No description available.

We assume that the central focus of epistemology is propositional knowledge (S knows that P). However, since some true beliefs are true by accident, the central question raised by epistemologists is: What becomes a mere true belief into knowledge? There are several answers to this question, many of them conflicting with each other. Among the answers we find two perspectives that compete with each other as the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge, namely, the internalist and externalist perspectives. For the epistemological externalism mind the external factors in the formation of belief. The research aims to discuss some issues that connect externalism a proper way of thinking about truth and what we do when we take a belief to be true. The theoretical discussion will use the externalist perspective of Alvin Goldman seeking a normative theory of justification, assuming that a belief is caused by a reliable process. Goldman, for example, states that the explanation of justified belief is necessary for knowledge and is closely related to it. Asserts that the term "justified" is an evaluative term and any correct definition or synonym for "justified" would also be an evaluative term. Thus, Goldman seeks a normative theory of justification for such a search to specify the conditions for substantive epistemic belief. However, he said conditions should be a non-epistemic, that is, necessary and sufficient conditions that do not involve any epistemic notions. Goldman complains that most of the time it is assumed that someone has a justified belief because that person knows that the belief is justified and know what is the justification. This means that justification is an argument or a set of reasons that can be given in favor of a belief, but it just tells us that the nature of justified belief with regard to what a person might say if asked to defend or justify belief. Instead, Goldman thinks that a belief is justified only by some process or property that makes it justified. / Partiremos do pressuposto que o foco central da epistemologia é o conhecimento proposicional (S sabe que P). Entretanto, uma vez que algumas crenças verdadeiras são verdadeiras por acaso, a questão central formulada pelos epistemólogos é a seguinte: O que converte a mera crença verdadeira em conhecimento? Existem diversas respostas para essa questão, muitas delas conflitantes entre si. Entre as respostas encontramos duas perspectivas que competem entre si quanto às condições necessárias e suficientes para o conhecimento, a saber, as perspectivas internalista e externalista. Para o externalismo epistemológico importam os fatores externos na formação da crença. A pesquisa procura discutir algumas questões que conectam o externalismo a uma adequada maneira de pensar sobre a verdade e o que fazemos quando tomamos uma crença como sendo verdadeira. Como referencial teórico utilizaremos a perspectiva externalista de Alvin Goldman que busca uma teoria normativa da justificação, pressupondo que uma crença é originada por um processo confiável. Goldman, por exemplo, afirma que a explicação da crença justificada é necessária para o conhecimento e está intimamente relacionada a ele. Assevera que o termo justificada é um termo valorativo e qualquer definição correta ou sinônimo de justificada seria também um termo valorativo. Assim, Goldman busca uma teoria normativa da justificação, para tal procura especificar as condições substantivas para a crença epistêmica. Contudo, afirma que tais condições deverão ser condições não epistêmicas, isto é, condições necessárias e suficientes que não envolvem quaisquer noções epistêmicas. Goldman critica que na maioria das vezes se assume que alguém tem uma crença justificada porque essa pessoa sabe que a crença é justificada e sabe qual é a justificação. Isso significa dizer que a justificação é um argumento ou um conjunto de razões que podem ser dadas a favor de uma crença, mas isso simplesmente nos diz que a natureza da crença justificada diz respeito ao que uma pessoa poderia dizer se fosse solicitada a defender ou justificar sua crença. Ao contrário, Goldman pensa que uma crença só é justificada através de algum processo ou propriedade que a torna justificada.

This Master's Thesis deals with the famous work of a Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington. The topic is described to full extent. First of all, there are defined basic terms connected with culture. Afterwards, the conception of a Clash of Civilizations is described in its basic concepts, whereas there are not omitted consequences connected with the author's other works as well as his life. A special chapter is dedicated to the impact that this work caused. This chapter is devided into two parts. In the first part, there are presented general references of several authors. In the other part, there are discussed comprehensive conceptions of certain authors. Concretely, they are represented by Francis Fukuyama, Immanuel Wallerstein, Alvin Toffler and Michael Novak. After description of basic ideas of these big thinkers, there is made a comparison of their conceptions, which is based on the following terms -- universalism, democracy a capitalism, world order and modernization. In the last part of this Master's Thesis, there are deduced conclusions from the comparison of these conceptions that deal with the international system, which makes this issue more clear for both public and academic people.

The thesis explores and takes a stand with respect to the differences between the religious epistemologies of Alvin Plantinga and Hendrik Hart. For Plantinga, direct rational knowledge of God "in Himself" is possible because it is grounded in the experience of our rational faculties. For Hart, direct rational knowledge of God's nature is impossible because God transcends the created order and, therefore, the limits of rational understanding. Our knowledge of God, as a consequence, can only be faith knowledge that is decidedly indirect and metaphoric in nature. Plantinga believes that such views are Kantian in inspiration and that they turn our knowledge of God into nothing more than rationally incoherent "disguised nonsense." The thesis shows that Plantinga's own philosophical theology fails to meet the rational standards he sets for religious knowledge, his critique of Kantian religious epistemologies fails to apply to Hart's position, and that he himself allows for indirect knowledge of God in certain instances. The thesis concludes by noting if our knowledge of God can be indirect in some instances without also being rationally incoherent disguised nonsense, then perhaps Hart is not wrong for regarding it to be indirect in all instances.

This dissertation compares the religious epistemology of Carl F. H. Henry and of Alvin Plantinga. Chapter 1 briefly examines the impact of the Enlightenment and its subsequent developments upon religious epistemology and provides an overview of the thought of Carl F. H. Henry and of Alvin Plantinga. Chapter 2 examines the religious epistemology of Carl F. H. Henry with specific attention to the development of his religious epistemology within the Augustinian tradition and his conception of the Logos doctrine as an essential component of religious epistemology. Chapter 3 examines the important critiques of Henry's religious epistemology. Chapter 4 examines the religious epistemology of Alvin Plantinga, with specific attention to the development of his religious epistemology within the Augustinian tradition and the development of the concept of warranted Christian belief. Chapter 5 examines several important critiques of Plantinga's religious epistemology. This dissertation concludes that the works of Henry and Plantinga are important for contemporary discussions of theological method and religious epistemology within evangelical theology. Specifically, the connection that is evident in Henry and Plantinga's work between the ability of humanity to know God and the special status of humanity as bearing the image of God could be the core idea which serves as the epistemological application of the ontological reality of God's existence. / This item is only available to students and faculty of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. If you are not associated with SBTS, this dissertation may be purchased from <a href="http://disexpress.umi.com/dxweb">http://disexpress.umi.com/dxweb</a> or downloaded through ProQuest's Dissertation and Theses database if your institution subscribes to that service.

This thesis centers on two trends in epistemology: (i) the dissatisfaction with the reductive analysis of knowledge, the project of explicating knowledge in terms of necessary and jointly sufficient conditions, and (ii) the popularity of virtue-theoretic epistemologies. The goal of this thesis is to endorse non-reductive virtue epistemology. Given that prominent renditions of virtue epistemology assume the reductive model, however, such a move is not straightforward—work needs to be done to elucidate what is wrong with the reductive model, in general, and why reductive accounts of virtue epistemology, specifically, are lacking. The first part of this thesis involves diagnosing what is wrong with the reductive model and defending that diagnosis against objections. The problem with the reductive project is the Gettier Problem. In Chapter 1, I lend credence to Linda Zagzebski's grim 1994 diagnosis of Gettier problems (and the abandonment of the reductive model) by examining the nature of luck, the key component of Gettier problems. In Chapter 2, I vindicate this diagnosis against a range of critiques from the contemporary literature. The second part involves applying this diagnosis to prominent versions of (reductive) virtue epistemology. In Chapter 3, we consider the virtue epistemology of Alvin Plantinga. In Chapter 4, we consider the virtue epistemology of Ernest Sosa. Both are seminal and iconic; nevertheless, I argue that, in accord with our diagnosis, neither is able to viably surmount the Gettier Problem. Having diagnosed what is wrong with the reductive project and applied this diagnosis to prominent versions of (reductive) virtue epistemology, the final part of this thesis explores the possibility of non-reductive virtue epistemology. In Chapter 5, I argue that there are three strategies that can be used to develop non-reductive virtue epistemologies, strategies that are compatible with seminal non-reductive accounts of knowledge and preserve our favorite virtue-theoretic concepts.

Student Number : 0311005K - MA dissertation - School of Social Sciences - Faculty of Humanities / In this paper I track the work of Alvin Goldman, the American epistemologist, from 1979 to 1992 to assess its adequacy as a theory of justified belief. Many philosophers have pointed out that the theory faces problems, the three most important of which I consider. The first is the “clairvoyance problem.” In this case we intuitively deny the status of “justified” to certain beliefs produced by the reliable process of clairvoyance. This indicates that reliable belief formation is not sufficient for justification. The “generality problem,” the second problem, concerns the correct identification and description of the process forming each belief. If the process cannot be identified, then no assessment can be made of a belief’s epistemic status. Moreover, if the process is described too narrowly such that each process only has one output belief, then all true beliefs will be “justified” and all false beliefs “unjustified,” an unacceptable result. If the process is described too broadly then all output beliefs of that process will share an equal epistemic status, also an unacceptable result. Finally, it is possible to challenge the necessity of reliable formation for justification using the case of a cognizer in an evil demon world such that his unreliable visual beliefs are intuitively “justified” since those beliefs are produced by the same reliable processes in our world where they produce justified beliefs. I defend Goldman against these challenges by elucidating subtleties in Goldman’s work that answer these problems and by adding three necessary conditions to his theory. I argue that by modifying Goldman’s early work and rejecting parts of his later work, we can formulate a version of his theory that counts as an adequate theory of justified belief immune to the foregoing problems.

This thesis explores a series of relationships between music and acoustics in order to develop a basis for discussing and critiquing aesthetics in post-Cagean experimental music. Specifically, it examines the acoustic and aesthetic theories that inform the practice of American composers La Monte Young and Alvin Lucier. One particular theme - the sine wave - emerges, both as a prominent feature in the work of these two composers, and also as a nexus point between music and acoustics. Pursuing this theme, the thesis begins by looking at issues in the science, technology, and ideology of acoustics in relation to the study of musical sound in the late nineteenth century. It then aims to situate the sine wave historically, culturally and technologically within a range of scientific and aesthetic practices in operation in the first half of the twentieth century. Finally, it explores the deployment of concepts from the field of acoustics by artists of the avant-garde, and considers what contribution these factors played in broadening the developing discourse of sound within the arts. These discussions then inform detailed investigations into the work of both Lucier and Young, examining their use of sine waves to explore and produce simple acoustic phenomena. / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

L'objet du présent mémoire est d'effectuer une comparaison historique de deux systèmes épistémologiques comportant un aspect externaliste. Les deux philosophes mis à l'étude sont Thomas Reid, Écossais ayant vécu au 18e siècle, et Alvin Goldman, professeur et chercheur américain contemporain travaillant sur l'épistémologie et la psychologie. Ce dernier a développé une analyse de la connaissance qu'on qualifie d'externaliste. Selon cette position, on considère généralement qu'une croyance vraie s'élève au titre de connaissance si elle a été causée de manière adéquate par le fait qui la rend vraie. La croyance n'est alors plus validée de l'intérieur, par la réflexion du sujet, mais bien de l'extérieur, par les faits du monde. Notre thèse est que bien qu'il ait vécu bien avant l'arrivée de ce type de position, Thomas Reid a développé une épistémologie contenant des traces bien similaires à celle de Goldman. Nous soulèverons les points de similitude et tenterons de déterminer si on peut interpréter la philosophie de Reid comme une sorte de fiabilisme, type d'externalisme postulé par Goldman. Nous affirmons que cela est possible et nous en faisons la démonstration dans ce mémoire. Ce type de lecture historique n'est pas sans problème. Il nous faudra aussi résoudre une multitude de problèmes, tant historiques, en ce qui concerne Reid, que théoriques, pour ce qui est du fiabilisme de Goldman. Le travail se fera en trois temps : l'exposition de la thèse de Reid et des traces d'externalisme s'y retrouvant; l'exposition de la thèse de Goldman et les liens possibles avec celle de Reid; enfin, l'exposition et l'évaluation d'interprétations concurrentes à la nôtre. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : Épistémologie, Externalisme, Internalisme, Fiabilisme, Thomas Reid, Alvin Goldman

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity International University, 2003. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 105-110).