General Awareness

Epistemology and Skepticism

3,700 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
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.

Multiple choice

Based on the information given in Passage 1, how do beliefs mature into ideas?

Answer the question based on the following passages.

Passage 1

            Does science relate to the authentic world? Or are its
            hypothesis dependent upon certain notions that exist in the
            researcher’s mind? Is science based on reliable factual
            information? Ortega Y Gasset said that all ideas ripen from
(5)       pre–reasoned beliefs. W. James responded that when we
           accept a new ‘truth’ we go beyond old ‘facts’ and this
            probably initiates the formation of new researchable
            scientific theories. The beliefs and notions of today probably
            can achieve the stature of being hypotheses tomorrow. It’s
(10)      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
(15)      cannot accept them till their existence is reasonably proved.
            So there is a lot of difference in believing in something and
            believing that something exists.
            Our beliefs are circumscribed by reasoning. We all believe in
            the connection between various things. No one can deny this.
(20)      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.
            Science limits this ambiguity and elucidates that only a
            few things inter-relate according to a conceptual framework
(25)     and these we declare as theories. Ideas are differentiated,
            classed and checked before formulation and science claims
            to possess the tools to demark, classify, study and elucidate
            these ideas and relations. Science extends the green signal
            to those relationships that have proved their ‘certainty’ or near
(30)      certainty. All science is based on proof. The connection which
            cannot be put to proof clearly is categorized as ‘false’. So
            science uses its apparatus to check the practicality of relations
            before formulation of its theories.

Passage 2

            Superstition gives us the freedom to connect everything,
            even things little known to us. People foresee their future
            in the planets, some dates are auspicious, some numbers
            can be unpropitious, black cats predict disaster. We fear
(5)        these things because their effects, if there are any, are little
            known. We cannot peek into or relate much to the future; so
            we are superstitious about it.
            If we cannot learn about a relationship, does that mean it
            does not exist? On seeing a tiger, our sight accepts its
(10)      existence and on hearing its roar also the existence of tiger
            can be accepted. We can see the results of high currents and
            infer or presume their existence from the ultimate wreckage.
            So we as human beings have a marked correlation mechanism.
            But our knowledge is limited. Whatever our sense of assessment
(15)      of correlations, there can always be a new amazing insight
            in connection with the idea. We cannot say we have evolved
            with the perfect and satisfactory derivation, as all our knowing
            is also limited.
            All Aristotelian, Newtonian works and physical theories
(20)      divulge connections which were unimagined before their
            revelation. Such people developed new tools to establish
            connectivity and slowly developed a theory in the bargain.
            So we can say, probably all superstitions could turn
            tomorrow’s science given the right treatment. Relationships
(25)      of Earth with the moon, the sun, the planets were all
            based on superstitions in pre historic times but people
            worked on these superstitions and slowly a real relation
            based on science was derived. All superstitions were shed
            and real theory evolved. So we can say superstitions are
(30)      possibly the mother to most of scientific theories.

  1. By research on the subject

  2. By going beyond a subject and raising new queries

  3. The preconceived notions slowly shape up

  4. By masticating the idea in the scholar's own mind
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Ortega stated that all ideas ripen from prereasoned beliefs.

Multiple choice

What relation can be derived between superstition/belief and theory from the two passages?

Answer the question based on the following passages.

Passage 1

            Does science relate to the authentic world? Or are its
            hypothesis dependent upon certain notions that exist in the
            researcher’s mind? Is science based on reliable factual
            information? Ortega Y Gasset said that all ideas ripen from
(5)       pre–reasoned beliefs. W. James responded that when we
           accept a new ‘truth’ we go beyond old ‘facts’ and this
            probably initiates the formation of new researchable
            scientific theories. The beliefs and notions of today probably
            can achieve the stature of being hypotheses tomorrow. It’s
(10)      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
(15)      cannot accept them till their existence is reasonably proved.
            So there is a lot of difference in believing in something and
            believing that something exists.
            Our beliefs are circumscribed by reasoning. We all believe in
            the connection between various things. No one can deny this.
(20)      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.
            Science limits this ambiguity and elucidates that only a
            few things inter-relate according to a conceptual framework
(25)     and these we declare as theories. Ideas are differentiated,
            classed and checked before formulation and science claims
            to possess the tools to demark, classify, study and elucidate
            these ideas and relations. Science extends the green signal
            to those relationships that have proved their ‘certainty’ or near
(30)      certainty. All science is based on proof. The connection which
            cannot be put to proof clearly is categorized as ‘false’. So
            science uses its apparatus to check the practicality of relations
            before formulation of its theories.

Passage 2

            Superstition gives us the freedom to connect everything,
            even things little known to us. People foresee their future
            in the planets, some dates are auspicious, some numbers
            can be unpropitious, black cats predict disaster. We fear
(5)        these things because their effects, if there are any, are little
            known. We cannot peek into or relate much to the future; so
            we are superstitious about it.
            If we cannot learn about a relationship, does that mean it
            does not exist? On seeing a tiger, our sight accepts its
(10)      existence and on hearing its roar also the existence of tiger
            can be accepted. We can see the results of high currents and
            infer or presume their existence from the ultimate wreckage.
            So we as human beings have a marked correlation mechanism.
            But our knowledge is limited. Whatever our sense of assessment
(15)      of correlations, there can always be a new amazing insight
            in connection with the idea. We cannot say we have evolved
            with the perfect and satisfactory derivation, as all our knowing
            is also limited.
            All Aristotelian, Newtonian works and physical theories
(20)      divulge connections which were unimagined before their
            revelation. Such people developed new tools to establish
            connectivity and slowly developed a theory in the bargain.
            So we can say, probably all superstitions could turn
            tomorrow’s science given the right treatment. Relationships
(25)      of Earth with the moon, the sun, the planets were all
            based on superstitions in pre historic times but people
            worked on these superstitions and slowly a real relation
            based on science was derived. All superstitions were shed
            and real theory evolved. So we can say superstitions are
(30)      possibly the mother to most of scientific theories.

  1. Foundation of a stadium

  2. Infancy of a man

  3. Attested testimonials for an application

  4. Tutorship for performing arts

  5. Preliminary matches before a knock-out round
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

All beliefs and superstitions introduce ideas which form the basis of a future theory.

Multiple choice

Why do we feel unsafe about a few things that make us superstitious? (Passage 2)

Answer the question based on the following passages.

Passage 1

            Does science relate to the authentic world? Or are its
            hypothesis dependent upon certain notions that exist in the
            researcher’s mind? Is science based on reliable factual
            information? Ortega Y Gasset said that all ideas ripen from
(5)       pre–reasoned beliefs. W. James responded that when we
           accept a new ‘truth’ we go beyond old ‘facts’ and this
            probably initiates the formation of new researchable
            scientific theories. The beliefs and notions of today probably
            can achieve the stature of being hypotheses tomorrow. It’s
(10)      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
(15)      cannot accept them till their existence is reasonably proved.
            So there is a lot of difference in believing in something and
            believing that something exists.
            Our beliefs are circumscribed by reasoning. We all believe in
            the connection between various things. No one can deny this.
(20)      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.
            Science limits this ambiguity and elucidates that only a
            few things inter-relate according to a conceptual framework
(25)     and these we declare as theories. Ideas are differentiated,
            classed and checked before formulation and science claims
            to possess the tools to demark, classify, study and elucidate
            these ideas and relations. Science extends the green signal
            to those relationships that have proved their ‘certainty’ or near
(30)      certainty. All science is based on proof. The connection which
            cannot be put to proof clearly is categorized as ‘false’. So
            science uses its apparatus to check the practicality of relations
            before formulation of its theories.

Passage 2

            Superstition gives us the freedom to connect everything,
            even things little known to us. People foresee their future
            in the planets, some dates are auspicious, some numbers
            can be unpropitious, black cats predict disaster. We fear
(5)        these things because their effects, if there are any, are little
            known. We cannot peek into or relate much to the future; so
            we are superstitious about it.
            If we cannot learn about a relationship, does that mean it
            does not exist? On seeing a tiger, our sight accepts its
(10)      existence and on hearing its roar also the existence of tiger
            can be accepted. We can see the results of high currents and
            infer or presume their existence from the ultimate wreckage.
            So we as human beings have a marked correlation mechanism.
            But our knowledge is limited. Whatever our sense of assessment
(15)      of correlations, there can always be a new amazing insight
            in connection with the idea. We cannot say we have evolved
            with the perfect and satisfactory derivation, as all our knowing
            is also limited.
            All Aristotelian, Newtonian works and physical theories
(20)      divulge connections which were unimagined before their
            revelation. Such people developed new tools to establish
            connectivity and slowly developed a theory in the bargain.
            So we can say, probably all superstitions could turn
            tomorrow’s science given the right treatment. Relationships
(25)      of Earth with the moon, the sun, the planets were all
            based on superstitions in pre historic times but people
            worked on these superstitions and slowly a real relation
            based on science was derived. All superstitions were shed
            and real theory evolved. So we can say superstitions are
(30)      possibly the mother to most of scientific theories.

  1. They are far from the real world.

  2. The unexplained have an aura of mystery shrouding them.

  3. They have given us an unexpected result somewhere in life.

  4. Their uncanny nature is ominous.

  5. We lack education or literacy.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

It is our lack of knowledge on the subject that makes us feel unsafe. Lines 4-6: “We fear these things because their effects, if there are any, are little known”.