The best so far. Median of 7 and average of 6.37. Good job! Click through to see… (Update: Some additional material added for Question 7 at the end. Other added material are also marked.)
Update: A couple more came in later and I’ve included them. Look for those with the “[Added]” marker.
Is epistemology descriptive with a prescriptive edge?
A big part of it is prescriptive. Like morality, rationality involves an evaluative dimension–just as there are such things as good or bad, right or wrong with it comes to action, there are also rational or irrational, justified or unjustified, true or false, etc., when it comes to beliefs.
I wrote the below back when the knowledge topic dealt with the regress argument for justification (the very first semester I took on teaching GET1029, by the way). It also touches on issues relating to how we respond to skepticism. Since a couple of you asked, I’ll make it available here for those interested.
It’s a good recap–the thing is that it also contains quite a bit more than what you absolutely need for the class–so just be warned. (See also the discussion in Mackie 210-212.) (Thanks to a student who found this.)
For the purposes of the question you can treat “nice” vs. “not nice” as a black and white thing, with no degrees of niceness.
Small edits to statements I and II.
The median dropped back to 5 but not too bad overall. Click through to see…
I said a bit about how the idea that God–an omnipotent being–can do the logically impossible is probably not a good idea to accept, whether you are an Atheist attempting to push the Logical Problem of Evil (“Why, your God can’t do that? Not all powerful izzit?”), or a Theist trying to defuse the Logical Problem of Evil. This post expands on that idea and introduces you to a point about logic called the Principle of Explosion.
This is an expansion on the last segment of W08 and the stuff from earlier in the lecture that leads up to it. Since it concerns what many philosophers of religion now perceive to be the critical weakness of the LPOE–prompting them to move to an inductive/evidential rather than a strictly logical formulation of the Problem–it bears a bit of re-emphasizing. (Warning: this is a longish post. I originally wrote it to help students from a previous year who said that they found the material hard to follow. This might not apply to you in this semester. But since I wrote it, might as well.)