Coursera

Introduction to Philosophy Coursera Quiz Answers 100% Correct Answer (Updated 2020)

Introduction to Philosophy Coursera Quiz Answers 100% Correct Answer (Updated 2020)


Introduction to Philosophy – Coursera

⭐4.7 Stars (6,546  ratings)  

Instructor: Dr Dave Ward

Enroll Now

This “Introduction To Philosophy” course will acquaint you with a portion of the fundamental territories of exploration in contemporary philosophy. Every module an alternate logician will talk you through the absolute most significant inquiries and issues in their specialized topic. We’ll start by attempting to comprehend what philosophy is – what are its trademark points and techniques, and how can it contrast from different subjects? At that point we’ll spend the remainder of the course increasing an early on review of a few distinct regions of philosophy.

Here you will find all the questions and quiz answers relater to “Introduction to Philosophy By Coursera” 

N.B. We endeavored our best to keep this site invigorated for our customers in vain. You can similarly contribute by reviving new requests or existing request answer(s). There are various requests on our site, it is hard for us to check them reliably. It will be exceptional if you can help us with refreshing the site. Simply let us know whether you locate any new inquiries through mail or remark . We will endeavor to invigorate the request/answer ASAP.


Introduction to Philosophy Coursera Quiz Answer


 Week-1 

Practice Quiz: What is Philosophy?

1. True or false: as a subject philosophy is unrelated to other subjects?
  • True
  • False

2. True or false: If a question or issue is philosophical, then it is important.
  • False
  • True

3.True or false: a valid argument is one in which the truth of its conclusion follows from the truth of its premises?
  • True
  • False


4.What does Hilary Putnam think is essential to doing good philosophy? (Tick all that apply.)
  • Vision
  • Argument
  • Humour
  • Ignoring the ‘Big-Picture’

Quiz: What is Philosophy?


1. How did we define philosophy in this week of the course?
  • It is the memorisation of philosophical arguments.
  • It is the activity of working out the best way to think about things.
  • It is sitting in an armchair


2.If we are doing the philosophy of physics which of the following would we be more likely to be interested in?
  • Constructing experiments to probe, recording observations of, and theorising about the fundamental physical aspects of reality.
  • Asking what it is to construct experiments to probe, record observations of, and theorise about the fundamental physical aspects of reality.


3.According to this week’s lecture, in what sense is philosophy fundamental?
  • We would die without it.
  • Whatever we are doing or thinking about we can always try to articulate and justify the assumptions behind that action or thought.
  • Its impossible to think or do anything without doing philosophy first.


4.Is the following argument sound: all men are mortal; the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was a man; therefore, Socrates was mortal?
  • Yes.
  • No.


5.What did David Hume think was the most important constraint on a philosophical theory?
  • It should discover the limits of language.
  • It should prove that God exists.
  • It should stay true to our experience of the world.
  • It should deduce all truths from philosophical speculation.


 Week-2 

Practice Quiz: Morality: Objective, Relative or Emotive?

1. What exactly are we asking when we ask about the “status of morality”?
  • We are asking what is it that we are doing when we make moral judgments.
  • We are asking whether abstract moral judgments are correct or incorrect.
  • We are asking whether particular moral judgments are correct or incorrect.
  • We are asking whether or not we can have access to objective moral truths.


2. Dr. Chrisman has mentioned three main approaches that philosophers have taken to explain the status of morality (the question of what it is that people are doing when they make moral judgments). Which one of the following is NOT a theory we will be discussing?
  • Relativism: the view that we are describing some kid of cultural or personal relative practice when we make these judgments.
  • Emotivism: the view that we are expressing our emotions towards the world when we make these judgments.
  • Objectivism: the view that we are representing objective facts when we make moral judgments.
  • Prescriptivism: the view that we are uttering moral imperatives when we make these judgments.


3. Which of these statements are TRUE about the objectivist view of morality? (Check all that apply)
  • Moral disagreements between people are basically disagreements over some objective fact about morality.
  • Moral judgments are like empirical judgments in that both are objective facts that can be true or false.
  • To an objectivist, polygamy can be both morally permissible and morally impermissible.
  • What makes our moral judgments true or false are generally dependent of the cultural groups we belong to.


4.An objectivist and a relativist would disagree over which of the following? (Check all that apply)
  • Whether the truth or falsity of our moral judgments can vary from person to person.
  • Whether moral judgments are just like empirical judgments.
  • Whether our moral judgments depend on the cultural groups we belong to.
  • Whether or not moral judgments are the sorts of things that can be true or false.


5.Which of these theories contain the view that our moral judgments are the sort of things that can be true or false? (Check all that apply)
  • Objectivism
  • Cultural Relativism
  • Emotivism
  • Subjectivism

6. Which of the following statements are CORRECT? (Check all that apply)
  • Since emotivism takes our moral judgments to be mere expressions of our emotional reactions, it faces the challenge of explaining how people appear to reason their way to moral judgments.
  • A challenge to emotivism is that it cannot explain the possibility of making moral progress.
  • A challenge to relativism is that we do not seem to have a method for resolving moral disputes.
  • A challenge to objectivism is that we do not seem to have an objective method for resolving moral disputes.

Practice Quiz: What is Knowledge? And Do We Have Any?

1. If I know a proposition, I know *that* something is the case. Which of these statements could I have propositional knowledge of? (Select all that apply)

  • What’s that noise?
  • Ouch!
  • The monkey is in the tree
  • The egg is in the nest

2. What is the anti-luck intuition?
  • If you know, then your true belief is not a matter of luck.
  • If you know, then your true belief is down to your cognitive abilities in some significant way.
  • If you know, then your true belief is based on prejudice.
  • If you know, then your true belief is a matter of luck.

3. According to the classical definition of knowledge, which of these conditions are required for a subject to know a proposition? (Select all that apply)
  • The proposition must be true
  • The proposition must be interesting
  • The proposition must be justified
  • The subject must believe the proposition

4. A Gettier-style case is one where a subject has a belief that is true and justified. What else has to be in place before we have a Gettier-style case?
  • The subject has to be absolutely sure of the proposition.
  • The subject’s justification for the proposition that she believes has nothing to do with the truth of the proposition.
  • The proposition believed has to have less than twenty words in it.
  • The subject has to have thought hard about the proposition she believes.

5. According to the ‘no false lemmas’ account, knowledge is:

  • A belief that is justified, true and makes the subject happy.
  • A belief that is justified, true and about lemmings.
  • A belief that is justified, true and not based on any false assumptions.
  • A belief that is justified, true, and where the subject is not in a Gettier-style case.
6. Which of these is a sceptical scenario? (Select all that apply)
  • There is an evil and powerful demon controlling all my thoughts, feelings and beliefs.
  • What I think is the real world is actually a computer simulation – my real body is being kept in a pod, and fed with nutrients and information by super-intelligent machines.
  • I am very bad at forming true, justified beliefs – I try hard, but I almost always get it wrong.
  • I have a mischevous friend who often plays tricks on me to make me believe things that are false. I always have to be on my toes so as not to get caught out.


Quiz: Morality: Objective, Relative or Emotive?


    1. Consider the moral claim “Polygamy is wrong”. Which of the following is an example of a question about the status extit{status}status of that moral claim? (Select as many options as appropriate.)
    • Is it possible for the claim to be false?
    • Is the claim merely the expression of emotion?
    • Is the claim false?
    • Is the claim true?
    • Is it possible for the claim to be true?


    2. Objectivism is inconsistent with which of the following claims?
    • Most people’s morals are corrupted.
    • The earth rotates around sun.
    • Human reason cannot see the ultimate truths.
    • ‘Truth’ is only a matter of opinion.
    • Our senses can tell what is true.
     
    3. To which one of the following claims must any moral objectivist be committed?
    • Moral claims must be supported by objective evidence, not mere feelings or opinions.
    • Moral claims are psychological claims
    • Moral claims are scientific claims
    • Moral claims can be true independently of what anyone thinks or feels about them
    • Any moral claim that is supported by objective evidence must be true

    4. “No moral claim could ever be true.” Which, if any, view about the status of moral claims is committed to this statement?
    • Objectivism
    • No view is committed to this claim
    • Emotivism
    • Relativism


    5. Which of the following claims are specific to moral relativism? (Select as many options as appropriate.)
    • Which moral claims are false here and now depends on the facts about you or facts about the group you are currently in.
    • Which moral claims are deemed false here and now depends exclusively on whether evidence supports them here and now.
    • What is fundamentally morally right and wrong can differ from one group of people to another.
    • What is held to be morally right and wrong is not really right or wrong, because moral claims simply cannot be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.


    6. Moral objectivism must endorse the assumption that all cultures, despite seeming to have very different moral codes, nevertheless share the same fundamental beliefs extit{beliefs}beliefs about what is morally right and wrong. True or false?
    • True
    • False


    7. Emotivism is the claim that:
    Objectivism and relativism are false.
    • Moral claims express emotional reactions.
    • Moral beliefs are not grounded in anything.
    • There will never be universal agreement on moral issues.
    • Moral beliefs arise from our emotions.
    • Emotions should tell us what is true or false.


    8. Which of the following is the best objection to moral objectivism?
    • What is considered morally right or wrong varies from culture to culture.
    • Moral facts are knowable.
    • Morality is not within the providence of science.
    • Moral disagreements often seem unresolvable.


    9. An objectivist and a relativist would disagree over which of the following? (Check all that apply)
    • Whether our moral judgments depend on the cultural groups we belong to.
    • Whether or not moral judgments are the sorts of things that can be true or false.
    • Whether the truth or falsity of our moral judgments can vary from person to person.
    • Whether moral judgments are just like empirical judgments.

    10. Which of the following is the best extit{best}best objection to emotivism about morality?
    • If emotivism is true, then genocide is not really wrong.
    • If emotivism is true, then polygamy is not really wrong.
    • If emotivism is true, then it is unclear how we reason our way to moral conclusions, which we sometimes seem to do.
    • What is considered morally right or wrong varies from culture to culture.


    Quiz: What is Knowledge? And Do We Have Any?



    1.Which of these expresses a proposition?
    • “What time is it?”
    • “Thanks.”
    • “The milk is in the fridge.”
    • “Shut that door!”


    2. Duncan can ride a bike. What kind of knowledge does this require?
    • Knowledge-how
    • Knowledge-why
    • Knowledge-that
    • Knowledge-where


    3. Knowing that Paris is the capital of France is an example of what kind of knowledge?
    • Ability knowledge
    • Propositional knowledge


    4. Which of these methods of forming a belief is most likely to lead to a justified belief
    • Flipping a coin
    • Guessing
    • Careful consideration of evidence


    5.On the classical account of knowledge what are the three extbf{three}three necessary conditions for propositional knowledge?
    • That the person wants to know it
    • That the proposition is true.
    • That the person memorises the proposition
    • That the person believes the proposition.
    • That the proposition is important to the person
    • That the proposition is justified.


    6. Which of the following scenarios is a Gettier-case?
    • A man enters his house and does not see his wife. He nevertheless forms a belief that his wife is in the house. His wife is indeed in the house, but upstairs and out out of sight.
    • A man enters his house and sees a clever holographic image of his wife, which looks exactly like her. On this basis he forms a belief that his wife is in the house. By coincidence, his wife is in the house, but upstairs and out of sight.
    • A man enters his house and sees a clever holographic image of his wife, which looks exactly like her. On this basis he forms a belief that his wife is in the house. His wife is not in the house.


    7.Gettier cases raise the question of whether a true belief’s being justified is enough for it to count as knowledge.
    • True
    • False

    8. The ‘No False Lemmas’ account of knowledge attempts to respond to Gettier cases by adding an extra condition to the classical account of knowledge. What is that condition?
    • That the belief is not true due to luck
    • That the belief is not based on any false assumptions
    • That the belief is likely to be true


    9. Which of the following claims does the radical sceptic make?
    • We are not infallible.
    • We do not know that we are not brains-in-vats.
    • We know that we are brains-in-vats.

    10. Which of the following claims does the radical sceptic make?
    • It is difficult to get knowledge of the external world.
    • We have very little or no knowledge of the external world.
    • Knowledge of the external world has no value.


    11. The radical skeptic thinks that even if we cannot rule out the skeptical hypothesis (e.g. that we are just brains in vats without bodies) we can still know basic everyday things like the fact that ‘sugar is sweet.’
    • False
    • True


    12. Which of the following is the best argument for radical scepticism?
    • I know that I have hands. If I’m being deceived by an evil demon then I don’t have hands. Therefore, I don’t know anything.
    • I am being deceived by an evil demon. If I am being deceived by an evil demon then I can’t have knowledge. Therefore I can’t have knowledge.
    • We can’t tell the difference between being a brain-in-a-vat and not being a brain-in-a-vat. If I can’t tell the difference then I can’t know very much. Therefore, I can’t know very much.
    • In lots of cases people disagree about what’s right. Therefore, we can never really know anything.

     Week-3 

    Practice Quiz: Do We Have an Obligation to Obey the Law?

    1. Political philosophy is the part of philosophy that
    • Examines philosophical questions about the relations between citizens
    • Examines philosophical questions about the relations between states and between states and their citizens
    • Examines the problem of political obligation, among others

    2. Do citizens have an obligation to obey the state and its laws?
    • Yes, because we always have an obligation to comply with the law
    • It depends on whether the problem of political obligation can be solved.

    3.Acting in accordance with the law
    • Is necessary to obey the law
    • Is sufficient to comply with the law
    • Is sufficient to obey the law



    4. The statement ‘Citizens can have obligation to comply with the law without having obligations to obey the law’
    • Is true
    • Is false
    • Might be true, might be false, depending on whether there is a solution for the problem of political obligation.

    5.Socrates suggests grounds for political obligation including
    • Punishment
    • Gratitude
    • Consent


    6. Does being benefited always generate obligations?
    • Yes, being benefitted always generate obligations to obey
    • No, we don’t have the obligation to obey someone just because they benefitted us

    7.According to Fairness theory
    • Being part of a fair scheme of cooperation generate obligations
    • We have an obligation to obey unjust states

    8.A problem for the consent theory is that
    • Sufficient people have given consent
    • It is too easy to escape the obligation to obey the law by refusing consent
    • Consent is not capable of generating obligations

    9. The problem of political obligation
    • The problem of political obligation
    • Has no solution
    • Might have no solution

    10. Philosophical anarchism is true
    • Because the problem of political obligation can’t be solved
    • If the problem of political obligation can be solved
    • If we don’t have an obligation to obey the law

    Practice Quiz: Should You Believe What You Hear?

    1.What is distinctive of “naturalistic” approaches to philosophy? (Select all that apply.)

    • No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of Nature.
    • No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of supernatural phenomena.
    • No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of God.
    • No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of human societies.


    2. Which of the following captures Hume’s assumption about basing beliefs on testimony?
    • To properly base a belief on testimony, you must have independent evidence that testimony is true.
    • There is no species of reasoning more useful than that which is derived from testimony.
    • To properly base a belief on testimony, you must have evidence that testifiers are likely to be correct.
    • A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.


    3.What assumption of Hume’s did Reid want to challenge?
    • That we do not have any good evidence for assuming that our senses are likely to be right.
    • That we have a reason to trust in testimony only provided that we know that it is likely to be right.
    • That we have a reason to trust in testimony only if our sense perceptions confirm it to be right.
    • That we do not have any good evidence for assuming that testimony can ever be right.

    4. What did Hume think of Reid’s principles of credulity and veracity?
    • He agreed that they both are true.
    • He argued that both are false.
    • He argued that the principle of credulity is true, but the principle of veracity false.
    • He argued that the principle of credulity is false, but the principle of veracity true.

    Quiz: Do You Have an Obligation to Obey the Law?



    1. What is the problem of political obligation?
    • It’s the problem of showing why we ought to always obey the law
    • It’s the problem of understanding why we have an obligation to comply with the law
    • It’s the problem of finding an explanation of why we have an obligation to obey the state and its laws


    2. What is it to obey the law?
    • Acting in accordance with the law
    • Doing what the law commands because the law commands it


    3.  What is it to comply with the law?
    • To do what the law commands
    • To do what the law commands because the law commands it


    4. What are the grounds of political obligation?
    • The punishment that we avoid when commanding with the law
    • The facts that generate the obligation to obey the law


    5. Which of the following have been suggested as possible grounds for political obligation?
    • Responsibility
    • Gratitude
    • Consent
    • Religion
    • Fairness


    6. The benefit theory of political obligation claims that
    • Citizens are benefitted by the state. Because of this, they have an obligation to obey it
    • Citizens are obliged to obey the state because of the benefits it has bestowed upon them
    • Citizens are obliged to obey the state because of the benefit they can gain if they obey the law


    7.The consent theory of political obligation claims that
    • We have an obligation to obey the state because we have consented to the state and to having such obligations to it
    • It is the consent to being governed that generates the obligation to obey the law
    • We can avoid the obligation to obey the law by refusing consent
    • We have an obligation to obey the state because we have all explicitly expressed our consent to obey the state

    8. Some examples of giving tacit consent to the state are
    • Participating in the elections
    • Using public services
    • Expressing openly our decision to obey the state
    • Remaining within the state


    9. Philosophical anarchism…
    • Holds that we don’t have an obligation to obey the law
    • Defends political anarchism
    • Is compatible with the thought that we have good reasons and obligations to comply with the law

    10. If the problem of political obligation can’t be solved,…
    • We still have an obligation to obey the law
    • Philosophical anarchism is true


    Quiz: Should You Believe What You Hear?


    1. Which of the following are instances of gaining a belief via testimony? (Select as many boxes as is appropriate.)
    • Forming the belief that theft is wrong by careful introspection.
    • Forming the belief that phenolphthalein turns colourless in acidic solutions by dipping phenolphthalein into an acidic solution.
    • Forming the belief that a meteorite hit Russia by reading it in a newspaper.
    • Forming the belief that evolution by natural selection takes place by watching a television programme.
    • Forming the belief that Hume mistrusted testimony by reading it in his book “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”.
    • Forming the belief that you have toes by looking at them.
    • Forming the belief that you had breakfast this morning by reflecting on your experiences.
    • Forming the belief that there is a sheep in a field by looking into the field.
    • Forming the belief that you are not a brain-in-a-vat by philosophical reflection.
    • Forming the belief that Hume mistrusted testimony by hearing it in a philosophy lecture.

    2. What are miracles according to Hume’s definition?

    • Events that are inconsistent with the laws of nature.

    • Events that could not possibly happen.

    • Events that are very unlikely.

    • Events that present science cannot explain.

    • Events that happen just as a matter of luck.

    • Amazing events, such as childbirth.

    • Events brought about by the action of a supernatural being.


    3. Why did Hume hold that any miracle is highly unlikely? 
    • Miracles are highly unlikely because even an omnipotent God would be unable to intervene in the natural order.
    • Miracles are highly unlikely because all testimony is untrustworthy.
    • Miracles are highly unlikely because unprecedented violations of the laws of nature are highly unlikely.
    • Miracles are highly unlikely because laws of nature state what should happen, and a miracle would be a violation of that.
    • Miracles are highly unlikely because it is always more likely that someone is mistaken about events, and therefore saying something false.


    4. Why did Hume and Reid think that we trust our senses without evidence that they are likely to be right?
    • We can’t have good evidence that our senses are reliable.
    • We are ignorant of the scientific evidence regarding the unreliability of our senses.
    • Checking that our senses are reliable is too difficult in practice.
    • We have been taught to trust our senses by our parents and general enculturation.


    5.How did Hume think that one ought to assess the likelihood of an event taking place after having acquired testimony that it took place?
    • Consider whether the testifier herself believes that the event took place on the basis of testimony.
    • Work out whether the event actually happened by relying on our epistemic intuitions instead of testimony.
    • Use neuro-linguistic programming techniques to assess the truthfulness of the testifier.
    • Work out what is more likely: that the testifier is mistaken or lying, or that the event actually happened.


    6. Reid criticised Hume’s position on testimony on the grounds that:

    • It supports atheism or agnosticim.
    • Testimonial knowledge is gained through the senses and our senses are reliable.
    • If it were correct, we would be deprived of much of the knowledge we in fact possess.

    7. What was Reid’s “principle of credulity”?
    • That we are disposed to prefer beliefs formed via testimony over other beliefs.
    • That we have a disposition to be truthful.
    • That children are especially disposed to be truthful.
    • That we are “hardwired” to believe only true testimony.
    • That we are “hardwired” to tell the truth.
    • That we should not credulously accept people’s testimony, but only do so on the basis of evidence.
    • That we have a natural disposition to believe what others tell us.


    8. How did Reid argue for the view that we should believe testimony without first seeking external evidence?
    • As a clergyman, he argued that the Church of Scotland had the authority to pronounce on matters without evidence.
    • He claimed that seeking evidence would lead to unorthodox views about morality, and hence that it was safer for society to trust testimony.
    • As an early socialist, he argued that solidarity required trusting others in the community.
    • He claimed that knowledge by testimony was analogous to knowledge by sense perception, and that we should trust sense perception without first seeking external evidence that our senses are properly functioning.


    9. Hume argued for the view that we ought not to trust testimony without evidence on the grounds that humans are “hardwired” to be dishonest, and hence we ought not to trust their testimony. True or false?
    • True
    • False

    10. What did Kant take The Enlightenment to consist in?
    • Rejecting testimony wholesale, and forming beliefs only on the basis of philosophical reasoning.
    • Becoming “Renaissance men”: learning everything there is to know about both the sciences and the arts.
    • Overturning undemocratic political authorities.
    • Using one’s own reasoning and understanding, rather than relying only on what others tell us.


     Week-4 

    Click Here To View Answers

     Week-5 

     Week-6

    The above questions are from “Introduction to Philosophy “. You can discover all the refreshed questions and answers related to this on the “Introduction to Philosophy By Coursera” page. If you find the updated questions or answers, do comment on this page and let us know. We will update the answers as soon as possible.

    Similar Posts

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *