Address the question in as much detail as you can and reason things out as fully as possible. Be sure to address each part of the question.

(1) Explain the method of doubt and Descartes's main reasons for adopting it. Is the method well-suited to Descartes's purposes? Is it good for other purposes: for example, use in everyday life or a court of law?

(2) Descartes gives three arguments against knowledge: one about misperception (or "deception by the senses"), one about dreams, and one about an "evil demon". Explain any one of these arguments and how it calls some of our knowledge into question (be sure to say which kind/kinds of knowledge it calls into question). Finally, explain why, according to Descartes, the argument does not call into question the statement ‘I exist'.

(3) Explain Hume's copy principle. Then explain the missing shade of blue example and how it relates to the copy principle. Do you personally find the copy principle plausible? Why or why not?

(4) Provide a circular justification of induction (one of those discussed in lecture) and explain why it is circular. Suppose one were to then conclude that every justification of induction is circular on the basis of that one circular justification. Would that be a good argument against induction? Would more instances of circular justifications strengthen that argument against induction?

(5) Explain Anselm's "ontological argument" for the existence of God and Guanilo's parody of it. Who gets the best of this debate, Anselm or Guanilo? Why?