Review Questions For Rosenberg pp. 37-46
  1. Skip kicks off the third conversation with the “Potemkin Barns” case. What is this case designed to show about the previous case?

  2. The discussion quickly turns to the subject of what counts as evidence for a belief. What general account of evidence does Justin give? How does Edie object to this account? What alternative to Justin’s view of evidence does Gemma suggest?

  3. Justin argues that in order for anything to be justified there have to be at least some basic beliefs that “anchor” the whole structure of knowledge. What objection does Edie raise to this view, and how does Justin answer this objection?
  4. Gemma suggests that rather than justification depending on an anchoring belief, it might depend instead on coherence within a network or system of beliefs. How does
  5. Justin object to this suggestion, and how does Gemma answer that objection?

  6. Compare and contrast the notions of basic belief given by Justin, Skip, Edie, and Gemma. Whose account of ‘basic belief’ do you find most convincing? Explain why.
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License