Summary:
In the video, he gets in depth about reality and if it is real or not. He touches on the fact that behavior is not necessarily related to reality. Someone's behavior describes psychological processes, not the world as a whole. He talks about reality existing separately from consciousness and that if we can't prove that, how can we assume it.
Atheists will only believe in the existence of god if it is empirical evidence. Empiricism is the measure of acceptable evidence but empiricism cannot justify itself. Thus, atheists that only accept empirical evidence of a god but not of reality separate from consciousness are showing favoritism.
The nature and limits of consciousness behold us from controlling what appears to us as reality. The things that have us question and doubt reality also must exist in reality. How could you use the reasons for doubting the existence of reality if you obtain those reasons from reality? To use reality to doubt reality is contradicting.
Analysis:
As he mentioned that behavior is merely psychological, I felt befuddled. In psychology, I learned that behavior is affected by both nature (biology) and nurture (environment). So, his statement didn't make much logical sense to me seeing as it's been proven that behavior is not just psychological. The outside world affects people by an abundant amount.
Citation:
(n.d.). Atheism, reality and epistemology . [Print Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJUisM6q_DM&feature=youtube_gdata  

Summary:
Coherentism is the view of the structure of knowledge and justification.

Summary:
While many skeptics say it is pointless to ask questions we know cannot be answered, Russell still insists on questioning your curiosity. "...he courageously asked each of us to dare to think, to dream, to wonder, to care about each other, to search for the truth, and to engage in the quest for knowledge." said John Shosky. Russell believed the same as Descartes, that you can isolate certain things you know cannot be true.  He looked at philosophy from a scientific way as well, saying that if we take a scientific approach, we will get closer to the truth. '"Ensure a progress in method whose importance it would be impossible to exaggerate."' says Russell. Russell made two very important contributions to philosophy; the theory of descriptions and the theory of types.
Analysis:
Russell says to question everything, but why? Why should we question things we know cannot be answered? At this moment, I am questioning the act of questioning. Is that ironic or are my actions contradicting my beliefs? How can Russell take a scientific approach to philosophy? Science is based on uncovering facts (or at least what we call "facts") and philosophy asks mysterious questions.
Reflection Questions:
Why bother questioning? Why is taking an analytical approach towards philosophy thought to be wrong by Russell?
Citation:
Shosky, John. "Russell and the Contemplation of Philosophy." Free Inquiry. Fall 1995: 41-42. SIRS Renaissance. Web. 16 Apr 2012.

Summary:
There are two ways philosophers look at knowledge:
     1) Humans can know everything
     2) Humans can know nothing
Most philosophers don't agree with either.  Firstly, they think there is a finite amount of knowledge one can know, and secondly, we at least know some things. The idea of knowing nothing is called skepticism. Most skeptics have to watch how they share their theory that knowledge is non-existent because saying that they "know" that it is true would be contradicting their claim.
Rene Descartes examined certainty and its roots. There is indubitability, the absence of possible doubt about correctness, and infallibility, the absence of any real possibility of error. (Moser , Mulder & Trout, 1998)
Analysis:
After reading about the different ways of interpreting knowledge, I can't say I agree with either theories. How can one have no knowledge at all yet still write and study various theories? But, how can one prove that that is knowledge and not imagined?
Citation:
Moser , P., Mulder, D., & Trout, J. (1998). The theory of knowledge. (pp. 5-9). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

The project has given me the opportunity to question and study theories that fascinate me to a great extent. I can't wait to search for the answer to me essential question and come across other theories that are just as intriguing.

Summary:

This video basically sums up what epistemology means and deals with. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified beliefs. A famous philosopher, by the name of René Descartes, has a quote known worldwide: "I think, therefore I am." By this he meant that he knows he exists, but can't prove if  anything else does, even his legs.
 

Analysis:

The video leaves me with many questions. An example from the video about a cup; "Is this real or just a prop, or neither real nor a prop?" From this example the woman says we cannot prove if the cup exists. Well, how can anyone prove that you exist? Or, how can you prove that your imagination is real/exists? Is what you see real or a figment of your "imagination?", if that even exists.

Citation:
ROCKETBOOM. (n.d.). Epistemology [Video file]. Retrieved from Youtube database.

Summary:
In a few pages of The Theory of Knowledge: A Thematic Introduction, the authors talk about what the average person is expected to know, what they know, and what they don't know. But, they also say that when talking about beliefs, us as humans, like to support them with our own evidence. And when being told information, we often question the person telling us, asking "where did you get that information?". We wouldn't want to be told information that isn't valid.


The word "epistemology" derives from the Greek words "episteme" meaning knowledge and "logos" meaning theory or explanation. The study of knowledge goes way back to ancient Greek times with Plato and Aristotle. In Theaetetus by Plato, he writes about Socrates and how he questions his teachers' knowledge and why they are considered experts.


Also, different cultures may view epistemology in various ways. For instance, some might emphasize the social nature of knowledge where as others might study individuals in isolation.


Reflection Questions:
How did one find the study of knowledge? Where did it originate from?

Citation:

Moser, P. K., & Mulder, D. H. (1997 ). Epistemology: A First Look. In The Theory of Knowledge: A 

     Thematic Introduction (pp. 1-5). (Original work published 1997 ) 

Summary:
This newspaper article written by Robert C. Cowen talks about how scientists think that theological thoughts are deforming scientific philosophy. But, Cowen believes otherwise. He believes it is the goodness of the religion that is at risk. In a section of the article, Cowen mentions that scientists separate fact from fantasy. People have been basing their beliefs off of scientific knowledge, but that is very unreliable seeing as it is changing everyday. Mixing science and religion is a horrible idea that can really affect the world in a bad way.

Analysis:
"Scientists, he notes, use intellectual tools to separate fact from fantasy" said Cowen (third paragraph). From this, I would like to know what tools are used to separate the two? "Yet science and religion are different realms of human thought, he claims" said Cowen (fourth paragraph). How can Goldberg justify that these two concepts are a part of human thought?


Citation:
Cowen, Robert C. "Should Science Discover Evidence of Things Not Seen?." Christian Science Monitor. 08 Jul 1999: n.p. SIRS Renaissance. Web. 26 Feb 2012.

Summary:
To summarize this article, Christian Wertenbaker speaks of the connection between the inner and outer worlds. Without the outer world, the inner world would not be able to sustain itself and would merely be a fantasy. On the other hand, without thought, the outer world would be nothing. For instance, as Wertenbaker stated, "A house cannot exist without building materials, but it also cannot exist without the imagination of its creators." Thus, the inner and outer worlds depend on each other for survival.

Analysis:

There are two ways to view life, from the outside, or the inner mind. "From the point of view of the outer world, I am nothing, one of six billion little human specks on a tiny planet in a remote corner of a galaxy, which is itself one of billions. But from the point of view of my inner world, I am everything..." stated Wertenbaker. What's interesting about both worlds is that the inner life feeds on the outer world. It cannot exist without influence from the outside world or it's resources. "Thought by itself easily slips away from reality into fantasy, but when it is blended with sensation and feeling, we can enter into the magical present moment, no longer infinitesimal, but all-encompassing." says Wertenbaker. Fairly speaking, am I a product of the outside world, or my inner world? This elusive question will always puzzle philosophers and will most likely not have an answer.

Reflection Questions:

The questions that remain after reading this article are; is the inner world justified? How can one justify the thoughts of others in which they cannot prove exist?

Citation:

Wertenbaker, Christian. "One and One Make One." Parabola Vol. XXV, No. 2. Summer 2000: 6-12. SIRS Renaissance. Web. 19 Feb 2012.

I chose to study epistemology (the study of knowledge and justified belief) because it fascinates me how the mind works and how everyday beliefs arise. It is a branch of philosophy that I plan on studying further in the future. Philosophical skepticism (both a school of thought and a method that crosses disciplines and cultures) also comes into play with epistemology. Epistemology covers the justification of true beliefs, not religious beliefs. I myself, do not practice any religion because I can't bring myself to believe in any "god".

To what extent is a justified belief justified?


New Essential Question:
How can one justify the thoughts of others?