sample

I would start a line of discussion here. For example: with all the things epistemology is supposed to cover, how can there be one topic. without it's becoming completely vacuous and crazy?

Then someone else would add a comment or an answer, signing their contribution. For example

Maybe its because philosophers think they have the answers to these things, just because they're over-confident. MARIANNE

and someone else could answer this. For example.

Well, there are some very simple things to say, which are generally relevant. Like: guessing doesn't give good answers. Or: scientific method tends to pay off. HENRY

and someone else might react to this. and so on.

I've just remembered to do this posting and after reading the prior entries, felt a sudden apprehension. I suppose I'm just admitting that the entries seem very informed and developed and given my last minute entry, am admitting that my post will be insufficient by comparison. However, considering how Professor Morton has allowed us to post what-ever, so long as we post, I am going to take advantage of that statement. It's better to post than none at all.

In response to the question of whether or not epistemology is 'merely' an expression of values and biases, my answer is a yes for now. But of course there's more to it although I'm not properly prepared to engage in discussion on it yet. However, my reasons for values and bias as knowledge are based on the reasoning that knowledge can be easily biased, which are typically based on our values. To be able to study knowledge and have beliefs without bias (which can skew reason), are definitely an ideal to strive for (equal to objectivity?), but a difficult one I could imagine. Now the question remains, whether or not there even is an objective truth to begin with, for us to study. KC

I found reading the text not only helped define the key terms, but it also gave examples to make it more clear to the reader what is knowledge, truth etc.. In the lecture, Professor Morton talked about a rational belief that is unjustified. From my understanding it is a belief that a person has come by through rational reasons and thinking, but somewhere, an aspect of that belief is wrong and has been overlooked. As the example given in class, a person doing their math homework believes everything was correct. They reviewed it and checked all their answers and everything was correct. They got someone else to review and check their work and everything is correct. But when handing in the homework o the math teacher he finds a mistake. Therefore, the students belief that they had answered every question correctly on their math homework was a rational belief, but it was unjustified because there was a mistake or a flaw in the belief. I was wondering if there were any other simple examples for us to remember rational beliefs that are unjustified?

" it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." I think I'll need a bit more evidence Mr. Clifford.

So, this is my first forum contribution and, I am, admittedly, not sure I'm doing this right...but here goes. I find empiricism to be an interesting way of gaining knowledge. It is predicated on the BELIEF that knowledge can only be gained purely through our sense data; this seems highly contradictory because if we only base our beliefs on perceptions, then where is the evidence for the belief in empiricism in the first place? Perceptions feed into belief, and beliefs feed into our perceptions; it's a circular argument. Empiricism doesn't even seem to be ideal because time and time again our senses deceive our consciousness into believing something that is, in fact, untrue. I suppose it comes down to what we think ideal forms of knowledge should look like and how we go about achieving it. I'm also fairly sure this has all been said before, but these are just some of my thoughts on the matter.