Homework PDF

Preview

Summary

Homework 1...

Description

Homework #1 Claudiu Baran (E01122610) PHIL 100: MW 12:30-1:45 1. How does Paley's argument about the watch use the surprise principle? Paley’s argument uses the surprise principle by giving an example of a man walking on a beach and finding a watch in the sand. The first thought that would come to mind when seeing and picking up the watch would be that someone dropped it in the sand. You would not expect that the watch had been put together in the ocean by the waves clashing together. Paley uses the surprise principle here. If the watch just accidentally was created in a series of random events in the ocean, then it would be a surprise. Instead, we assume that the watch was created by an intelligent being and was just lost or misplaced in the sand. 2. Describe what the Principle of Common Cause says. How is this principle related to the Surprise Principle? How is it used by biologists to decide whether different species have a common ancestor? The Principle of Common Cause says, if an event occurs multiple times and the same outcome follows each time, then we can assume by abduction that every time the event occurs the same outcome will follow. We can see the Surprise principle come into effect here as well. If the event occurred and outcome was different, then it would be a surprise. Since we expect the event to lead to the outcome every time, we would be surprised if the outcome was different. Biologists use the Principle of Common Cause when observing possible common ancestry of different species. From a biological point of view, we can look at the genes of two (or many) separate species and see that they are very similar. In fact, we are made up the exact same materials but they are only arranged in slightly different orientations. This allows us to make the assumption that we all came from a common ancestor. Also, it would be a surprise if we did not all come from a common ancestor since we are so similar. 3. What is the difference between a prudential reason and an evidential reason for believing something? An evidential reason is a theory that provides evidence on why something may have happened. It provides some sort of proof to help support a belief. On the other hand, a prudential reason is a theory that provides no evidence or proof but instead gives you a motive or a big payoff to help support a belief. A prudential reason would influence you, by an incentive or fear, to support a belief. Whereas, evidential reason would give some sort of facts or research on why to support their belief....