Epistemology Flashcards
(61 cards)
Give definitions and examples of ability, acquaintance and propositional knowledge.
Propositional knowledge (knowledge that) is the knowledge of facts, not acquaintance (knowledge of) or ability (knowledge how).
Example:
Dean meets the president of smart corp.
- Knowledge THAT the man is the president of smart corp.
- Knowledge OF now knowing this man is the president of smart corp.
- Knowledge HOW to give an impressive handshake.
What pitfalls should be avoided when discussing definitions of knowledge?
Definitions should not be:
1. Circular
- Should not include term being defined
2. Obscure
- Use simple language
3. Negative
- Don’t just say what “X” is not
4. Ad hoc
- A definition that is specific to counter a problem
Outline sufficient and necessary conditions.
A good definition of knowledge will consist of conditions that are individually necessary (are needed but individually aren’t enough) and jointly sufficient (what meets these conditions is knowledge).
Example:
A bachelor is a man and he is unmarried. But a man is not always a bachelor. Being a man is necessary but not sufficient.
Outline why knowledge might be defined as justified true belief with reference to Plato.
Tripartite view of knowledge:
Plato’s argument that knowledge is a “true belief accompanied by a rational account is knowledge”. So knowledge is a Justified, True, Belief. The JTB definition.
The reason we value knowledge over true belief is that it is backed up by evidence (justification), the two guides example.
Is justification individually necessary for knowledge?
Knowledge without justification:
- Is possible.
If you give John any date in the future, he can tell which weekday it is 100% accuracy. John does not know how he does this. This knowledge was a true belief, but without justification.
Is truth individually necessary for knowledge?
Knowledge without truth:
- Is not possible.
- Correspondence theory of truth:
- Truth consists in correspondence between a claim and relevant fact. - Coherence theory of truth:
- A belief is true if held by a society to be true, it is internally coherent.
A caveman’s belief that the earth is flat is not true using 1 so is not knowledge. But it is true using 2 - so is knowledge. Either way truth is pivotal and necessary to knowledge.
Is belief individually necessary for knowledge?
Knowledge without belief:
- It is possible
Imagine a flash card test. You are presented with a question and immediately think of an answer. You don’t believe in it, but the answer is correct. Old knowledge that was justified and true, but not a belief.
Are the three conditions of JTB jointly sufficient, outline the first Gettier case.
- Smith and Jones are interviewing for the same job.
- Smith hears the interviewer say “I’m going to give Jones the job”.
- Smith also sees jones count ten coins from his pocket.
- Smith forms the belief that the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.
- But Smith gets the job not Jones
- Also, by sheer coincidence Smith has ten unnoticed coins in his pocket.
Smith had a justified, true, belief - but this is not knowledge as it is down to luck, so the JTB definition of knowledge is NOT sufficient.
Are the three conditions of JTB jointly sufficient, outline the second Gettier case.
Makes use of a of a disjunction introduction.
“x is true OR y is true”. Even if one of them is fake the whole statement is true because the or means only one half has to be true.
- Smith has a justified belief that Jones owns a Ford.
- Smith forms the belief that either Jones owns a Ford of Brown is in Barcelona.
- However, last week Jones sold his Ford.
- But by sheer coincidence Brown is in Barcelona.
Smith had a justified, true, belief. But again it was not knowledge as it was due to luck.
Outline and evaluate: No false lemmas
(JTB + N)
In response to the Gettier cases another condition for knowledge was added (N) which means “not inferred from a false lemma” (false lemma = false belief). This counters the first two cases.
But…Fake Barn County
- In fake barn county the locals create fake barns that look identical to the real barns from the outside.
- Henry drives through the country and falsely thinks “there’s a barn”.
- But one time Henry looks at the only real barn and thinks “that’s a barn”.
- This time the belief is true, justified and not inferred from a false lemma. Yet still it is not knowledge as Henry was just lucky. JTB + N is not sufficient either.
Outline and evaluate: Reliabilism
RTB Definition
A definition of knowledge that gets rid of the Justification condition and replaces it with the condition that the true belief must be formed via some reliable method.
A reliable belief is one that produces a high percentage of true beliefs (e.g Good eyesight or Good memory). An advantage is that it can explain how animals and young children have knowledge which isn’t true for other methods.
However, the RTB definition is also undermined by the Fake Barn County argument.
Outline and evaluate: Infallibilism
True belief that is justified in such a way that it is impossible to doubt - to the utter literal sense. It is good as it avoids Gettier cases by restricting knowledge to things that cannot be doubted.
The issue is that it’s far too strict, we can doubt any statement if we think hard enough. So according to the theory we can’t know that “London is the capital city of England”, but I know that it is. As such, the theory is false.
Outline Sosa’s virtue epistemology.
Sosa states Smith knows p if:
- Accurate, Adroit, Apt
- p is true (the accuracy condition is met)
- S believes that p
- S’s belief that p is apt (it is true/accurate because it is adroit/ formed by intellectual virtue)
An intellectual virtue = Intellectual skill, ability or trait that contributes to getting to the truth, such as a tendency to use a reliable process.
What is Direct realism?
The view that the immediate objects of our perception exist externally as mind independent objects. So we perceive our external world directly. Our senses detect the properties of these objects which exist in the external world and objects retain the properties when unperceived.
It seems like common sense and explains what I perceive/ how everyone reports perceiving the same. It also avoids scepticism.
What is the issue that Russel and Berkley have with Direct realism?
Perceptual variation:
The appearance of objects can vary depending on the conditions under which they are perceived.
P1: Direct realism claims material objects possess mind-independent properties which we directly perceive.
P2: But when we perceive physical objects the appearance of their properties can vary.
P3: The properties of the objects themselves don’t vary.
C: Direct realism is false as the apparent properties are not the same as the real properties of physical objects.
Counterpoint:
Relational properties that the objects possess. The perceiver and perception of the object may change but the object itself does not change. We directly perceive the relational properties.
Outline and evaluate illusions as a problem for direct realism.
A straight straw in a submerged glass of water problem. It directly appears bent, but that is incorrect.
Counterpoint:
Relational properties, ones which change depending on how something is being perceived. The straw has the relational property of looking bent, though it is straight.
Outline and evaluate time lag as a problem for direct realism.
P1 The light from distant objects takes time to reach our eyes.
C1 What you are seeing may no longer exist.
C2 What we are seeing and what is there are different.
P2 This is no less true for physical objects at any distance
C3 We directly see the appearance, not the physical object. Direct realism is false.
Counterpoint:
Misunderstands theory. Direct realism is about what perceive, time-lag refers to how we perceive it. We still perceive directly, just how things were.
Outline and evaluate hallucination as a problem for direct realism.
Hallucinations are when we perceive something that doesn’t exist outside of our mind. It can be subjectively indistinguishable from a true perception, yet it does not exist in reality. Surely we cannot be perceiving directly.
Direct realists claim that it perhaps it is just something wrong in our minds that causes us to perceive hallucinations. In that case, they are still different from true perceptions and so true perception cannot occur only in the mind. However, this still means we are perceiving something that does not exist, thus we do not perceive everything directly.
Outline indirect realism and support for it.
John Locke
The immediate objects of perception are mind-dependant sense data, which are caused by and represent mind-independent objects. Three stages of perception.
The theory defeats all criticisms of direct realism.
Key ideas:
Ideas/ sense data are mind-dependant (require perceiving mind) but are caused by the qualities in matter.
Qualities/ matter are mind independent and have the power to cause ideas/ sense data.
Outline Locke’s primary and secondary qualities.
Primary qualities are analogous to the mind-independent external world.
- Size, shape, motion
Secondary qualities both depend on primary qualities and require a mind to appear as they are not in the objects themselves as we may perceive them.
- Colour, taste, smell
Outline Locke’s arguments for primary and secondary qualities and assess them.
- When an almond is crushed the shape is all that changes. But so does the taste and colour. This must be changed by changing the almonds shape.
=> Counterpoint:
- This just shows that both primary and secondary qualities can change. Plus, if the secondary qualities (taste) rely on the shape of the almond, then they are not mind-dependent. - Certain qualities disappear if we block our sense organs, so they depend on sense organs and do not exist as we see them in reality.
=> Counterpoint:
- Does not distinguish between qualities either. If we block our eyes then both disappear. - Porphyry if asked for definition of primary and secondary qualities.
Outline Locke’s perceptual variation argument as support for indirect realism.
P1 The same water can produce the idea of hot and cold.
P2 But the same water cannot be both hot and cold.
C1 Cold and warmth cannot belong to the material object alone.
C2 So cold and warmth are purely sensations produced in the perceiver.
Outline the argument against indirect realism that it leads to scepticism.
Since we are only aware of sense data, we must infer the existence of matter beyond our mind. Neither experience or reason can justify inference. Furthermore what if there is nothing external of our mind.
- Hypothetical world tree example
- Cartesian demon, brain in a vat etc.
Outline the three counters for the argument against indirect realism that it leads to scepticism
Counter 1: Involuntary nature of experience
- Locke shows we are not in control of sense data. I can imagine anything, but when I open my eyes I receive certain sense data over which I have no choice. There must be something external causing it.
Counter 2: Coherence of experience
Cockburn
- Different things occur together and allow us to predict. Hear barking, look around and see a dog. Two senses work together so must be perceiving same mind-independent thing.
Counter 3: External world best hypothesis
Russel
- We cant deductively prove external world exists, but most logical. Cat moving on sofa example.
Notes:
With 2 and 3 Locke accepts they don’t prove external world exist just because we are forced to perceive something (think dreams). Used to show logically possible.
