PHIL 101
INSTRUCTOR: WILBURN
MODEL ANSWERS TO PUBLISHERS’ ESSAY TEST FOR CH. 1
1. How do philosophical problems arise?
Philosophical problems arise when we discover, upon reflection, that certain concepts do not
seem to apply to the things to which we ordinarily or unreflectively apply them. This leaves us
with a conflict between different various different beliefs, all of which we feel some compulsion
to hold. For instance, the conditions of knowledge, we may realize, do not seem to be satisfied
by many of the beliefs we ordinarily take ourselves to know. This leaves us with two conflicting
beliefs, “We do know that such and such is the case” and “The conditions of knowledge dictate
that we do not know that such and such is the case.”
2. How can philosophical problems be solved?
On the above account of how philosophical problems arise, philosophical problems can be
solved through the discernment of necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of a
concept. Considering the example above, we might decide, for instance, that “knowledge” is
nothing more than true and justified belief. Using such a definition, we might then decide that we
do indeed know many of the things that we ordinarily take ourselves to know. Or, we might
decide that knowledge is, in fact, much rarer than we ordinarily suppose. Either result would
provide a resolution, of sorts; to the original philosophical problem in the sense that one or more
of our original conflicting beliefs would have been jettisoned, thereby eliminating the
contradiction.
3. What is a philosophical theory?
A philosophical theory is, at its most complete, a definition. It is a specification of the necessary
and sufficient conditions for the application of a concept. For example, a simple (compatibilist)
philosophical theory of “free action” might be the following: An action A is “free” if and only if
A follows from one’s desires and if one had desired differently, then one would have acted
differently.
4. How do philosophical theories differ from scientific theories?
A philosophical theory is intended to tell us the logically necessary and sufficient conditions for
the application of a concept, whereas a scientific theory is concerned to tell us the physically
necessary and sufficient conditions for the occurrence of an event. A philosophical theory tells
me when it is logically possible for a concept (e.g. “knowledge”) to apply to an belief (“when it
is justified and true”), whereas a scientific theory tells me when it is physically possible for an
1
event (e.g., a fire) to occur (e.g., when a spark contacts combustible material in the presence of
oxygen”).
5. How can philosophical theories be tested?
We can test philosophical theories in the laboratory of the mind by conducting thought
experiments. With a thought experiment, one imagines a circumstance in which a concept (e.g.,
“knowledge”, “freedom”) should apply, and tests to see if it does. Thus, imagine that one is
testing the philosophical theory that “knowledge” is “justified, true belief”). To test this theory,
one might imagine a circumstance in which these conditions are satisfied and yet we don’t,
according to our intuitions, seem to really know (This is the point of the Gettier examples in
canvassed in Ch. 7).
6. Construct an argument with the form of affirming the consequent.
If there is life on Mars, then there is water on Mars.
There is water on Mars.
There is life on Mars
7. Construct an argument with the form of denying the antecedent.
If there is life on Mars, then there is water on Mars.
There is no life on Mars
There is no water on on Mars
8. Identify and define the criteria of adequacy for good explanations.
A good explanation produces maximum understanding by systematizing and unifying our
knowledge. It does this by being relatively simple (i.e., able to invoke relatively few entities and
laws), conservative (i.e., able to accord with our pre-existing accepted background knowledge as
well as possible), fruitful (i.e., able to make novel and unexpected predictions), as well as being
consistent (i.e., devoid of internal contradiction and contradiction with the evidence it is meant
to explain) and possessed of maximum available scope (i.e., the ability to pull disparate
phenomena together under a single explanatory rubric.)
9. Provide an example of the fallacy of hasty generalization.
Osama bin Laden is a delusional, self-righteous sociopath.
Therefore all Muslims are delusional, self-righteous sociopaths.
10. Provide an example of the fallacy of appeal to ignorance.
2
We don’t know that UFO’s aren’t flying saucers.
Therefore, UFO’s are flying saucers.
11. What is the nature and function of thought experiments?
A thought experiment is an imagined scenario with which we aim to determine if a putative
definition (i.e., philosophical theory), in fact, states a necessary truth. If we can imagine a
situation is which the concept being defined applies, but the conditions used to define it do not
all apply, then we know that these conditions are not jointly necessary to define the concept. If,
on the other hand, we imagine a situation in which the concept being defined does not apply, but
the conditions used to define it all apply, then we know that these conditions are not jointly
sufficient to define the concept.
Thus, suppose we consider the simple (compatibilist) theory that free actions are those which
flow from an agent’s desires and would have been different if the agent’s desires had been
different. Imagine that we test this theory by imagining a situation in which one is doing what
one wants but couldn’t do differently even if one’s desires were to change. Would one call that
action free? If the answer is no, then the thought experiment provides evidence that the simple
(compatibilist) theory of free action is false.
12. On what grounds can thought experiments be criticized?
Like all experiments, thought experiments can be criticized for lacking adequate control over
variables or for depending on false premises.
Suppose that we were trying to test the following definition “Something has moral rights if and
only if it is a biological human being,” and we did so by imagining a three month old fetus, but
with many of the characteristics (complex thoughts and feelings) that we attribute to adult human
beings. Upon imagining such an agent, suppose that we pronounce our thought experiment to
have borne our definition, since such a being certainly seems to us to have moral rights. It might
be objected that this thought experiment is not conclusive on the grounds either that (1) it
depends on false assumptions (about the cognitive and emotive capacities of fetuses) or (2) it
doesn’t control irrelevant variables (e.g., the emotional reaction of moral kinship we reflexively
have toward beings that look like us. Think of Warren’s space traveler thought experiment and of
how she endeavors to avoid these problems.
13. On what grounds can philosophical theories be criticized?
For this we use the criteria of explanatory adequacy identified in our answer to (8) above. We
want theories to systematize and unify our understanding in philosophy just as we do in science
14. Describe the difference between conceivability and imaginability.
3
A scenario might be imaginable in the sense that one can describe it in words or seemingly
picture it. But this doesn’t mean that it is conceivable (i.e., coherently imaginable). For, it might
turn out, on reflection, that the situation in question harbors implicit contradictions. Some people
think that time travel is such a scenario.
15. Describe the difference between conceivability and possibility.
Again, consider time travel. This, some have argued, is logically impossible because it invites
contradiction. But it seems conceivable to the extent that science fiction writers have written
novels and short stories about fictional instances of time travel.
Similarly with physical possibility. It might seem possible that a space ship could travel faster
than light. Science fiction writers describe this all the time (with “warp drive” and the like). But
special relativity theory allegedly describes hidden contradictions in the premise. It turns out to
be physically impossible (i.e., a violation of physical law) to travel faster than light.
4