CAT 2021 Slot 2 VARC Question & Solution
Passage
The passage below is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
It has been said that knowledge, or the problem of knowledge, is the scandal of philosophy. The scandal is philosophy’s apparent inability to show how, when and why we can be sure that we know something or, indeed, that we know anything. Philosopher Michael Williams writes: ‘Is it possible to obtain knowledge at all? This problem is pressing because there are powerful arguments, some very ancient, for the conclusion that it is not . . . Scepticism is the skeleton in Western rationalism’s closet’. While it is not clear that the scandal matters to anyone but philosophers, philosophers point out that it should matter to everyone, at least given a certain conception of knowledge. For, they explain, unless we can ground our claims to knowledge as such, which is to say, distinguish it from mere opinion, superstition, fantasy, wishful thinking, ideology, illusion or delusion, then the actions we take on the basis of presumed knowledge - boarding an airplane, swallowing a pill, finding someone guilty of a crime - will be irrational and unjustifiable.
That is all quite serious-sounding but so also are the rattlings of the skeleton: that is, the sceptic’s contention that we cannot be sure that we know anything - at least not if we think of knowledge as something like having a correct mental representation of reality, and not if we think of reality as something like things-as-they-are-in-themselves, independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions. For, the sceptic will note, since reality, under that conception of it, is outside our ken (we cannot catch a glimpse of things-in-themselves around the corner of our own eyes; we cannot form an idea of reality that floats above the processes of our conceiving it), we have no way to compare our mental representations with things-as-they-are-in-themselves and therefore no way to determine whether they are correct or incorrect. Thus the sceptic may repeat (rattling loudly), you cannot be sure you ‘know’ something or anything at all - at least not, he may add (rattling softly before disappearing), if that is the way you conceive ‘knowledge’.
There are a number of ways to handle this situation. The most common is to ignore it. Most people outside the academy - and, indeed, most of us inside it - are unaware of or unperturbed by the philosophical scandal of knowledge and go about our lives without too many epistemic anxieties. We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on how we acquired them (I saw it with my own eyes; I heard it on Fox News; a guy at the office told me) and how broadly and strenuously they seem to be shared or endorsed by various relevant people: experts and authorities, friends and family members, colleagues and associates. And we examine our convictions more or less closely, explain them more or less extensively, and defend them more or less vigorously, usually depending on what seems to be at stake for ourselves and/or other people and what resources are available for reassuring ourselves or making our beliefs credible to others (look, it’s right here on the page; add up the figures yourself; I happen to be a heart specialist).
Question 1
The author discusses all of the following arguments in the passage, EXCEPT:
Solution:
The argument in Option A has been discussed in the following excerpt:
...the sceptic’s contention that we cannot be sure that we know anything - at least not if we think of knowledge as something like having a correct mental representation of reality, and not if we think of reality as something like things-as-they-are-in-themselves, independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions.
The argument in Option B has been discussed in the following excerpt:
For, they explain, unless we can ground our claims to knowledge as such, which is to say, distinguish it from mere opinion, superstition, fantasy, wishful thinking, ideology, illusion or delusion, then the actions we take on the basis of presumed knowledge - boarding an airplane, swallowing a pill, finding someone guilty of a crime - will be irrational and unjustifiable.
The argument in Option D has been discussed in the following excerpt:
While it is not clear that the scandal matters to anyone but philosophers, philosophers point out that it should matter to everyone, at least given a certain conception of knowledge.
The author does says that ignoring the scepticism about the veracity of knowledge is the most common way of dealing with it, not the best way. Hence. Option C has not been discussed.
Question 2
“. . . we cannot catch a glimpse of things-in-themselves around the corner of our own eyes; we cannot form an idea of reality that floats above the processes of our conceiving it . . .” Which one of the following statements best reflects the argument being made in this sentence?
Solution:
...and not if we think of reality as something like things-as-they-are-in-themselves, independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions. For, the sceptic will note, since reality, under that conception of it, is outside our ken (we cannot catch a glimpse of things-in-themselves around the corner of our own eyes; we cannot form an idea of reality that floats above the processes of our conceiving it), we have no way to compare our mental representations with things-as-they-are-in-themselves and therefore no way to determine whether they are correct or incorrect.
The author is making a logical argument in the sentence given in the question. According to the author, if we say that the reality of objects is independent of our perceptions, then it is out of our ken. Hence, we cannot for this idea of reality, and logically, we would be unable to comprehend it. Option D comes the closest to capturing this point.
Option A is incorrect. The sceptic argues that if reality were independent of individual perceptions, then the reality would float above the processes with which we conceive it. It is being presented as an argument ot negate the viewpoint, while the Option takes it as an established fact.
Perception is more than eyesight. Option B captures only eyesight, and hence, is a distortion.
The process of conceiving reality and our knowledge is not the argument the author presents in the mentioned lines. Hence, Option C is incorrect.
Question 3
According to the last paragraph of the passage, “We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on” something. Which one of the following most broadly captures what we depend on?
Solution:
We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on how we acquired them (I saw it with my own eyes; I heard it on Fox News; a guy at the office told me) and how broadly and strenuously they seem to be shared or endorsed by various relevant people: experts and authorities, friends and family members, colleagues and associates.
From the above excerpt, it is clear that held beliefs and presumptive knowledges depend upon how we acquired them, and how strongly they are shared or endorsed by relevant people in our circle. Hence, Option A is the answer.
Question 4
The author of the passage is most likely to support which one of the following statements?
Solution:
We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on how we acquired them...
As mentioned in the above line, Option A directly contradicts what the author says.
It has been said that knowledge, or the problem of knowledge, is the scandal of philosophy. The scandal is philosophy’s apparent inability to show how, when and why we can be sure that we know something or, indeed, that we know anything.
The author then goes on to explain that sceptic view is the skeleton in western philosophy's closet when trying to negate this scandal. Thus, it means that the scandal has to do with the sceptic way of thinking.
In the next paragraph, the sceptic view has been explained, which talks about our inability to grasp reality if we think of it as independent of our perceptions. Hence, the scandal can be construed to be the same. The author is likely to agree with this view. Option B is the answer.
In the last paragraph, the author points out that we defend a viewpoint strongly if we feel that it is held widely in our social circle. However, the author does not allude to the fact that it is appropriate or not. Also, such an argument would bolster the inherent bias we have, and hence would point towards a fault in our decision making. Hence, Option C is incorrect.
Option D is not supported in the passage. The passage presents the sceptic view that if reality were construed as independent of our perceptions, then it would be impossible to grasp reality. It has not been mentioned that in this case, we should aim to study that reality in a similar manner.