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

What does the author think about that aspect of the mind about which we do not have proven facts?

I. It comes under the realm of metaphysics. II. It may one day come under the realm of science. III. It is departed from science.

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.

If psychology is a science, it is no longer a thing of guesses or theories, but is a grouping of confirmed facts about the mind, facts proved in the psychology laboratory even as chemical facts are demonstrated in the chemical laboratory. Wherein psychology departs from facts which can be proved by actual experience or by accurate tests, it becomes metaphysics, and is beyond the realm of science; for metaphysics deals with the realities of the supermind, or the soul, and its relations to life, and death, and God. Physics, Chemistry, Biology have all in their day been merely speculative. They were bodies of theory which might prove true or might not. When they worked, by actually being tried out, they became bodies of accepted facts, and are today called sciences. In the same way the laws of the working of the mind have been tested, and a body of assured facts about it has taken its place with other sciences. It must be admitted that no psychologist is willing to stop with the known and proved, but, when he has presented that, dips into the fascinations of the yet unknown, and works with promising theory, which tomorrow may prove to be science also. What do we mean by "mental life"? We might say the science of the life of the mind. And what is mind? But let us start our quest by asking first what reasons we have for being sure that mind exists. We find the proof of it in consciousness, although it has been learned that the activities of the mind may at times be unconscious. So where consciousness is, we know there is mind; but where consciousness is not, we must find whether it has been, and is only temporarily withdrawn, before we say "Mind is not here." And consciousness we might call awareness, or our personal recognition of being - awareness of me, and thee, and it. So we recognise mind by its evidences of awareness, i.e., by the body's reaction to stimuli. Consciousness is evidenced in what we call response to stimuli. But while consciousness can be as vague, as dubious as that of the protozoan, it is the mind that is as clear, as definite, as far reaching as that of the statesman, the chemist, the philosopher. The "phenomena of mental life"; embrace the entire realms of feeling, knowing, willing - not of man alone, but of all creatures. But it is the psychology of the human mind that vitally concerns us. Animal psychology, race psychology, comparative psychology - are not within the realm of our practical needs in life. We would know the workings of man's mind in disease and health. What are the instinctive responses to fear, as shown by babies and children and primitive races? What are the normal expressions of joy, of anger, or desire? What external conditions call forth these evidences? What are the acquired responses to the things which originally caused fear, or joy, or anger? How do grown-ups differ in their reactions to the same stimuli? Why do they differ? Why does one man walk firmly, with stern, set face, to meet danger? Why does another quake and run? Why does a third man approach it with a swagger, face it with a confident, reckless smile of defiance?

  1. I only

  2. II only

  3. I and II

  4. All of them

  5. None of these
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

Option 4 is correct because all the three statements are true. 

Multiple choice

Which of the following cannot be derived from the passage?

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.

If psychology is a science, it is no longer a thing of guesses or theories, but is a grouping of confirmed facts about the mind, facts proved in the psychology laboratory even as chemical facts are demonstrated in the chemical laboratory. Wherein psychology departs from facts which can be proved by actual experience or by accurate tests, it becomes metaphysics, and is beyond the realm of science; for metaphysics deals with the realities of the supermind, or the soul, and its relations to life, and death, and God. Physics, Chemistry, Biology have all in their day been merely speculative. They were bodies of theory which might prove true or might not. When they worked, by actually being tried out, they became bodies of accepted facts, and are today called sciences. In the same way the laws of the working of the mind have been tested, and a body of assured facts about it has taken its place with other sciences. It must be admitted that no psychologist is willing to stop with the known and proved, but, when he has presented that, dips into the fascinations of the yet unknown, and works with promising theory, which tomorrow may prove to be science also. What do we mean by "mental life"? We might say the science of the life of the mind. And what is mind? But let us start our quest by asking first what reasons we have for being sure that mind exists. We find the proof of it in consciousness, although it has been learned that the activities of the mind may at times be unconscious. So where consciousness is, we know there is mind; but where consciousness is not, we must find whether it has been, and is only temporarily withdrawn, before we say "Mind is not here." And consciousness we might call awareness, or our personal recognition of being - awareness of me, and thee, and it. So we recognise mind by its evidences of awareness, i.e., by the body's reaction to stimuli. Consciousness is evidenced in what we call response to stimuli. But while consciousness can be as vague, as dubious as that of the protozoan, it is the mind that is as clear, as definite, as far reaching as that of the statesman, the chemist, the philosopher. The "phenomena of mental life"; embrace the entire realms of feeling, knowing, willing - not of man alone, but of all creatures. But it is the psychology of the human mind that vitally concerns us. Animal psychology, race psychology, comparative psychology - are not within the realm of our practical needs in life. We would know the workings of man's mind in disease and health. What are the instinctive responses to fear, as shown by babies and children and primitive races? What are the normal expressions of joy, of anger, or desire? What external conditions call forth these evidences? What are the acquired responses to the things which originally caused fear, or joy, or anger? How do grown-ups differ in their reactions to the same stimuli? Why do they differ? Why does one man walk firmly, with stern, set face, to meet danger? Why does another quake and run? Why does a third man approach it with a swagger, face it with a confident, reckless smile of defiance?

  1. A science is the accumulated, tested knowledge; the proven facts about a subject known to date.

  2. A scientific study and understanding of the human mind is of utmost importance to us.

  3. Mind is evidenced even in the protozoan, the simplest form in which animal life is known to exist.

  4. Mind is recognised by its evidence of awareness, i. e. by the body's reaction to stimuli.

  5. The study of the mind embraces both the known and the unknown; the proved and the unproven facts.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Option 3 is rendered incorrect by the sentence: “But while consciousness can be as vague, as dubious as that of the protozoan, it is the mind that is as clear, as definite, as far reaching as that of the statesman”.

Multiple choice

What will help our argument 'see light' (line 17), according to the passage?

Direction:

            Whether the argument is oral or written, the active purpose
            is to make the other person take your view of the subject.
            In an explanation we put forth our personal attitude before
            others but in an argument, we realize people are having a
(5)        different view on the same subject. So we use two weapons –
            one is of conviction and the other of persuasion. We try to
            prove the authenticity of our criteria by convincing others,
            using practical examples so that the other party comes round
            to our point of view. We also use moralizing to bring more
(10)      partisans to our view. But when this lacks practical touch it
            can be called persuasion. If you put forth that the shape of
            hills in New England is due to glaciers, you are first trying
            to persuade. Since here logic is lacking, it cannot be
            convincing. Human thinking and feeling also comes to rescue.
(15)      The first reaction could be spontaneous due to feeling but
            reasoning does come later. So in all arguments one must
            keep in mind both the forces so that our criterion sees light.

  1. If our argument is well debated and judged

  2. If we can prove illogical hypothesis on our beliefs to be true

  3. If our argument is well embedded in reasoning and conviction

  4. The fact that we are endowed with the power of persuasion and a logical conviction on our points.

  5. Morality and religious conviction for persuasion.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

No argument can see light until it has reasoning and conviction.

Multiple choice

Knowledge theorists opine that risk management is actually a combination of management of uncertainty, risk, equivocality and error. Uncertainty arises due to lack of information. As information gathering progresses, uncertainty transforms into risk. In uncertainty, outcomes cannot be estimated even randomly. This is possible in the case of risk. As information about markets and knowledge about possible outcomes increases, risk management provides solutions for cutting risk. Equivocality arises due to conflicting interpretations and the resultant lack of judgement. This happens despite adequate knowledge of the situation. Institutions develop control systems to reduce errors, information systems to reduce uncertainty, incentive systems to manage agency problems in a risk-reward framework and cultural systems to deal with equivocality. Which of the following can't be inferred from the paragraph?

  1. Risk comes from unpredictable sources and managers resort to various approaches associated with risk management.

  2. Risk arises from lack of information and inadequate discernment.

  3. The risk managers are prone to error, due to the uncertainty of information and equivocality of judgment.

  4. Risk management is a graduated process of passing from total uncertainty to lucidity.

  5. Risk managers endeavour to reduce uncertainty through disputative interpretations of not so uncertain information.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

The passage is about management of risk and uncertainty. Nowhere does the passage imply that there is a situation of total uncertainty or that a situation of certainty or lucidity can be reached.

Multiple choice
The first lecture, the one that was supposed to explain what: scientific thinking is about, Feynman called The Uncertainty of Science. The uncertainty he had in mind was not that of Heisenberg, but rather that of Kari Popper: that scientists should be skeptical of their own theories, or in other words, have an open mind. As with most scientists who profess to follow Popper, he consistently refutes himself throughout his lectures. To Feynman, science has three parts: the facts or body of knowledge, the method or process that we use to establish those facts, and the applications of science, that is to say, technology: To him its an article of faith that technology follows science. He would regard technology arising on its own as something akin to the Virgin Birth.
The last sentence of the paragraph has been deleted. Which of the following completes the paragraph, most suitably?

  1. But scientific precepts are a priori before technology can set store for us.

  2. When the irrefutable scientific facts take shape, the applications in the form of technology are bound to follow.

  3. But his real point is that technology is only incidental to the importance of science.

  4. The body, the method, and the application, therefore, form the triumvirate of science.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Technology being “something akin to the Virgin Birth” helps eliminate (1) and (2). (4) and (5) are eliminated as they are unrelated to the passage and ideas.

Multiple choice

Directions: The question is a logical sequence of statements with a missing link, the location of which is shown parenthetically. Choose the option which best fits the sequence logically.

Feynman on religion is interesting mainly because he clearly feels the need to tread very carefully for fear of offending too many people. He divides religion up into three parts: the metaphysical (creation of myths and so on), the ethical and the inspirational. His analysis is that science undermines the metaphysical part, but has no effect at all on the ethical, because, in fact, (__________). He laments the fact that the undermining of the metaphysical takes a lot of air out of the sails of the inspirational part, but his view is that the picture of the universe presented by science is pretty inspirational itself.

  1. science has nothing to do with the ethics of religion

  2. scientists have pretty much the same ethical values as everyone else

  3. ethics and inspiration are irretrievably intertwined

  4. scientific laws do not seek to confront ethical values

  5. science does not moralise as ethics do
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

We need to choose an option that answers why science has no effect on the ethical. Options (3), (4) and (5) are not related to the passage and thus, eliminated.

Multiple choice

The framers of curriculums have differed greatly in the knowledge they prescribe. If there have been times when all the students at school or college studied the same things, as if it were obvious that without exposure to a common body of knowledge they would not be educated at all, there have been other times when specialization ran so wild that it might almost seem as if educated men had abandoned the thought of ever talking to each other once their education was completed. If knowledge is one of our marks, we can hardly be dogmatic about the kind or the amount. However, if the framer of a curriculum wants to minimize his risks,

What is the most critical completion of the passage?

  1. he ought to take lessons from history.

  2. he ought not to be so iconoclastic at the same time.

  3. he ought to give due cognition to specialization in today’s world.

  4. he has to take views of the student community as well.

  5. he can invoke an ancient doctrine which holds that an educated man ought to know a little about everything and a lot about something.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
E Correct answer
Explanation

5: Correct. Some want the same thing for everybody; others want specialization. However, we need not be dogmatic and must take the middle course.

Multiple choice

When we accept a new 'truth' we go beyond old 'facts'. The beliefs and notions of today probably can achieve the stature of being hypotheses tomorrow. It's undoubted that beliefs are in some way responsible for designing the theories of future. There always are cases where humans believe in a few things existing but lack explanation. There always are some ideas existing in nature. We can feel them; we can believe in their existence but cannot accept them till their existence is reasonably proved. Our beliefs are circumscribed by reasoning. We all believe in the connection between various things. No one can deny this. All things may consistently follow each other but that does not reveal any relation between them. There is ambiguity because the connectivity in our mind is cooked up work.

What is the underlying theme of the passage?

  1. There is a lot of difference in believing in something and believing that something exists.

  2. Today's facts are bound to be disproved tomorrow.

  3. All things are interrelated but we sometimes fail to see the connection.

  4. There is no connectivity in events; it is just our imagination working overtime.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

The passage talks of how we cannot accept the existence of some ideas till they are proved.

Multiple choice

In the first few months of their careers, executives need challenges and stimulation to develop professionally. Lack of this challenge can have adverse consequences.

The argument above suffers from which of the following fallacies (flawed reasoning)?

  1. The conclusion denies the premise.

  2. The premise employs inductive reasoning.

  3. The conclusion restates the premise.

  4. The premise depends on one parameter only.

  5. The reasoning makes an appeal to authority.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Both the premise and the conclusion imply that initial challenge is necessary for career executives.

Multiple choice

Directions: Sometimes we conclude about characteristics of a general phenomenon by studying or analyzing characteristics of a particular phenomenon. Below are given such inductive arguments. The generalisation is given first, followed by two particular statements. You have to find out whether the numbered particular statements strongly confirm, vaguely hint, contradict or are irrelevant to the generalisation. Read the question given below and answer accordingly.

Generalisation: Nuclear power is a relatively safe method of generating energy.

  1. Nuclear plants in the US have not caused a single death.
  2. Many people are frightened of nuclear plants. What type of support does statement 2 provide for this generalisation?

  1. Strongly confirms

  2. Vaguely hints

  3. Strongly contradicts

  4. Vaguely contradicts

  5. Irrelevant
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
E Correct answer
Explanation

Fright is an irrational emotion and may not have any scientific basis.

Multiple choice

Directions: Sometimes we conclude about characteristics of a general phenomenon by studying or analysing characteristics of a particular phenomenon. Below are given such inductive arguments. The generalisation is given first, followed by a particular statement. You have to find out whether the numbered particular statement strongly confirms, vaguely hints, strongly contradicts or is irrelevant to the generalisation. Read the question given below and answer accordingly.

Generalisation: Professors with tenure don't work as hard as professors without tenure.

  1. The possibility of losing one's job is an incentive to work hard.
  2. Professor Smith, who is tenured, works 14 hours a day. What type of support does statement (2) provide for this generalisation?

  1. Strongly confirms

  2. Vaguely hints

  3. Strongly contradicts

  4. Vaguely contradicts

  5. Irrelevant
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

By citing an example of a professor with tenure who works hard (14 hours out of 24), the statement directly contradicts the generalisation. Hence, this is the correct answer choice.

Multiple choice

Directions: Sometimes we conclude about characteristics of a general phenomenon by studying or analysing characteristics of a particular phenomenon. Below are given such inductive arguments. The generalisation is given first, followed by a particular statement. You have to find out whether the numbered particular statement strongly confirms, vaguely hints, strongly contradicts or is irrelevant to the generalisation. Read the question given below and answer accordingly. Generalisation: Expensive clothes are always made of natural fabrics.

  1. I have never seen a $500 men's suit made of polyester or other synthetic material.
  2. I sometimes see silk blouses at very low prices. What type of support does statement 1 provide for this generalisation?

  1. Strongly confirms

  2. Vaguely hints

  3. Strongly contradicts

  4. Vaguely contradicts

  5. Irrelevant
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
E Correct answer
Explanation

The fact that the author has never seen a costly suit made of these non-natural fabrics, doesn't rule out its existence. There is also no specific mention of value that corresponds to 'expensive'. Hence, (5) is the correct answer choice.

Multiple choice

Directions: Sometimes we conclude about characteristics of a general phenomenon by studying or analysing characteristics of a particular phenomenon. Below are given such inductive arguments. The generalisation is given first, followed by a particular statement. You have to find out whether the numbered particular statement strongly confirms, vaguely hints, strongly contradicts or is irrelevant to the generalisation. Read the question given below and answer accordingly.

Generalisation: A red sun in the evening means good weather the next day.

  1. The prevailing winds come from the west.
  2. The sun was red last night but it's raining today. What type of support does statement 1 provide for this generalisation?

  1. Strongly confirms

  2. Vaguely hints

  3. Strongly contradicts

  4. Vaguely contradicts

  5. Irrelevant
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
E Correct answer
Explanation

The direction of the wind cannot be understood from the statement. Therefore, (5) is the correct answer choice. 

Multiple choice

Directions: For the given question, select one entry for the blank from the given choices, to best complete the text.

For the past century or so, philosophy has primarily entailed ___________ deep truths about the nature of human existence - questions about reason, knowledge, values, and free will. Philosophy can seem like a lonely ivory-tower vigil, but the old school holds that sitting and thinking is still the best way to do it.

  1. erudite discussions to ferret out

  2. digging into the human psyche to find out

  3. esoteric contemplation to dig out

  4. altruistic reflection to find out

  5. solitary ruminations to puzzle out
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
E Correct answer
Explanation

(1) Incorrect; the clue comes from 'philosophy can seem like a lonely ivory-tower vigil'. Words that denote a lonely vigil are needed. (2) Incorrect; because philosophy is a 'lonely vigil' and thinking is anyways a solitary pursuit, words that denote this state of mind are needed. (3) Incorrect; nothing in the passage suggests philosophy being hard to understand, which is what esoteric would imply. (4) Incorrect; reflections is correct, but 'altruism' does not fit the passage. (5) Correct; because philosophy is a lonely vigil and entails sitting and thinking, which is also a solitary pursuit, the option neatly sums up the effort required.

Multiple choice

What will help our argument 'see light', according to the passage?

Read the passage and answer the question that follows.

Whether the argument is oral or written, the active purpose is to make the other person take your view of the subject. In an explanation we put forth our personal attitude before others but in an argument, we realize people are having a different view on the same subject. So we use two weapons – one is of conviction and the other of persuasion. We try to prove the authenticity of our criteria by convincing others, using practical examples so that the other party comes round to our point of view. We also use moralizing to bring more partisans to our view. But when this lacks practical touch it can be called persuasion. If you put forth that the shape of hills in New England is due to glaciers, you are first trying to persuade. Since here logic is lacking, it cannot be convincing. Human thinking and feeling also comes to rescue. The first reaction could be spontaneous due to feeling but reasoning does come later. So in all arguments one must keep in mind both the forces so that our criterion sees light.

  1. If our argument is well debated and judged

  2. If we can prove illogical hypothesis on our beliefs to be true

  3. If our argument is well embedded in reasoning and conviction

  4. The fact that we are endowed with the power of persuasion and a logical conviction on our points
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Option (A): An argument is debate in any case. Sitting in judgment cannot make the argument see light. Option (B): “Illogical hypothesis” and “true” are antithetical in nature. Option (C): The given phrase is preceded by another “keep in mind both the forces”. Both the forces have been referred to earlier “So we use two weapons - one is of conviction and the other of persuasion“. No argument can see light until it has reasoning (logic) and conviction. Option (D): Simply being endowed with ability will not serve the purpose. One has to use the ability. Option (E): Morality and religion are extraneous to “see light” as discussed in the passage.