Mid-term Take-home Exam for Philosophy 440

Answer a question from each of the two sections (for a total of two questions). Limit your answers to three to four typed pages (double-spaced, 12pt font) or a total of eight. In answering each question make sure that you explicitly delineate each position or argument to which the question refers as part of your answer.

Section One

1.) Is it possible to be a classical foundationalist and a naturalized epistemologist (in answering this question you should probably explicitly limit yourself to one or two of the notions of "Naturalized epistemology" discussed in class)? If possible, what of the issues discussed in class might motivate such a position?

2.) Is Sosa right about the regress argument. Why would or wouldn't this help coherentists like BonJour ? For example, what, if any, relevance would it have to BonJour 's schema for belief justification and his grounds for holding it?

3.) How would BonJour Respond to Sosa 's argument that coherence theory is just a version of formal foundationalism ? How would he respond to Sosa 's criticism of coherence theory in the latter sections of the paper?

Section Two

1.) Which, if any, of the various senses of "naturalized epistemology" seem to best describe Goldman's causal theory of empirical knowledge? Which of the positions outlined by Kim (p.49) best describes Goldman's view? How might Stroud respond to Goldman's theory (be specific)? In what way is or isn't Goldman's theory different from BonJour 's theory in how it understands the epistemic status of observational beliefs?

2.) How does Kim most often portray Quine's project in Epistemology Naturalized? How does Stroud most often portray Quine's project in Epistemology Naturalized? Both Kim and Stroud offer arguments to the effect that Quine's project either changes the subject, with regard to scepticism, or it fails to offer any reasonable solution. Present these arguments and discuss which one (if any) you found to be the most effective.