Defining knowledge

Question 1

what is the tripartite definition of knowledge?

Answer 1

Justified, True, Belief

Question 2

what are the three types of knowledge?

Answer 2

ability (I know how)

acquaintance (I know of)

propositional (i know that)

Question 3

what are necessary conditions?

Answer 3

conditions that are required for something to fit a definition

—> ‘unmarried’ is a necessary condition for batchelor

Question 4

what are sufficient conditions?

Answer 4

set of conditions that fully cover every requirement of a definition

—> unmarried man are sufficient conditions for bachelor

Question 5

what are Gettier cases?

Answer 5

problems demonstrating that JTB isn’t a suitable definition of knowledge, they aren’t sufficient conditions- you can have a JTB which isn’t knowledge

Question 6

Gettier case example

Answer 6

Barn county

Question 7

what is the No False Lemmas definition of knowledge?

Answer 7

knowledge =

Justified

True

Belief

thats based on no false lemmas (beliefs)

Question 8

name 3 strengths of No False Lemmas

Answer 8

— strengthens justification, preventing falsity

— deals with original Gettier cases

— allows past examples of “knowledge” that have been disproven to no longer count as knowledge

Question 9

name 2 weaknesses of No False Lemmas

Answer 9

— doesn’t deal with modern Gettier cases (Ginet’s red barn)

— we might not realise that current knowledge is based on a false lemma: it leads to scepticism?

Question 10

what is the Reliabilist definition of knowledge?

Answer 10

a true belief caused by a RELIABLE TRUTH AIMED COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING FACULTY (‘justified’ is too vague and subjective)

Reliable
True
Belief

a reliable method is something that produces a high percentage of true beliefs

Question 11

give 3 strengths of the reliabilist definition of knowledge

Answer 11

— potentially better and more specific than justification

— allows children and animals to have knowledge without justification

— Nozick gets around Gettier cases

Question 12

give 3 weaknesses of reliabilist definition of knowledge

Answer 12

— original version (before Nozick) fails to deal with Gettier cases

— potentially just as vague as justification

— ‘reliable’ still leaves room for error: most processes COULD be wrong in some cases

Question 13

Nozick’s reliabilist solution to Gettier problems

Answer 13

a process is reliable if the belief formed from it being wrong changes your mind

Question 14

Virtue Epistemology definition of knowledge

Answer 14

Virtuous (epistemic)
True
Belief

—> you must arrive at the true belief using epistemic virtue

Question 15

what is epistemic virtue according to Sosa?

Answer 15

AAA

Adroitness (skill)
Accuracy (correctness)
Aptness (arriving at the accurate belief as a result of adroitness)

Question 16

how does Sosa solve Ginet’s Fake Red Barn cases?

Answer 16

2 types of knowledge:
ANIMAL (lesser standard of adroitness and intellect)
REFLECTIVE (higher standard of adroitness and intellect, humans achieving greater udnerstanding of aptness)

—> knowledge of red barns is ANIMAL KNOWLEDGE

Question 17

give 3 strengths of virtue epistemology

Answer 17

— bridges the gap between justification + knowledge

— gets around Gettier cases

— recognises that humans can have a higher standard of knowledge

Question 18

give 2 weaknesses of virtue epistemology

Answer 18

— maybe struggles with red barns?

— reliabilism says it doesn’t have necessary justification for knowledge (epistemic virtue doesn’t guarantee truth)

Question 19

what is the infallibilist definition of knowledge?

Answer 19

based from Descartes’ sceptical approach

Infallibly 100% justified (no room for doubt)
True
Belief

Impossible to rationally doubt

Question 20

give 3 strengths of infallibilism

Answer 20

— solves Gettier cases

— clearly defines ‘justification”

— aligns with our view that we have to be certain of something to know it

Question 21

give 3 weaknesses of the infallibilism definition of knowledge

Answer 21

— rejects too much, leading to v high level of scepticism

— tells us what knowledge ideally SHOULD be, not how we actually currently use the term

— goes against our intuition of what we do know