英语论文网

What is important to us in this context is not which view about alcoholism is correct; rather it is to grasp the distinction between a paradigm case of something, and a case which is non-paradigm.

TASK 3: Give paradigm, and non-paradigm cases of instances of the following words: ‘house’, ‘yellow’, ‘brave’, and ‘knowledge’. Explain of each example why it is, or is not, paradigmatic.

A paradigm case of something is a case which would be perfectly suitable for giving someone an ostensive definition of that thing; a non-paradigm case would not. For example if you wanted to teach someone the meaning of the word ‘disease’ whooping cough is a perfectly good example; alcoholism is not.<,/P>

The terminology of ‘paradigm case’ is comparatively new, though the concept behind it is much older. In fact it was used by one prominent Cambridge philosopher George Edward (G.E.) Moore (1873 – 1958) – though not under that name – to combat epistemological scepticism. Moore was known for ‘the philosophy of common sense.’ (It has been said that there is no proposition so absurd that no philosopher can be found who, at some time and at some place, affirmed it as the truth’.) Moore argued as follows (to paraphrase liberally):

1. It is contended that there is no such thing as knowledge (the sceptic’s thesis).
2. This implies that, for example, I do not know I have a right hand.
But
3. I do know I have a right hand.
Therefore (conclusion):
4. The sceptic’s argument is unsound.

How does Moore defend this argument? He reasons as follows. I am more certain that I know I have a right hand than I am that any philosophical argument is sound. I acknowledge that I cannot find a hole in the sceptic’s argument. But I also acknowledge that I am fallible: that just because I cannot find a hole, it does not follow that there is no hole there to be found. What I must decide is which is more certain: that I know that I have a right hand or that I know there is no hole in the sceptic’s argument. Plainly, the honest answer is the former.

Of course I can imagine that a circumstance could arise in which I did not know I had a right hand. Imagine I am involved in a dreadful motor accident. I am trapped and I cannot move my head. I feel numb. I notice a number of body parts scattered around the wreckage, including a male right hand. I wonder whether it is mine. I do not know. At that moment I do not know whether I have a right hand.

But, happily, I know right now that this is not such a moment. And if you demand that I prove conclusively that this is not such a moment, I will acknowledge that I cannot. But I point out that I am more certain that this is not such a moment, than I am that I would have the ability necessary to prove that it is not such a moment.

In other words what Moore contends is that he is entitled to affirm that he has knowledge by giving what was (later called) a paradigm case of knowledge. And in reply to the argument that he cannot prove that his claim to knowledge is true he concedes that he cannot, but insists that this does not disqualify him from legitimately claiming that it is a case of knowledge. Why not? Because he is more certain of the truth of his claim to knowledge than he is confident of his ability to find a hole in the sceptic’s argument.

Thus he uses his cert本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。