General Awareness

Epistemology and Skepticism

3,483 Questions

Explore a targeted set of epistemology and skepticism questions focusing on theories of knowledge, logical arguments, and philosophical critiques. Topics include coherentism, foundationalism, and decision making processes. This resource is useful for students preparing for UPSC optional subjects and academic entrance tests.

Theories of knowledgeSkeptical argumentsPhilosophical logicFoundationalism critique

Epistemology and Skepticism Questions

Multiple choice

Why are the “categories "true and false" so inadequate” in the case of philosophy?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Metaphysical principles are less easily verified from experience than physical hypotheses, but also less easily refuted. Systems of philosophy, therefore, are not so dependent on our progressive knowledge of facts as the theories of natural science, and change less quickly; notwithstanding their mutual conflicts, and in spite of the talk about discarded standpoints, they possess in a measure the permanence of classical works of art, they retain for all time a certain relative validity. The thought of Plato, of Aristotle, and of the heroes of modern philosophy is ever proving anew its fructifying power. Nowhere do we find such instructive errors as in the sphere of philosophy; nowhere is the new so essentially a completion and development of the old, even though it deem itself the whole and assume a hostile attitude toward its predecessors; nowhere is the inquiry so much more important than the final result; nowhere the categories "true and false" so inadequate. The spirit of the time and the spirit of the people, the individuality of the thinker, disposition, will, fancy--all these exert a far stronger influence on the development of philosophy, both by way of promotion and by way of hindrance, than in any other department of thought. If a system gives classical expression to the thought of an epoch,’ a nation, or a great personality; if it seeks to attack the world-riddle from a new direction, or brings us nearer its solution by important original conceptions, by a subtler or a simpler comprehension of the problem, by a wider outlook or a deeper insight; it has accomplished more than it could have done by bringing forward a number of indisputably correct principles.

  1. The true and false are different only in form, not in substance.

  2. There is nothing inherently true or false in a philosophical theory.

  3. Various philosophical interpretations have a sort of hierarchy of truths.

  4. Since philosophical tenets cannot be tested for validity, it is difficult to prove their truthfulness.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Option (1): 'Inadequate categories' does not mean true and false are no different in substance. Option (2): This does not reason why categories "true and false" are so inadequate. So, the option is ruled out. Option (3): The categories are inadequate means there are other options or shades that cannot strictly be included in one of these categories. Hence, this option is the correct answer. Option (4): 'Cannot be tested' renders this option incorrect. The passage says that philosophical tenets are less easily verified, but does not say that they cannot be verified. Option (5): Not only truths but untruths also are relative in philosophy, but the option talks only about truths.

Multiple choice

Which of the following represents best the key point of argument of the passage?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Metaphysical principles are less easily verified from experience than physical hypotheses, but also less easily refuted. Systems of philosophy, therefore, are not so dependent on our progressive knowledge of facts as the theories of natural science, and change less quickly; notwithstanding their mutual conflicts, and in spite of the talk about discarded standpoints, they possess in a measure the permanence of classical works of art, they retain for all time a certain relative validity. The thought of Plato, of Aristotle, and of the heroes of modern philosophy is ever proving anew its fructifying power. Nowhere do we find such instructive errors as in the sphere of philosophy; nowhere is the new so essentially a completion and development of the old, even though it deem itself the whole and assume a hostile attitude toward its predecessors; nowhere is the inquiry so much more important than the final result; nowhere the categories "true and false" so inadequate. The spirit of the time and the spirit of the people, the individuality of the thinker, disposition, will, fancy--all these exert a far stronger influence on the development of philosophy, both by way of promotion and by way of hindrance, than in any other department of thought. If a system gives classical expression to the thought of an epoch,’ a nation, or a great personality; if it seeks to attack the world-riddle from a new direction, or brings us nearer its solution by important original conceptions, by a subtler or a simpler comprehension of the problem, by a wider outlook or a deeper insight; it has accomplished more than it could have done by bringing forward a number of indisputably correct principles.

  1. Philosophical tenets are evolutionary, rather than being revolutionary.

  2. The ancient philosophy of Plato and Aristotle has nuggets of wisdom valid even in the present age.

  3. Philosophical principles are metaphysical and hence, cannot be easily verified.

  4. Philosophical thought is akin to natural sciences in certain aspects, though it essentially remains metaphysical in nature.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

Option (1): Philosophical principles are of gradual not of radical changes. They “possess in a measure the permanence of classical works of art, they retain for all time a certain relative validity.” Also “nowhere is the new so essentially a completion and development of the old”. Thus, (1) is the correct answer. Option (2): The passage is about philosophy not about Plato or Aristotle. The option is too specific to select as answer. Option (3): This option rephrases only the opening line of the passage. It is not the main theme of the passage. Nor does it cover all the aspects of the passage. Thus, it is ruled out. Option (4): This is not the key point of the argument. This is only a supporting fact to elucidate the main theme of the passage. Thus, the option is eliminated. Option (5): The latter part of the option renders it incorrect.

Multiple choice

Why is the thought of Plato and Aristotle “proving anew its fructifying power”?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Metaphysical principles are less easily verified from experience than physical hypotheses, but also less easily refuted. Systems of philosophy, therefore, are not so dependent on our progressive knowledge of facts as the theories of natural science, and change less quickly; notwithstanding their mutual conflicts, and in spite of the talk about discarded standpoints, they possess in a measure the permanence of classical works of art, they retain for all time a certain relative validity. The thought of Plato, of Aristotle, and of the heroes of modern philosophy is ever proving anew its fructifying power. Nowhere do we find such instructive errors as in the sphere of philosophy; nowhere is the new so essentially a completion and development of the old, even though it deem itself the whole and assume a hostile attitude toward its predecessors; nowhere is the inquiry so much more important than the final result; nowhere the categories "true and false" so inadequate. The spirit of the time and the spirit of the people, the individuality of the thinker, disposition, will, fancy--all these exert a far stronger influence on the development of philosophy, both by way of promotion and by way of hindrance, than in any other department of thought. If a system gives classical expression to the thought of an epoch,’ a nation, or a great personality; if it seeks to attack the world-riddle from a new direction, or brings us nearer its solution by important original conceptions, by a subtler or a simpler comprehension of the problem, by a wider outlook or a deeper insight; it has accomplished more than it could have done by bringing forward a number of indisputably correct principles.

  1. Although certain philosophers have out-rightly rejected aspects of their thought, it still finds support among others.

  2. Plato and Aristotle had proved validity of their concepts and efforts of certain modern day thinkers to reject their usefulness are futile.

  3. Fresh interpretation leads to the relative validity of concepts earlier thought to be outmoded.

  4. Aristotle and Plato have proved mighty resilient, efforts of modern day thinkers to debunk them, notwithstanding.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Option (1): The passage does not provide any description of rejection or acceptance of Plato's and Aristotle's thought. Thus, the option is ruled out. Option (2): Nowhere in the passage is it stated that Plato and Aristotle had proved validity of their concepts. So, the option is discarded. Option (3): This can be inferred from the preceding lines about “certain relative validity” of old concepts fructifying anew. Thus, (3) is the correct answer. Option (4): Nowhere does the passage say that modern thinkers try to debunk Aristotle and Plato. Option (5): The passage suggests that nowhere is the new so essentially a completion and development of the old. 'Permanence' cannot be inferred since new modifies and develops the old.

Multiple choice

The demarcating line between intention and knowledge is

  1. Non-existing

  2. Existing

  3. Thin

  4. Wide
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

In criminal law, intention (desire the consequence) and knowledge (awareness of near-certainty) exist on a spectrum but are distinct mental states. The courts have held the line between them is 'thin' - slight but legally significant. Both require subjective awareness of consequences, differing only in the attitude toward those consequences.

Multiple choice

To locate epistemology, to tie it to particular historical, political contexts, does not require its ________; it only requires a new and wiser self - understanding.

  1. vandalism

  2. expedience

  3. eradication

  4. indentation

  5. scouring

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

'Epistemology' is the study or theory of the nature, source and limits of knowledge. Therefore, the blank must be replaced by a word that is in opposition to the phrase - 'new and wiser self-understanding' - in the end of the statement. Let's scrutinize each option: 'Vandalism' in (1) - malicious or ignorant destruction of public or private property; as this is irrelevant, hence option (1) is ruled out.   'Expedience in (2) - desirable, advisable; which is contrary to our prediction, hence is ruled out.   'Indentation' in (4) - imprint, impression; which is contrary to our prediction, hence is ruled out. 'Scouring' in (5) - cleaning; which is irrelevant, hence is ruled out. 'Eradication' in (3) - to get rid of; destroy; which fits our prediction, hence the answer.

Multiple choice

What is zero ended rationalism?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

A zero-ended rationalism about computers is that "they only do what they are programmed to". The reasoning goes something like this: If one incorporates into a computer the capability to recognise the meaning and function of the symbols representing 'two', 'multiply' and 'equals to' then it would have no problem solving the equation : 2 x 2 =?

But how different is this really from what a child learns in grade school? It's exactly the same. There can definitely be no propensity in certain children to be better in maths than others since arithmetic even at a lowly human level is, after all, only an acquired trait and acquired traits are not inherited.
Similarly, if a computer could be made to intimately internalize the moves, strengths and positional advantages of pieces like the Queen or the Bishop, it should have no problem creaming Kasparov as it would also have the added advantage of number crunching to check out moves so many zillions of nano-seconds in advance.

However, what has been missing so far in the environment of a computer and why it required so many avatars of IBM's Deep Blue programme to outwit our number one grand-master, is the role of a family and the nurture it provides for a potential predisposition. This is because genetically, some children could have stronger musculature to become better cricketers or actors but only when given the necessary ambient training. The answer therefore lies not in suddenly blitzing a super computer's hardware memory and logic bank its equivalent of musculature with the rules, and strategy's of some table game but to bring it home as a baby.

Over the years, fostered by gentle but continuous inputs it would be able to assimilate the secret innuendoes of a game, for instance like bridge, and learn to play it with class instead of simply knowing all possible probabilities of a given hand to the n-th card-played.

  1. A rationalism which always ends in 0.

  2. A reasoning which can end in a particular way only.

  3. A generalization to explain something.

  4. Something that is of little useful knowledge.

  5. Integration of computers with society.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

As suggested by the context in which the term has been used and the example in the given passage zero ended rationalism is a reasoning which doesn't leave scope for any other thing except a single possible conclusion. The best definition is provided by option (2).

Multiple choice

Which of the following are the main arguments of trans-empiricists against empirical study?1. Human behaviour cannot be studied with objectivity.

  1. Political phenomenon is not amenable to experimental enquiry.
  2. A purely descriptive approach has no advantage.
  3. Political science cannot refuse to show concern with questions of right and wrong. Select the correct answer using the code given below:

  1. 1, 2 and 3 only

  2. 1, 3 and 4 only

  3. 1, 2 and 4 only

  4. 2, 3 and 4 only
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Trans-empiricists (or post-behavioralists) argue that human behavior is too complex and value-laden to be studied with the same objectivity as the physical sciences. They emphasize that political science must address normative questions of right and wrong and acknowledge that political phenomena are not easily subjected to controlled experiments.

Multiple choice

Consider the following statements:

  1. Positivism emphasized precision, constructive power and relativism.
  2. Positivists understood meaningful analysis as possible only through tautologies and empirical statements.
  3. The empiricism believed that observation and experience as source of knowledge had no significance for positivism. Which of the statements given above are correct?

  1. 1, 2 and 3

  2. 1 and 2 only

  3. 2 and 3 only

  4. 1 and 3 only
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

Positivism, particularly logical positivism, asserts that meaningful statements must be either analytic (tautologies) or synthetic (empirically verifiable). It is deeply rooted in empiricism, making statement 3 incorrect as observation and experience are the primary sources of knowledge for positivists.

Multiple choice

When we realize the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched in the study of philosophy — for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly or dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences, but critically, after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas.

  1. When we realize the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched in the study of philosophy — for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly or dogmatically

  2. When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we will be well launched in the study of philosophy — for philosophy is merely an attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically

  3. When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy — for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically

  4. When we realize the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy — for philosophy is merely an attempt to answer these ultimate questions, not carelessly or dogmatically

  5. When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched in the study of philosophy — for philosophy is merely an attempt to answer these ultimate questions, not carelessly or dogmatically
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

What the sentence wants to convey is that when the obstacles to a straightforward and confident answer are realized so ‘we have realized’ is the better construct. The correct prepositions to use with launch are ‘on’ and ‘into’ with both expressions meaning to start a major activity, hence ‘launched in’ is not correct. Philosophy does not imply just one attempt at something so ‘an attempt’ would not be the right construct. ‘Such’ is a demonstrative qualifier while ‘these’ limits things to a given set, making ‘such’ a better construct in the sentence. Hence (3).

Multiple choice

The author's attitude towards philosophy identifies philosophy as

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Many of the philosophers we have been reading in class seem to me to be hopelessly dated (although some of them express useful ideas and/or make good points). Of course, it's easy to become trapped in writing only for the period a person lives in, and a philosophy is necessarily dependant on the historical situation and the extent of man's knowledge. And many of the philosophers who have existed over the course of the centuries have necessarily had to worry about governmental, church, or societal disapproval, censorship, or punishment. (Socrates, for instance, was sentenced to death by a court for the crime of explaining his ideas.)

However, Victor Hugo said that if he were writing for his own time only, he would have to break his pen and throw it away. As so it seems that, in order for a philosopher to be relevant for the future as well as the present, he must take into account all of the objections to his philosophy which can be anticipated at the present time. And it seems to me that the most frequent objections to modern and pre-modern (but not postmodern) philosophers come from the incompatibility of their philosophies with what is considered to be established scientific fact. For instance, Plato's theory of forms does not, to me, seem to jibe with modern physics and cosmology. And although I can only vaguely glimpse the psychology which underlies Kant, it seems to be highly questionable. (In my view, application of Kant's epistemology and metaphysics could never produce an artificial intelligence capable of passing a Turing test.) And so, it seems to me, the best way that a philosopher can keep from being dated is to be aware of scientific knowledge, and integrate it into philosophy. Of course, this necessitates an independent evaluation of the merits and drawbacks of a given scientific idea, which necessitates, in turn, a thorough knowledge of that theory.

After all, physics can give us insights into metaphysics, since both seek different ways to do the same thing; psychology, sociology, anthropology, and archeology can give us insights into epistemology; various "soft" sciences dealing with comparative cultures can provide food for thought in ethics, and so on. History is, of course, necessary to any understanding of a philosophy: how it came about, what people did with it, etc. Sartre, although he developed some of his ideas from Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, probably could not have expounded those same ideas of existentialism in their times; Nietzsche, who popularized the idea that "God is dead"; could not have written in the time of Descartes; and Descartes could not have expressed (or, possibly, even produced) his.

I suppose that my point is that philosophy does not (and should not, and must not) stand apart from the rest of the sciences (and it should, can, and must be a science). Rather, Philosophy should be integrated with the rest of the sciences through a method of rational judgment. Rather than sailing behind, or next to but away from, the rest of the sciences, Philosophy should be the flagship of the group. Although the other sciences can provide us with data, observations, and theories, only philosophy can integrate those into a coherent whole, tell us what to do with them, or provide a meaningful context for using these facts in our daily lives.

  1. conversant

  2. pertinent

  3. a contention

  4. of propitiation
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

(2) is the correct choice as pertinence is a quality of being relevant and that is what the author is trying to establish in the passage.

Multiple choice

From where does philosophy draw its relevance to the modern world?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Many of the philosophers we have been reading in class seem to me to be hopelessly dated (although some of them express useful ideas and/or make good points). Of course, it's easy to become trapped in writing only for the period a person lives in, and a philosophy is necessarily dependant on the historical situation and the extent of man's knowledge. And many of the philosophers who have existed over the course of the centuries have necessarily had to worry about governmental, church, or societal disapproval, censorship, or punishment. (Socrates, for instance, was sentenced to death by a court for the crime of explaining his ideas.)

However, Victor Hugo said that if he were writing for his own time only, he would have to break his pen and throw it away. As so it seems that, in order for a philosopher to be relevant for the future as well as the present, he must take into account all of the objections to his philosophy which can be anticipated at the present time. And it seems to me that the most frequent objections to modern and pre-modern (but not postmodern) philosophers come from the incompatibility of their philosophies with what is considered to be established scientific fact. For instance, Plato's theory of forms does not, to me, seem to jibe with modern physics and cosmology. And although I can only vaguely glimpse the psychology which underlies Kant, it seems to be highly questionable. (In my view, application of Kant's epistemology and metaphysics could never produce an artificial intelligence capable of passing a Turing test.) And so, it seems to me, the best way that a philosopher can keep from being dated is to be aware of scientific knowledge, and integrate it into philosophy. Of course, this necessitates an independent evaluation of the merits and drawbacks of a given scientific idea, which necessitates, in turn, a thorough knowledge of that theory.

After all, physics can give us insights into metaphysics, since both seek different ways to do the same thing; psychology, sociology, anthropology, and archeology can give us insights into epistemology; various "soft" sciences dealing with comparative cultures can provide food for thought in ethics, and so on. History is, of course, necessary to any understanding of a philosophy: how it came about, what people did with it, etc. Sartre, although he developed some of his ideas from Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, probably could not have expounded those same ideas of existentialism in their times; Nietzsche, who popularized the idea that "God is dead"; could not have written in the time of Descartes; and Descartes could not have expressed (or, possibly, even produced) his.

I suppose that my point is that philosophy does not (and should not, and must not) stand apart from the rest of the sciences (and it should, can, and must be a science). Rather, Philosophy should be integrated with the rest of the sciences through a method of rational judgment. Rather than sailing behind, or next to but away from, the rest of the sciences, Philosophy should be the flagship of the group. Although the other sciences can provide us with data, observations, and theories, only philosophy can integrate those into a coherent whole, tell us what to do with them, or provide a meaningful context for using these facts in our daily lives.

  1. Because of its epistemological relevance.

  2. Because of its ontological relevance.

  3. Because it lends application to theory.

  4. Because of its timelessness.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

(3) is the right choice and it can be derived from: “And so, it seems to me, the best way that a philosopher can keep from being dated is to be aware of scientific knowledge, and integrate it into philosophy. Of course, this necessitates an independent evaluation of the merits and drawbacks of a given scientific idea, which necessitates, in turn, a thorough knowledge of that theory.”