## Life, the Universe, and Everything

### A Course Blog for GET1029/GEK1067

#### Category: Quiz (page 1 of 3)

Ok, here goes the last of the lot. Click through to see…

• Question 3

Small edit made to what Cain and Zoey said.

• Question 7

Gene’s statement “we–as in the five of us–should assign a probability equal to 0.5 that each of us is obsessed with Japanese culture”–what he’s saying is that they* should assign a probability of 0.5 to Lena’s being obsessed, 0.5 to Dave’s being obsessed, and so on. (*You can take the “they” collectively–so there’s only one assignment of probabilities–or individually, as in each of them should make that assignment of probability; the answer is the same either way.)

Good work! Click through to see…

Ok, not bad, though the averages dropped a bit from the last one mainly because of Questions 4 and 6. Click through to see…

• Question 2

Abe’s statement has been edited.

• Question 3

Small edits made to the question. Ok, some of you seem to be getting lost in the story. I’ll put the below down to help you.

• Scenario in Abe’s Statements
• Lena is religious, privy to religious experiences, her experiences count as evidence for the existence of God, believes that God exists;
• Will and Gene are not religious, not privy to religious experiences; Will believes that God doesn’t exist (while Gene believes that God exist);
• Evaluate: Given the above, and the concepts taught, is it correct that–Epistemic Uniqueness is true in the disagreement between Lena vs Will over whether God exists, because the scenario shows that both Lena and Will can never have the same evidence, and if they can never have the same evidence, their opposite but equally justified beliefs can never be rationally based on the same evidence?
• Scenario in Dave’s Statements:
• The Scenario in Abe’s Statements, plus:
• Lena’s testimony also count as good evidence for God’s existence; she told both Will and Gene about her experiences;
• Will and Gene are equally smart and have thought equally hard about God’s existence;
• Evaluate: Given the above, and the concepts taught, is it correct that–the Epistemic Permissivist who says that Will and Gene are equally justified in their own beliefs (on the same evidence) would be begging the question against both of them.
• Scenario in Tess’ Statements:
• Same set up as in Dave’s Statements.
• Evaluate: Given the above, and the concepts taught, is it correct that–If someone agrees that the disagreement between Gene and Will (based on the same evidence) can never be resolved in such a way that both Gene and Will are equally justified, then this person cannot also consistently subscribe to Epistemic Permissivism?

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.)

• Question 4

For the purposes of the question you can treat “nice” vs. “not nice” as a black and white thing, with no degrees of niceness.

• Question 7

Small edits to statements I and II.

The median dropped back to 5 but not too bad overall. Click through to see…

make sure to be absolutely clear about the difference between a sufficient and a necessary condition from “A Short Lesson”, and the ways that can be used to express those conditions (e.g., “if…then…” vs. “only if…”, etc.)

• Question 1

Please do read “X implies Y” as saying “X is a sufficient condition for Y”. I’ve included a clarificatory note. Big hint: Please revise what it means for something to be a necessary condition for something else. Another big hint–this is actually meant to be a simpler question than many of you seem to be taking it. Everything you need is already in the question itself!

• Question 3

Small clarificatory note added for Dave’s statement. When we say that “given P, Q, R, it can still be X”, we are basically saying that {P, Q, R} does not rule out X.

Not bad at all! The median is now 6. A few surprises (to us) though. Click through to see.

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑