romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
In response to the early-to-mid-17th century "continental rationalism" John Locke (1632–1704) proposed in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) a very influential view wherein the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori, i.e., based upon experience. Locke is famously attributed with holding the proposition that the human mind is a tabula rasa, a "blank tablet", in Locke's words "white paper", on which the experiences derived from sense impressions as a person's life proceeds are written. There are two sources of our ideas: sensation and reflection. In both cases, a distinction is made between simple and complex ideas. The former are unanalysable, and are broken down into primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are essential for the object in question to be what it is. Without specific primary qualities, an object would not be what it is. For example, an apple is an apple because of the arrangement of its atomic structure. If an apple was structured differently, it would cease to be an apple. Secondary qualities are the sensory information we can perceive from its primary qualities. For example, an apple can be perceived in various colours, sizes, and textures but it is still identified as an apple. Therefore, its primary qualities dictate what the object essentially is, while its secondary qualities define its attributes. Complex ideas combine simple ones, and divide into substances, modes, and relations. According to Locke, our knowledge of things is a perception of ideas that are in accordance or discordance with each other, which is very different from the quest for certainty of Descartes.

Q1: When was 'An Essay Concerning Human Understanding' published?
A1: 1689
Q2: Who wrote 'An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'?
A2: John Locke
Q3: What does 'tabula rasa' mean?
A3: blank tablet
Q4: What did Locke say 'tabula rasa' meant?
A4: white paper
Q5: What did Locke's 'tabula rasa' concept say happens to the mind?
A5: on which the experiences derived from sense impressions as a person's life proceeds are written
A generation later, the Irish Anglican bishop, George Berkeley (1685–1753), determined that Locke's view immediately opened a door that would lead to eventual atheism. In response to Locke, he put forth in his Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710) an important challenge to empiricism in which things only exist either as a result of their being perceived, or by virtue of the fact that they are an entity doing the perceiving. (For Berkeley, God fills in for humans by doing the perceiving whenever humans are not around to do it.) In his text Alciphron, Berkeley maintained that any order humans may see in nature is the language or handwriting of God. Berkeley's approach to empiricism would later come to be called subjective idealism.

Q1: Who wrote 'Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge'?
A1: George Berkeley
Q2: Who wrote 'Alciphron'?
A2: George Berkeley
Q3: When was 'Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge' published?
A3: 1710
Q4: What religion was George Berkeley?
A4: Anglican
Q5: What nationality was George Berkeley?
A5: Irish
The Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) responded to Berkeley's criticisms of Locke, as well as other differences between early modern philosophers, and moved empiricism to a new level of skepticism. Hume argued in keeping with the empiricist view that all knowledge derives from sense experience, but he accepted that this has implications not normally acceptable to philosophers. He wrote for example, "Locke divides all arguments into demonstrative and probable. On this view, we must say that it is only probable that all men must die or that the sun will rise to-morrow, because neither of these can be demonstrated. But to conform our language more to common use, we ought to divide arguments into demonstrations, proofs, and probabilities—by ‘proofs’ meaning arguments from experience that leave no room for doubt or opposition." And,

Q1: What did Hume bring to empiricism?
A1: a new level of skepticism
Q2: What was Hume's nationality?
A2: Scottish
Q3: What two types of arguments did Locke say there are?
A3: demonstrative and probable
Q4: When did Hume die?
A4: 1776
Q5: When was Hume born?
A5: 1711
Hume divided all of human knowledge into two categories: relations of ideas and matters of fact (see also Kant's analytic-synthetic distinction). Mathematical and logical propositions (e.g. "that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the two sides") are examples of the first, while propositions involving some contingent observation of the world (e.g. "the sun rises in the East") are examples of the second. All of people's "ideas", in turn, are derived from their "impressions". For Hume, an "impression" corresponds roughly with what we call a sensation. To remember or to imagine such impressions is to have an "idea". Ideas are therefore the faint copies of sensations.

Q1: What types of human knowledge did Hume say there are?
A1: relations of ideas and matters of fact
Q2: What type of human knowledge is math?
A2: relations of ideas
Q3: What type of human knowledge is observing the world?
A3: matters of fact
Q4: What type of human knowledge is "the sun rises in the East"?
A4: matters of fact
Q5: Where did Hume say people's ideas come from?
A5: their "impressions"
Hume maintained that all knowledge, even the most basic beliefs about the natural world, cannot be conclusively established by reason. Rather, he maintained, our beliefs are more a result of accumulated habits, developed in response to accumulated sense experiences. Among his many arguments Hume also added another important slant to the debate about scientific method — that of the problem of induction. Hume argued that it requires inductive reasoning to arrive at the premises for the principle of inductive reasoning, and therefore the justification for inductive reasoning is a circular argument. Among Hume's conclusions regarding the problem of induction is that there is no certainty that the future will resemble the past. Thus, as a simple instance posed by Hume, we cannot know with certainty by inductive reasoning that the sun will continue to rise in the East, but instead come to expect it to do so because it has repeatedly done so in the past.

Q1: What did Hume think our beliefs are?
A1: a result of accumulated habits, developed in response to accumulated sense experiences
Q2: What did Hume think our beliefs can't be established solely by?
A2: reason
Q3: What did Hume think is a circular argument?
A3: the justification for inductive reasoning
Q4: What did Hume say we can't know by inductive reasoning?
A4: that the sun will continue to rise in the East
Q5: Why did Hume say we expect the sun to rise?
A5: because it has repeatedly done so in the past
Most of Hume's followers have disagreed with his conclusion that belief in an external world is rationally unjustifiable, contending that Hume's own principles implicitly contained the rational justification for such a belief, that is, beyond being content to let the issue rest on human instinct, custom and habit. According to an extreme empiricist theory known as phenomenalism, anticipated by the arguments of both Hume and George Berkeley, a physical object is a kind of construction out of our experiences. Phenomenalism is the view that physical objects, properties, events (whatever is physical) are reducible to mental objects, properties, events. Ultimately, only mental objects, properties, events, exist — hence the closely related term subjective idealism. By the phenomenalistic line of thinking, to have a visual experience of a real physical thing is to have an experience of a certain kind of group of experiences. This type of set of experiences possesses a constancy and coherence that is lacking in the set of experiences of which hallucinations, for example, are a part. As John Stuart Mill put it in the mid-19th century, matter is the "permanent possibility of sensation". Mill's empiricism went a significant step beyond Hume in still another respect: in maintaining that induction is necessary for all meaningful knowledge including mathematics. As summarized by D.W. Hamlin:

Q1: What conclusion do most of Hume's followers disagree with?
A1: that belief in an external world is rationally unjustifiable
Q2: What did Hume say can't be rationally justified?
A2: belief in an external world
Q3: What is phenomenalism?
A3: physical objects, properties, events (whatever is physical) are reducible to mental objects, properties, events
Q4: What is subjective idealism closely related to?
A4: Phenomenalism
Q5: What did John Stuart Mill say matter is?
A5: the "permanent possibility of sensation"
Mill's empiricism thus held that knowledge of any kind is not from direct experience but an inductive inference from direct experience. The problems other philosophers have had with Mill's position center around the following issues: Firstly, Mill's formulation encounters difficulty when it describes what direct experience is by differentiating only between actual and possible sensations. This misses some key discussion concerning conditions under which such "groups of permanent possibilities of sensation" might exist in the first place. Berkeley put God in that gap; the phenomenalists, including Mill, essentially left the question unanswered. In the end, lacking an acknowledgement of an aspect of "reality" that goes beyond mere "possibilities of sensation", such a position leads to a version of subjective idealism. Questions of how floor beams continue to support a floor while unobserved, how trees continue to grow while unobserved and untouched by human hands, etc., remain unanswered, and perhaps unanswerable in these terms. Secondly, Mill's formulation leaves open the unsettling possibility that the "gap-filling entities are purely possibilities and not actualities at all". Thirdly, Mill's position, by calling mathematics merely another species of inductive inference, misapprehends mathematics. It fails to fully consider the structure and method of mathematical science, the products of which are arrived at through an internally consistent deductive set of procedures which do not, either today or at the time Mill wrote, fall under the agreed meaning of induction.

Q1: What did Mill say knowledge comes from?
A1: an inductive inference from direct experience
Q2: What sensations did Mill differentiate?
A2: actual and possible sensations
Q3: When Mill left a question of sensations unanswered, how did Berkeley answer it?
A3: God
Q4: What did Mill say might not actually exist?
A4: gap-filling entities
Q5: What did Mill misrepresent about math?
A5: the structure and method of mathematical science, the products of which are arrived at through an internally consistent deductive set of procedures
The phenomenalist phase of post-Humean empiricism ended by the 1940s, for by that time it had become obvious that statements about physical things could not be translated into statements about actual and possible sense data. If a physical object statement is to be translatable into a sense-data statement, the former must be at least deducible from the latter. But it came to be realized that there is no finite set of statements about actual and possible sense-data from which we can deduce even a single physical-object statement. Remember that the translating or paraphrasing statement must be couched in terms of normal observers in normal conditions of observation. There is, however, no finite set of statements that are couched in purely sensory terms and can express the satisfaction of the condition of the presence of a normal observer. According to phenomenalism, to say that a normal observer is present is to make the hypothetical statement that were a doctor to inspect the observer, the observer would appear to the doctor to be normal. But, of course, the doctor himself must be a normal observer. If we are to specify this doctor's normality in sensory terms, we must make reference to a second doctor who, when inspecting the sense organs of the first doctor, would himself have to have the sense data a normal observer has when inspecting the sense organs of a subject who is a normal observer. And if we are to specify in sensory terms that the second doctor is a normal observer, we must refer to a third doctor, and so on (also see the third man).

Q1: What phase of empiricism ended in the 1940s?
A1: phenomenalist
Q2: How can't a finite set of statements be described?
A2: in purely sensory terms
Q3: What is necessary to explain a doctor's normality in sensory terms?
A3: a second doctor
Logical empiricism (also logical positivism or neopositivism) was an early 20th-century attempt to synthesize the essential ideas of British empiricism (e.g. a strong emphasis on sensory experience as the basis for knowledge) with certain insights from mathematical logic that had been developed by Gottlob Frege and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Some of the key figures in this movement were Otto Neurath, Moritz Schlick and the rest of the Vienna Circle, along with A.J. Ayer, Rudolf Carnap and Hans Reichenbach.

Q1: What are other terms for logical empiricism?
A1: logical positivism or neopositivism
Q2: When was logical empricism formulated?
A2: early 20th-century
Q3: What did logical empiricism try to combine with mathematical logic?
A3: British empiricism
Q4: What was Otto Neurath an important member of?
A4: Logical empiricism
Q5: What was AJ Ayer an important member of?
A5: Logical empiricism
The neopositivists subscribed to a notion of philosophy as the conceptual clarification of the methods, insights and discoveries of the sciences. They saw in the logical symbolism elaborated by Frege (1848–1925) and Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) a powerful instrument that could rationally reconstruct all scientific discourse into an ideal, logically perfect, language that would be free of the ambiguities and deformations of natural language. This gave rise to what they saw as metaphysical pseudoproblems and other conceptual confusions. By combining Frege's thesis that all mathematical truths are logical with the early Wittgenstein's idea that all logical truths are mere linguistic tautologies, they arrived at a twofold classification of all propositions: the analytic (a priori) and the synthetic (a posteriori). On this basis, they formulated a strong principle of demarcation between sentences that have sense and those that do not: the so-called verification principle. Any sentence that is not purely logical, or is unverifiable is devoid of meaning. As a result, most metaphysical, ethical, aesthetic and other traditional philosophical problems came to be considered pseudoproblems.

Q1: When was Bertrand Russell born?
A1: 1872
Q2: When did Bertrand Russell die?
A2: 1970
Q3: What did Frege say about math?
A3: all mathematical truths are logical
Q4: What did Wittgenstein say about logic?
A4: all logical truths are mere linguistic tautologies
Q5: What are pseudoproblems?
A5: most metaphysical, ethical, aesthetic and other traditional philosophical problems
In the extreme empiricism of the neopositivists—at least before the 1930s—any genuinely synthetic assertion must be reducible to an ultimate assertion (or set of ultimate assertions) that expresses direct observations or perceptions. In later years, Carnap and Neurath abandoned this sort of phenomenalism in favor of a rational reconstruction of knowledge into the language of an objective spatio-temporal physics. That is, instead of translating sentences about physical objects into sense-data, such sentences were to be translated into so-called protocol sentences, for example, "X at location Y and at time T observes such and such." The central theses of logical positivism (verificationism, the analytic-synthetic distinction, reductionism, etc.) came under sharp attack after World War II by thinkers such as Nelson Goodman, W.V. Quine, Hilary Putnam, Karl Popper, and Richard Rorty. By the late 1960s, it had become evident to most philosophers that the movement had pretty much run its course, though its influence is still significant among contemporary analytic philosophers such as Michael Dummett and other anti-realists.

Q1: Who were extreme empiricists?
A1: neopositivists
Q2: Who attacked logical positivism?
A2: Nelson Goodman, W.V. Quine, Hilary Putnam, Karl Popper, and Richard Rorty
Q3: What position does Dummett take?
A3: anti-realists
Q4: Who abandoned phenomenalism?
A4: Carnap and Neurath
In the late 19th and early 20th century several forms of pragmatic philosophy arose. The ideas of pragmatism, in its various forms, developed mainly from discussions between Charles Sanders Peirce and William James when both men were at Harvard in the 1870s. James popularized the term "pragmatism", giving Peirce full credit for its patrimony, but Peirce later demurred from the tangents that the movement was taking, and redubbed what he regarded as the original idea with the name of "pragmaticism". Along with its pragmatic theory of truth, this perspective integrates the basic insights of empirical (experience-based) and rational (concept-based) thinking.

Q1: When did pragmatism arise?
A1: In the late 19th and early 20th century
Q2: Who developed pragmatism?
A2: Charles Sanders Peirce and William James
Q3: Where did Peirce and James meet?
A3: Harvard
Q4: When did Peirce and James meet?
A4: in the 1870s
Q5: What did Peirce later call his ideas instead of pragmatism?
A5: pragmaticism
Charles Peirce (1839–1914) was highly influential in laying the groundwork for today's empirical scientific method.[citation needed] Although Peirce severely criticized many elements of Descartes' peculiar brand of rationalism, he did not reject rationalism outright. Indeed, he concurred with the main ideas of rationalism, most importantly the idea that rational concepts can be meaningful and the idea that rational concepts necessarily go beyond the data given by empirical observation. In later years he even emphasized the concept-driven side of the then ongoing debate between strict empiricism and strict rationalism, in part to counterbalance the excesses to which some of his cohorts had taken pragmatism under the "data-driven" strict-empiricist view.

Q1: When was Peirce born?
A1: 1839
Q2: When did Peirce die?
A2: 1914
Q3: What view did Peirce think had been driven to excess?
A3: the "data-driven" strict-empiricist view
Q4: Who formed the basis for modern scientific method?
A4: Charles Peirce
Q5: Whose rationalism did Peirce criticize?
A5: Descartes
Among Peirce's major contributions was to place inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning in a complementary rather than competitive mode, the latter of which had been the primary trend among the educated since David Hume wrote a century before. To this, Peirce added the concept of abductive reasoning. The combined three forms of reasoning serve as a primary conceptual foundation for the empirically based scientific method today. Peirce's approach "presupposes that (1) the objects of knowledge are real things, (2) the characters (properties) of real things do not depend on our perceptions of them, and (3) everyone who has sufficient experience of real things will agree on the truth about them. According to Peirce's doctrine of fallibilism, the conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of truth".

Q1: How long before Peirce did Hume write?
A1: a century
Q2: How did Peirce view inductive vs deductive reasoning?
A2: complementary
Q3: How did Hume view inductive vs deductive reasoning?
A3: competitive
Q4: What did fallibilism say?
A4: the conclusions of science are always tentative
Q5: What does the scientific method's rationality depend on?
A5: its self-corrective character
In his Harvard "Lectures on Pragmatism" (1903), Peirce enumerated what he called the "three cotary propositions of pragmatism" (L: cos, cotis whetstone), saying that they "put the edge on the maxim of pragmatism". First among these he listed the peripatetic-thomist observation mentioned above, but he further observed that this link between sensory perception and intellectual conception is a two-way street. That is, it can be taken to say that whatever we find in the intellect is also incipiently in the senses. Hence, if theories are theory-laden then so are the senses, and perception itself can be seen as a species of abductive inference, its difference being that it is beyond control and hence beyond critique – in a word, incorrigible. This in no way conflicts with the fallibility and revisability of scientific concepts, since it is only the immediate percept in its unique individuality or "thisness" – what the Scholastics called its haecceity – that stands beyond control and correction. Scientific concepts, on the other hand, are general in nature, and transient sensations do in another sense find correction within them. This notion of perception as abduction has received periodic revivals in artificial intelligence and cognitive science research, most recently for instance with the work of Irvin Rock on indirect perception.

Q1: Who wrote 'Lectures on Pragmatism'?
A1: Peirce
Q2: When was 'Lectures on Pragmatism' published?
A2: 1903
Q3: What is 'haecceity'?
A3: unique individuality or "thisness"
Q4: What did Irvin Rock write about?
A4: indirect perception
Q5: Where has 'perception as abduction' come up repeatedly?
A5: in artificial intelligence and cognitive science research
Around the beginning of the 20th century, William James (1842–1910) coined the term "radical empiricism" to describe an offshoot of his form of pragmatism, which he argued could be dealt with separately from his pragmatism – though in fact the two concepts are intertwined in James's published lectures. James maintained that the empirically observed "directly apprehended universe needs ... no extraneous trans-empirical connective support", by which he meant to rule out the perception that there can be any value added by seeking supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. James's "radical empiricism" is thus not radical in the context of the term "empiricism", but is instead fairly consistent with the modern use of the term "empirical". (His method of argument in arriving at this view, however, still readily encounters debate within philosophy even today.)

Q1: Who came up with 'radical empiricism'?
A1: William James
Q2: Where were James's pragmatism and radical empiricism intertwined?
A2: in James's published lectures
Q3: When was William James born?
A3: 1842
Q4: When did William James die?
A4: 1910
Q5: When did James come up with 'radical empiricism'?
A5: Around the beginning of the 20th century
John Dewey (1859–1952) modified James' pragmatism to form a theory known as instrumentalism. The role of sense experience in Dewey's theory is crucial, in that he saw experience as unified totality of things through which everything else is interrelated. Dewey's basic thought, in accordance with empiricism was that reality is determined by past experience. Therefore, humans adapt their past experiences of things to perform experiments upon and test the pragmatic values of such experience. The value of such experience is measured experientially and scientifically, and the results of such tests generate ideas that serve as instruments for future experimentation, in physical sciences as in ethics. Thus, ideas in Dewey's system retain their empiricist flavour in that they are only known a posteriori.

Q1: Who came up with 'instrumentalism'?
A1: John Dewey
Q2: What did Dewey think about reality?
A2: reality is determined by past experience
Q3: When was Dewey born?
A3: 1859
Q4: When did Dewey die?
A4: 1952
Q5: What was instrumentalism a modification of?
A5: James' pragmatism