CLASSES 1 & 2
The material we discussed in our first class was challenging. So, I have provided this blog as a place where we can continue to work out those areas that we find fuzzy and a place where you can formulate and ask those questions that, for whatever reason, you didn’t ask in class. I hope that you will take advantage of this blog by either sharing your thoughts about Class 1’s material (objections allowed and encouraged) or posting a question below.
I look forward to talking with you.
March 21st, 2010 at 6:21 pm
The notes for our classes are now up. I am aware that I tried to tackle too much difficult material today. So, lets try to work out some of your questions–do to my poor presentation, you must have many!
–Kevin
March 29th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Kev Dogg,
I don’t really understand what the ad hoc is. I guess it has something to do with a Psycho-clairvoyance shot at knowledge as in I know that so and so will when the NCAA tournament. So does that mean we do want or do not want an ad hoc view of knowledge?
DJ
March 29th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Jolley,
We do not want an ad hoc theory of knowledge. In other words, we do not want a theory of knowledge that concocted merely in response to various objections. I said that knowledge is mere true belief. This is not ad hoc. I think that this theory best captures what it is that we want to capture with a theory of knowledge. However, if I had said that knowledge is mere true belief unless that true belief comes by way of luck, that would be ad hoc, as knowledge by luck is something that many people (not me) don’t want to allow for. So, I just allow for knowledge by luck; its not that problematic.
Claiming that a theory, any theory, is ad hoc should be taken as an objection to that theory.
Is this helpful?
March 30th, 2010 at 11:06 am
It sounds to me like an ad hoc theory is a theory that is ‘putting out small fires.’ I think I understand. I’m not able to articulate it with out copy and paste.