Self-study
P1
Some philosophers find the traditional, subjective approach to studying the mind outdated and ineffectual. ███ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ███████████ █████████████ ███ █████████ ████████
Some philosophers' perspective ·
Subjective approach to studying the mind doesn't work
We should try to study the mind based on hard data that's observable rather than purely subjective descriptions of feelings.
P2
███ ████████████
Other philosophers' perspective ·
Knowledge includes subjective experience, so no reason to look only to objective data
P3
██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ████████ ████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ███████████ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██████ █ ██████ ██████ ████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ██ ████████████ ███████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ █████████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ███████████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████ █████████ █████████ █████████████ █████████████ ███ ████████████ ████ █ ██████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ████████ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████████
Difficult to reconcile ·
Each side starts from different assumptions
Thus, genuine communication between the two sides is almost impossible.
P4
███ █████████ ███ ██ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ███████ █████████ ██ █████████ █████████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ██ █████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ █████████ ███████ █████ █████████ ███████████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ████ ███████ █████████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███████████
Analogy ·
The two sides are like adherents to different religions
Each side believes its own religious texts; we can't resolve a debate by just looking at the texts themselves. To resolve the debate, we need to investigate the authority of the texts.
P5
████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ██ █████████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ █████ █████████ █████████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████████ ███████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████████████ ███ █████ █████████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ █████ ███████████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████████████████ █████ ██ ███████████████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ █████ ███ ███ ████ ██████
How to reconcile ·
Investigate the authority of the subjective and objective perspectives
We should engage in epistomelogy (the study of knowledge) to better understand how to approach knowledge about the mind.
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Problem-analysis
28.
Which one of the following ██ ████ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████
a
a debate among █████████████ ██████████ ██ █████████ █ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███████████ ████████ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████ █████
This isn’t the most analogous, because we have no reason to think that the investigators lack a common context for considering the different evidence. For example, DNA evidence and fingerprint evidence might be conflicting. But we have no reason to think one investigator thinks DNA is in principle not something that should count as evidence or that the other investigator thinks fingerprints are in principle not something that should count as evidence. They may disagree about the weight of each kind of evidence, but it’s not clear that the investigators disagree about what should count as evidence.
b
a debate among ██████ ██████████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ██ ██ ████████
This isn’t the most analogous, because the jurors aren’t drawing conclusions based on different kinds of evidence. They may disagree about how persuasive each witness is, but we have no reason to think that some jurors believe one witness cannot count as evidence while other jurors think the other witness cannot count as evidence.
c
a debate between ███ ██████████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ███████ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ████████ █████
(C) involves “no evidence,” so it’s not analogous to an example which involves two sides making arguments based on different evidence.
d
a debate between ███ ██████ ████████ █████ ███ █████ ██ █ ████████ ████ █████ █████ █████ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ ███████
This isn’t the most analogous, because we have no reason to think that the curators are relying on different evidence. They may have conflicting opinions about value, but their determination of value is based on the same evidence — evidence of both genuineness and forgery.
e
a debate between ███ ██████████ ███ ████ ███████████ ███████████ █████ ███ ████ █████ █████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████
This is the most analogous because the historians draw conflicting conclusions based on different kinds of evidence, just as the two religions draw different conclusions about the creation of the universe based on different sacred texts. Unlike (A), (B), and (D), (E) most clearly involves different kinds of evidence (”different types of historical data”).