What is your answer?
Some philosophers start epistemology by referring to the "sources" of our knowledge; they say that an ostensible item of knowledge is genuine if, and only if, comes from a properly accredited source.
Chisholm objects to this approach because
{ 1 } - it doesn't tells us what the "sources" of our knowledge are, and why we should accept these "sources" and not other ones.
{ 2 } - it doesn't tell us how to decide just what is yielded by given sources of knowledge.
{ 3 } - both of the above
{ 4 } - none of the above
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
Some philosophers start epistemology by referring to the "sources" of our knowledge; they say that an ostensible item of knowledge is genuine if, and only if, comes from a properly accredited source.
Chisholm objects to this approach because
{ 1 } - it doesn't tells us what the "sources" of our knowledge are, and why we should accept these "sources" and not other ones.
{ 2 } - it doesn't tell us how to decide just what is yielded by given sources of knowledge.
{ 3 } - both of the above
{ 4 } - none of the above
He also gives the other objection.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Some philosophers start epistemology by referring to the "sources" of our knowledge; they say that an ostensible item of knowledge is genuine if, and only if, comes from a properly accredited source.
Chisholm objects to this approach because
{ 1 } - it doesn't tells us what the "sources" of our knowledge are, and why we should accept these "sources" and not other ones.
{ 2 } - it doesn't tell us how to decide just what is yielded by given sources of knowledge.
{ 3 } - both of the above
{ 4 } - none of the above
He also gives the other objection.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is correct!
Some philosophers start epistemology by referring to the "sources" of our knowledge; they say that an ostensible item of knowledge is genuine if, and only if, comes from a properly accredited source.
Chisholm objects to this approach because
{ 1 } - it doesn't tells us what the "sources" of our knowledge are, and why we should accept these "sources" and not other ones.
{ 2 } - it doesn't tell us how to decide just what is yielded by given sources of knowledge.
{ 3 } - both of the above
{ 4 } - none of the above
He raises both objections. So he doesn't think that the "source of knowledge" approach by itself leads to any clear conclusions.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
4 is wrong. Please try again.
Some philosophers start epistemology by referring to the "sources" of our knowledge; they say that an ostensible item of knowledge is genuine if, and only if, comes from a properly accredited source.
Chisholm objects to this approach because
{ 1 } - it doesn't tells us what the "sources" of our knowledge are, and why we should accept these "sources" and not other ones.
{ 2 } - it doesn't tell us how to decide just what is yielded by given sources of knowledge.
{ 3 } - both of the above
{ 4 } - none of the above
He raises both objections. So he doesn't think that the "source of knowledge" approach by itself leads to any clear conclusions.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end