based off readings

If you are the type of student that just wants to assess themselves by how right or wrong in answering questions about what they are studying, then you may want to focus on this assessment. You can have all 80 points come from this assessment, as you can do a maximum of 10 at 8 points each.
Each of these has a specific right answer, answerable in 360-440 words. Each question you answer is its own document and will be graded as such.
You may continually rewrite your answers throughout the session. The only feedback I will give is the number of points you would get (out of 8) if it were in your final portfolio.
If you are going to pull quotes, casual citation is required. Pulling quotes, however, is not required.
As a reminder, you cannot collaborate with any other person on these questions.
A potential employee goes in for a job interview at a paper company. During the interview, the employer asks how excited the interviewee is at the prospect of working at the paper company. The interviewee says they’re excited, even though they have no particular affinity for paper. They just really want the job. How does Frankfurt define bullshit, and does this situation follow that definition of bullshit? Why or why not?
A friend of yours takes a mighty fall, but looks to have miraculously survived. When you find them, their arm is apart from their body and they are unconscious. When you look at the arm, though, you find that it is electronic. It has been confirmed that your friend has been an android (robot made to look and feel like a human) all along, though your friend had no idea. They still haven’t woken up, but when they do, it is up to you to tell your friend the truth about the nature of their existence. Assume they are an actual lifeform artificially made to really have human psychological states, not just mimic them, and could be actually deeply troubled and scared by this revelation. What would Frankfurt suggest you do, based on On Truth? How does he value truth, in this regard?
Waiting for a response for a job you applied for, you received an email stating that you got a job, but a different title and higher salary than you expected. However, this email was meant for someone else. A second email explained this and said you got a job with the specific title and the salary you did expect. Does Gettier think you gained knowledge that you got the job after the first email? What is Plato’s theory of knowledge and how would we use that to interpret that you gained knowledge? Define Dretske’s reliabilism and what, if anything, would need to change about the situation of knowledge to have occurred?
In the movie Inception, there are people who willingly hook themselves up to a dream machine to live out experiences in a kind of dream reality. When a character expresses concern that people do this, another expresses that that reality is no more real than the one we inhabit. According to each of Descartes, Putnam, and Bouwsma; how would they say that knowledge works in this dream machine (if it does at all)? Furthermore, in terms of how we value our lives, what would Nozick say about this situation?
A celebrity endorses a capsule being sold as a supplement to improve “male performance.” The claims being made in the endorsement are vague and a prominent scientist has published an opinion piece in a prominent news site showing how the claims of what the capsules do have little to no clinical evidence. The capsules are harmless when ingested, but they do cost a large amount of money. Comparing the celebrity’s claims and the scientists’ claims, does Hume think that either of them are more justified in their claims? Why or why not? How about Popper? Who is correct according to Popper and why?
A scientist is explaining a dog’s point of view (what they see, feel, etc.). This scientist knows all the details possible about a dog’s brain. The scientist feels they can rightly claim to know what it’s like to be a dog. Can the scientist rightfully claim that, according to Nagel and Jackson respectively? Why or why not?
You are interrogated for a crime and you agree to take a polygraph test. You know what you are saying is the truth, but the polygraph says that you are lying. Describe how each of Descartes, Ryle, Armstrong, Putnam, and Paul Churchland would describe what the mind is doing, here, if the mind exists at all.
A convicted murderer is appealing their conviction after it was discovered they had a brain tumor. They had the tumor removed, and they’re behavior changed for the better. As such, they are claiming that they were only violent because of the brain tumor. Since it is out, they are deemed no longer a harm to society and the conviction is overturned. Interpret this scenario through three authors and/or views in the Free Will sections.
A worker at an office is frustrated that other workers keep leaving a mess near the coffee machine in a common area. They start arranging the common area to influence these other workers, without being aware of this influence, to stop leaving such messes. Interpret this scenario through three authors and/or views in the Free Will sections.
In the future, teleportation is possible. One can immediately step into a machine and materialize in another, far away place. Bob Cobb, the inventor of the Cobb Salad, uses one of these machines, and malfunctions and sends two versions of Cobb to two different places. Both believe they are Bob Cobb, the inventor of the Cobb Salad. Interpret this scenario through three authors in the Personal Identity section.
A time traveler goes back in time in order to kill Socrates at a young age before he ever becomes a philosopher. How can this devolve into a time travel paradox? Does Lewis believe that this would devolve into a paradox? Why or why not?
In order to prove the existence of God, someone points out the beauty and majesty of seeing Usain Bolt break world records in sprinting. According to Paley, why would this mean that God exists? How would Gould counter Paley, in that regard?
A former believer in God loses their faith after running across a friend who has fallen on hard times. Through a series of unlucky breaks of this genuinely good-natured friend, said friend has somehow become homeless. Explain how this situation both supports the Problem of Evil, and how it doesn’t support the Problem of Evil. What would Rowe specifically say about this situation?