific theory uses.
The epistemic aspect is about our attitude towards scientific theories – what we believe about a theory when we accept it.

Q5. What does the No-Miracles Argument for scientific realism say?

Miracles are exceptions to previously exceptionless regularities. Such exceptions are highly unlikely.
Given the success and progress of science, it is more likely than not that scientific realism is true.
The success and progress of science is a miracle, so scientific realism must say that miracles are possible.
Given its success and progress, we should think of science as the pinnacle of human endeavour.

Q6. True or false: For constructive empiricism, the aim of science is truth.

False
True

Q7. The constructive empiricist claims an advantage for her view over scientific realism in terms of metaphysical commitment. What is this claimed advantage?

Constructive empiricism can explain metaphysical truths, but scientific realism cannot.
Constructive empiricism and scientific realism are equally metaphysically committed. Both are committed to the existence of unobserved entities figuring in today’s successful scientific theories.
Scientific realism is more metaphysically committed than constructive empiricism. For scientific realism to be true, unobserved entities figuring in today’s successful scientific theories must exist.
Constructive empiricism is more metaphysically committed than scientific realism. For constructive empiricism to be true, unobserved entities figuring in today’s successful scientific theories must exist.

Q8. The Inference to the Best Explanation argument puts pressure on constructive empiricism. This argument claims that there is one inferential path that justifies us in believing in the existence of unobservable entities and of…

Unobserved observables.
Unobserved unobservables.
Observed unobservables.
Observed observables.

Quiz: Minds, Brains and Computers

Q1. Which of these are *not* a mental states?

The pain of building a house
The act of building a house
Thinking of building a house
The process of building a house
The experience of having built a house
Imagining building a house
Remembering building a house

Q2. Which of the following is the best statement of Substance, or Cartesian, dualism?

Material substances cause things to happen whereas immaterial substances do not.
The mind is made from a different substance than the body.
Only creatures with a body can have a mind.
It is hard to understand how a mind could be the same sort of thing as a body.
We can never know anything for certain.
Material substances are natural whereas immaterial substances are supernatural.

Q3. On what grounds did Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia object to substance dualism?

There is no evidence that immaterial minds exist.
We do not have material bodies because we are being deceived by a malevolent demon.
Identity theory provides a better account of the nature of experience.
Physical things can be changed only by interaction with other physical things.
An immaterial mind would cause impossible bodily actions.
Material substances probably do not exist whereas immaterial substances do exist.

Q4. Which of these claims would an Identity Theorist accept? (Tick as many boxes as is appropriate.)

Pain is caused by C-fibres firing.
Pain is C-fibres firing.
Pain is reducible to the firing of C-fibres.
Pain is the result of C-fibres firing.

Q5. Consider this statement: “a dog is a dog is a dog”. How many word tokens are in it?

Q6. How many word types are in the statement “a dog is a dog is a dog”?

Q7. Imagine for the sake of argument that an alien species with a completely different chemical makeup to humans was capable of experiencing the same taste of strawberries that humans do. What would this immediately show us?

That standards of taste are universal.
That both humans and aliens have immaterial souls
That the experience of the taste of strawberries cannot be identical to a brain state.
That the experience of taste is immaterial.
That neither humans nor aliens have brain states that are related to the experience of taste
That identity theory is false for humans but true for aliens.

Q8. Functionalists hold that the content of a belief is determined by the practical usefulness of that belief. True or false?

False
True

Q9. Consider the following sentence: “Moses supposes that roses have noses”. Which of the following is a syntactic property of the sentence? (Tick as many boxes as is appropriate.

That it is true of Moses
That it says something that might be true
That it is composed of 31 letters
That it begins with the letter ‘M’
That it says something strange
That it is composed of 6 word tokens
That English speakers can understand it
That it pertains to Moses

Q10. If we accept the conclusion of Searle’s ‘Chinese Room’ argument, which of these things can a human mind do that a computer cannot do?

Understand what the word ‘philosophy’ means
Give correct answers to mathematical problems
Stop working properly because of a virus
Translate sentences from one language into another
Find the winning move in a game of chess

Quiz: Are Scientific Theories True?

Q1. Which of these is an accurate characterization of the semantic aspect of scientific realism?

The terms of a scientific theory should be understood as expressing the scientist’s attitudes towards certain objects in the world.
That only the language of science really describes reality.
The terms of a scientific theory should be understood as relative to the culture of a some particular society.
The terms of a scientific theory should be understood as referring to certain symbols in the external world.
The terms of a scientific theory should be understood as referring to the relevant objects in the external world.
The terms of a scientific theory should be understood as referring to immaterial ideas.

Q2. Which of these is an accurate characterisation of the epistemic aspect of scientific realism?

We believe that our best scientific theories at least approximate the truth.
We believe that our best scientific theories are at least useful for creating technology that works.
We believe that our best scientific theories can do no more than coherently explain our observations about natural phenomena.
We believe that only our best scientific theories are logically coherent.

Q3. Which of the following are claims made by constructive empiricists? (Select as many boxes as is appropriate.)

Scientific theories do not need to be true in order to be good.
We should only believe those parts of our scientific theories that pertain to \textit{observable}observable things: i.e. the empirically accessible parts of our theories.
Science is the only practice that allows us to accurately describe entities that we cannot observe.
The phenomena we observe are mind-dependent, so we should suspend our belief in the truth of our experiences.

Q4. Constructive empiricists claim that empirical adequacy is the aim of science. When is a scientific theory empirically adequate?

When its claims about unobservable phenomena are false.
When its claims about observable phenomena are true.
When its claims about unobservable phenomena are true.
When its claims about both observable and unobservable phenomena are true.

Q5. How do constructive empiricists explain the success of scientific theories in predicting observable phenomena?

They provide a ‘Darwinian’ explanation: the reason our current scientific theories are successful in predicting the observable phenomena is because only theories that are successful at predicting the observable phenomena survive.
They provide a ‘Darwinian’ explanation: the reason scientific theories are successful in predicting the observable phenomena is because producing theories that are successful at predicting the observed phenomena has adaptive value. If we could not, then our evolutionary ancestors would not have survived.
They point out that if a theory is empirically adequate then it follows from the definition of ’empirical adequacy’ that the theory will predict the observable phenomena.
They claim that we can explain the success of scientific theories in terms of their truth.
Q6. Which of the following is an example of scientific realists’ criticisms of constructive empiricism?
Constructive empiricism lacks an explanation of why our scientific theories are successful at predicting \textit{novel}novel phenomena.
Constructive empiricism lacks an explanation of why scientists construct the theories they do.

Q7. Constructive empiricists are committed to the claim that there is a distinction between observable and unobservable phenomena. What is this distinction?

Something is observable if it can be assigned a value such as mass, acceleration or force. Something is unobservable if it cannot be assigned a value such as mass, acceleration or force.
Something is observable if it is postulated by science, which is an \textit{empirical}empirical discipline. Something is unobservable if it is believed to be known by unscientific, and hence \textit{non-empirical}non-empirical, means.
All \textit{natural}natural phenomena, even things such as atoms and electrons, are observable, whereas \textit{mental}mental phenomena are unobservable.
Something is observable if it can be directly perceived by the senses. Something is unobservable if it cannot be directly perceived by the senses.

Q8. Which of the following is an instance of Inference to the Best Explanation?

Although we cannot perfectly explain certain things, such as the birth of the universe, even those things must be potentially perfectly explainable because they are observable.
The observational data provided by the Large Hadron Collider at Cern could exist even if the Higgs boson does not. Therefore the Higgs boson does not exist.
The existence of the Higgs boson provides the best explanation for a certain set of observational data provided by the Large Hadron Collider at Cern. Therefore, the Higgs boson exists.

Q9. Why do scientific realists appeal to the distinction between \textit{unobservables}unobservables and unobserved \textit{observables}observables in arguing against constructive empiricism?

Realists hold that there are no such things as unobservables, since we \textit{can}can observe entities such as the Higgs Boson using equipment like the Large Hadron Collider. Hence, there are only unobserved observables, contrary to constructive empiricism.
Realists hold that the aim of science is to provide true descriptions of unobservables, but not of unobserved observables, contrary to constructive empiricism.
Realists hold that we use the same inferential practices to infer the existence of unobserved but observable things (such as dinosaurs) as we use to infer the existence of unobserv\textit{able}able things (such as electrons). As such, if we are warranted in believing in the former then we are warranted in believing in the latter.
Realists hold that since there is no conceptual distinction between “unobserved observables” and “unobservables”, if you believe in the former you should also believe in the latter.

Q10. What is meant by “idealization” in science?

“Idealization”, in this context, refers to when scientific models distort or simplify the physical systems they represent in some way.
“Idealization”, in this context, refers the the tendency of scientific realists to have an idealized view of the nature of science.
“Idealization”, in this context, refers to the progression towards a final, ideal science.
“Idealization”, in this context, refers to the philosophical view that reality is a construction of the mind.

Introduction to Philosophy Week 05 Quiz Answers

Practice: Do We Have Free Will and Does It Matter?

Q1. We have free will according to…

Libertarianism
Hard Determinism
Compatibilism

Q2. Determinism is…

The idea that everything that happens is determined by the physical conditions that preceded it
The idea that as agents, we determine our own choices.

Q3. According to determinism…

Any kind of uncertainty is impossible
There is metaphysical uncertainty
There can be uncertainty only from our point our view

Q4. Fatalism…

Is a stronger kind of determinism
Does not imply that everything is fixed at a micro-level
Is caused by the blind forces of nature

Q5. Libertarians defend that…

We really have free will
We are causes inside of the usual causal chain
Liberty is an important value.

Q6. Libertarianism is usually explained…

By religion
By quantum indeterminacy
By giving an explanation of the way in which we are special causes

Q7. According to Kant, the phenomenal self…

Is the physical part of us that is in the natural world
Is the thinking part of ourselves, which is really free

Q8. According to compatibilism…

What matters is how and what we decide what to do
Determinism is false
Abstract questions about the nature of causation are not relevant to moral responsibility

Q9. Peter Strawson claims that…

The thing that matters is where our motivations come from
The thing that matters is the quality of our motivations

Q10. Hard determinists…

Focus on how practical their theory is
Agree that we don’t have metaphysical free will but think we do have moral responsibility
Maintain that we have neither metaphysical free will nor moral responsibility.

Practice: Time Travel and Philosophy

Q1. According to David Lewis, what would time travel involve?

A discrepancy between “personal time” and “external time”: i.e. time travel takes place when personal time has a different duration and/or direction to external time.
A \textit{reversal}reversal of causal processes, so that everything happens backwards rather than forwards.
A discrepancy between “personal time” and “external time”: i.e. time travel takes place when our subjective or personal \textit{experience}experience of time does not seem to match what is going on in the external world.
None of the above: Lewis held that time travel is logically impossible.

Q2. Which of the following did David Lewis accept? (Select as many boxes as is appropriate.)

That contradictions are possible.
That contradictions are impossible.
That time travel necessarily involves contradictions.
That time travel does not necessarily involve contradictions.

Q3. Why is it logically impossible to assassinate your own grandfather before he had produced your mother or father?

Because in doing so you would make it the case that you had never existed; but in order to assassinate your grandfather you must exist.
Because we do not yet have the technological capability to travel in time.
Because time travel is impossible.
Because we will never have the technological capability to travel in time.

Q4. “Compossibility” is a notion that has to do with…

One set of facts being possible \textit{relative}relative to another set of facts.
One set of facts being possible now, but not in the \textit{past}past.
One set of facts being possible in the past, but not \textit{now}now.
The possibility of a person existing, even though his grandfather does not exist.

Q5. An event X counterfactually “changes” an event Y (in other words, Y counterfactually \textit{depends}depends on X) if and only if…

If X occurs, it is logically impossible for Y to not occur.
X and Y both in fact occurred
If X had not occurred, Y would not have occurred.
X is in the past and Y is in the future.

Q6. What constitutes a causal loop?

A chain of impossible events.
A chain of events such that an event is among its own causes.
A chain of events that creates a paradox.
An impossible chain of events.

Q7. Causal loops pose a puzzle: what is the entry point for the information in a causal loop? What is David Lewis’ response?

There is an entry point for the information in a causal loop – but we have not yet found out what it is.
There is no entry point for the information in a causal loop – the information does not exist.
There is no entry point for the information in a causal loop – causal loops are not possible.
There is no entry point for the information in a causal loop – the information simply exists.

Q8. Deutsch and Lockwood’s account of time travel involves multiple histories. David Lewis’ account, as discussed in previous videos, is importantly different: Lewis is concerned with time travel within a single history. Is this true or false?

False: Lewis’ account of time travel also involved multiple histories.
False: Deutsch and Lockwood’s account focused on time travel within a single history.
True: Lewis’ account of time travel focused on time travel within a single history.
False: Deutsch and Lockwood’s account does not involve any histories at all.

Quiz: Do We Have Free Will and Does It Matter?

Q1. Determinism…

Defends the existence of fate
Is compatible with metaphysical uncertainty
Is different from Mechanism
Says that the only sort of certainty is uncertainty from our point of view
Is the idea that everything that happens is completely fixed by the prior physical conditions

Q2. According to determinism…

Everything is fixed at the micro-level by a conscious agent
Every decision is determined by an enormous causal chain
Future events are fixed but there are different ways in which they can happen

Q3. The Existence of Quantum indeterminacy…

Is not relevant to the question of whether we have free will
Shows that we have free will
Shows that mechanism is false

Q4. Libertarianism

Is best defended by appealing to a deity
Is hard to reconcile with a naturalistic worldview
Makes sense of how it is possible to act for reasons
Claims that we are causes outside of the usual natural causal chain

Q5. Compatibilism claims that…

Determinism and moral responsibility are compatible
Our acts are metaphysically free
It’s true that we can’t do anything other than what we do. We are not responsible for predetermined acts.

Q6. According to Harry Frankfurt, what makes us morally responsible…

Is choosing our own acts through our own psychological mechanisms
Is the fact that for every decision we make, we could have done something else
Is libertarianism

Q7. Hard determinism claims that

We don’t have metaphysical free will but we do have moral responsibility
We would only be responsible for our acts if we had chosen them freely
Determinism is true and we don’t have moral responsibility

Q8. Peter Strawson defends the claim that…

The thing that matters for moral responsibility is the quality of our motivations
We have chosen our character freely
We don’t have free will

Q9. Hume’s line of reason is aimed to defend…

Compatibilism
Libertarianism
Hard Determinism

Q10. We are morally responsible according to…

Compatibilism
Hard determinism
Libertarianism

Quiz: Time Travel and Philosophy

Q1. David Lewis argued that time travel is:

Logically possible
Physically possible
Both physically and logically possible
Neither physically nor logically possible

Q2. Which of these can measure a time traveller’s personal time as opposed to external time? Please select all that apply.

The traveller’s growing feeling of sleepiness.
The deposition of sediment along the Nile delta.
The cooling of the bowl of soup the traveller brings along for the journey.
The erosion of the soil along the banks of a river.
The movement of the dials on the traveller’s wristwatch.
The movement of the planets in their orbit around the sun.

Q3. According to Lewis, the logic of time travel presupposes a distinction between time registered by the traveller and time registered by changes in the environment. True or false?

True
False

Q4. Which of these scenarios is logically possible but not physically possible in the actual world?

Making a 500 kilo sphere of pure Uranium 235 that exists for 24 hours
Making a 500 kilo sphere of pure gold
Making a 500 kilo sphere that is simultaneously a cube

Q5. To say that an event is compossible is to say that it is possible relative to a set of facts. True or false?

True
False

Q6. According to the ‘Grandfather Paradox’ argument, I could not travel back in time and kill my grandfather before he became a parent because…

My killing my grandfather before he became a parent would create a contradictory state of affairs.
It is physically impossible to travel backwards through time
I cannot affect any change in future events
My being in the past would not amount to my being real for that past

Q7. Which of the following expresses a counterfactual change?

If I had paid more attention in class, then I would have performed better in the examination.
If \textit{n}n is an even number bigger than 2, then \textit{n}n cannot be a prime number.
If the glass drops on the concrete floor, then it will shatter into several pieces.

Q8. David Lewis believed that it is possible to make replacement changes to moments in time but only to future moments. True or False?

True
False

Q9. The chief problem urged against the existence of causal loops that we have discussed is that:

Causal loops are physically impossible.
Causal loops have never been observed to occur.
It is a mystery where the information could come from.
Events that are causally linked must be connected linearly.

Q10. Which of these best expresses David Lewis’s view of causal loops?

Causal loops and causal chains are equally important in explaining everyday events.
Causal loops and causal chains are exactly the same thing.
Causal loops and causal chains are equally important in explaining actual cases of time travel.
The ultimate origins of the information involved are equally mysterious in causal loops and linear causal chains.

Review:

Based on our knowledge, we urge you to enroll in this course so you can pick up new skills from specialists. It will be worthwhile, we trust.