Please answer these 3 questions:
1) Explain how Descartes tries to get beyond the foundation of direct knowledge to the conclusion that most of our common-sense beliefs about the world must be true and the evil demon hypothesis false. What is the main weakness of Descartes’ argument?
2) Explain clearly Locke’s account of secondary qualities as causal powers. What is Locke’s purpose in developing this account? How convincing is Locke’s account? Support your assessment by argument.
3) How plausible is Stephen Jay Gould’s view that there is no basic conflict or incompatibility between religion and science? Support your view by argument.
you can put references if you would like. Thanks
