IntroPhil (PKU) - 2026 quiz 1_问卷系统

扫码填写或分享

预览模式（数据不保存）

Intro Phil (PKU) - 2026 quiz 1

感谢您能抽出几分钟时间来参加本次答题，现在我们就马上开始吧！

(I) True or false

For each of the following statements, please choose either ‘true’ or ‘false’ as your answer.

Epistemicism is not a theoretical approach to vagueness.

True

False

Turing concludes his argument by stating explicitly that machines can think.

True

False

Williamson argues that philosophy is a natural science.

True

False

The Socratic method emphasises the philosophical importance of understanding each other.

True

False

(II) Multiple choice

For each of the following questions, please choose only one answer (A), (B), (C), or (D).

According to Russell, the point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so [what] that no one will believe it?【单选题】

absurd

obscene

radical

paradoxical

Which of the following, if any, does Searle set up as his target?【单选题】

Superintelligence

Machine minds

Strong AI

[None of the above]

Which of the following, if any, is a central claim of Williamson’s?【单选题】

Philosophy has made even less progress than critics think.

There is no such thing as vagueness.

Philosophy seamlessly fits into the intellectual landscape of total science.

[None of the above]

In the Euthyphro, Socrates laments Euthyphro’s departure, because, as Socrates says,【单选题】

Socrates wanted to refute Euthyphro’s theory of piety.

Socrates wanted to learn how to defend himself in court.

Euthyphro thus proves his immoral character.

Euthyphro thus proves his ignorance of what piety is.

(III) Very short answers

For each of the following questions, please choose all of the correct answers from (A), (B), and (C).

Present a version of the liar paradox in schematic argument form (i.e., a list of premises and conclusion).【多选题】

This statement is false.

Max: Agnes’ claim is true. Then, Agnes: Max’s claim is not true.

One can lie and tell the truth at the same time.

Describe Searle’s Chinese Room Argument in a few sentences. First, state its conclusion. Then very briefly explain his argument in favour of it.【多选题】

C: Strong AI is false. Searle constructs a thought experiment that he thinks constitutes a counterexample to strong AI.

The conclusion of Searle’s argument is that language models may pass the Turing test yet not understand any of the symbols they process, because he imagines himself to be such a model and he detects no understanding in himself.

The conclusion of Searle’s Chinese Room Argument is that strong AI requires at least a body, which he shows in the form of the inadequacy of Turing’s test.

If one of Williamson’s arguments is analysed to be ‘(P1) The critic does not realise how much philosophy overlaps other disciplines; (P2) there has been significant progress in these overlap areas; (C) philosophy has made significant progress,’ then may there be a reason why the conclusion does not follow from the premises? In addition to stating your answer, explain your answer in one or two sentences.【多选题】

Yes, there may be a reason why the

conclusion does not follow from the premises.

The premises only show that there has

been significant progress in areas where

philosophy overlaps with other

disciplines, not necessarily in philosophy

as a whole. Progress in overlap areas

could be due to the contributions of the

other disciplines rather than philosophy

itself. Therefore, it does not logically follow

that philosophy as a whole has made

significant progress just because progress

has occurred in these joint areas.

Progress in overlap areas could be due to the contributions of the other disciplines rather than philosophy itself. Therefore, it does not logically follow that philosophy as a whole has made significant progress just because progress has occurred in these joint areas.

Progress in those areas might be so

marginal that it counts for too little.

So, the argument commits the fallacy

of composition – assuming that

what is true of a part is true of

the whole - and there might be

other problems.

Typically, when Socrates asks ‘What is . . .?’ (e.g. ‘what is piety?’), he is asking for conditions that are necessary and jointly sufficient for something’s being the thing in question (e.g. piety). First explain, in one sentence each, what (in principle) necessary conditions and what (in principle) sufficient conditions are. Then complete the following sentences (using the words ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’ to fill in the blanks): ‘Being red is a ____ condition for being coloured. Being coloured is a ____ condition for being red.’【多选题】

Suppose being an unmarried man was necessary and jointly sufficient for being a bachelor. Then being unmarried and being a man are each necessary conditions; noting that no one who is not a man can be a bachelor. But being both unmarried and a man will together be enough (i.e., jointly sufficient) to be a bachelor. The correct filling of the blanks is, in this order, ‘sufficient’, ‘necessary’.

Being unmarried and being a man are each necessary conditions, and jointly sufficient. The correct filling of the blanks is, in this order, ‘sufficient’, ‘necessary’.

[Neither of the above]

隐私政策

问卷家提供技术支持

答题卡

已答0未答15