Study Questions for Test 1
Theory of Knowledge (34-254)
Dr. M. Guarini

(1) Present (a) the analysis of knowledge provided by Robert Nozick and (b) the no false premise account of knowledge.  What is a Gettier scenario?  Present an example of such a scenario and show how each of the approaches deals with such scenarios.  Do you think that either of these approaches is a plausible account of knowledge?  Defend your position.

(2) Consider the following example (adapted from Everitt and Fisher, 1995).
 
p = "Anne handled the gun."  We will say that p is true and that you are a detective who believes p.  When Anne handled the gun at the scene of the crime, she was very careful to wipe it clean of any finger prints, and she left the gun behind.  Unbeknownst to you, the first person to arrive at the scene of the crime was Pat, another criminal who has a vendetta against Anne.  Pat finds Anne's finger prints on a glass and uses a high-tech trick to transfer the finger prints from the glass to the gun.  Pat then leaves the scene of the crime.  You arrive (with no knowledge of Pat's presence at the crime scene, discover the gun, and you have a top notch professional check it for prints.  The professional confirms that Anne's prints are on the gun, and  this is why you infer p.
 
Can this example be used as an objection to a reliabilist account of knowledge?  Can this example be used as an objection against a causal theory of knowledge?  Can it be used as an objection to an indefeasibility account of knowledge?  Defend your answer in each case. You will need to present each analysis of knowledge in order to make your case.

(3) What are Goldman's reasons for saying that intrapersonal J-rules are, in some sense, more basic than interpersonal J-rules?  Summarize them, and evaluate them.

(4) Laurence BonJour presented Norman the psychic as an objection to reliabilism.  Stuart Cohen and Keith Lehrer introduced the new evil demon problem, which is an objection to reliabilist theories of justification.  Explain the objections in some detail; present Goldman's replies, and evaluate at least one of the replies.