1. EITHER: ‘We do not need positive reasons for thinking that testimony
is reliable in order to be justified in accepting it. If we did not assume
that testimony was generally reliable, testimony could not exist.’
Discuss.
OR: Can I come to know that p on the basis of a speaker’s testimony
that p only if the speaker knows that p?
2. ‘It is possible that p iff there is some world w such that p is true at w.’
Should we take this possible world analysis as a mere game of makebelieve rather than at face-value?
3. Is the feeling of regret a problem for counterpart theory?
4. Is the distinction between primary and secondary qualities
philosophically defensible?
5. Should we accept idealism?
6. Is knowledge a primitive concept?
7. ‘Knowledge is a state of belief arising out of acts of intellectual virtue.’
Discuss.
8. Does the argument from hallucination show that we are never aware
of mind-independent objects?
9. ‘Externalism says that our beliefs are justified, provided that they are
connected with the world in the right way. But the sceptic challenges
precisely whether our beliefs are so connected. So externalism is no
use in responding to the sceptic.’ Discuss.
10. Can disjunctivists give a satisfactory explanation of illusion?