philosophy midterm Flashcards
Knowledge
a bunch of different components that when put together guarantee knowledge
2 sources of knowledge
- perceptional
- testimony
Knowledge as an ability
when the word “know” is followed by “how”, we are expressing someone has an ability
ex. meghan knows how to ride a bike
Knowledge as an acquaintance
When you follow “knows” with a name, we are expressing that we are acquainted with someone/something
ex. they know mark
Factual knowledge
Sometimes we talk about the factual knowledge of an entire group
ex. philosophy students know not all facts are knowledge
Other times we talk about the factual knowledge of individuals
ex. Betty knows that not all facts are knowledge
Academic skeptics
-Think that knowledge is impossible
-Like the stoics, they distinguishes impressions and judgments and argued that knowledge consists in accepting only those impressions that can’t be wrong
-But,
-They think that there are no such impressions
-So there is no knowledge
in simple terms
- the knowledge of things is impossible
-ideas and notions are never true
-whatever reasons are used to justify knowledge must be justified itself- leading to an infinite regress
Pyrrhonian skeptics
-more radical
-think that we should withhold all judgment as this avoids the self defeat of the academic skeptic position
-they think that in order to come to genuine knowledge we need a criterion for determining which of our beliefs or impression are accurate
-but then we face the problem of justifying the criterion itself
Descartes and examining perceptual beliefs
-17th century philosopher, scientist and mathematician
-First mediation contains an argument that still frame the debate
-ultimately, he rejects skepticism
- he says that rather than attempting to undermine perception as a reliable method for belief formation by finding a single failure, he begins with the best case of perception- the case that leads to knowledge if any does
-his best case concerns ordinary beliefs about familiar proximal objects
-he writes his first mediation by the fire but then considers his belief that he is sitting by a fire
- says - the problem is though, if everything we believe comes through senses, and we cannot know though senses if we are dreaming, then we cannot rule out our beliefs as inaccurate
-argument
-we cannot know we are not dreaming
-if we cannot know that we are not dreaming then none of our sensory beliefs are knowledge
-if none of our sensory beliefs are knowledge, then we have no knowledge
-therefore we have no knowledge
Validity
-an argument is valid if the premises logically entail the conclusion
- an argument is true is the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true
ex- if dogs moo, cows bark
- dogs moo
-therefore cows bark
Soundness
An argument is sound if it is
1. Valid
2. its premises are true
ex. if the lights are on, the electricity is working
- the lights are on
- therefore, the electricity is working
Berlin is in germany
Germany is in Europe
therefore Berlin is in Europe
Deductive arguments
Valid arguments are deductive
Inductive arguments
sometimes arguments may be convincing and give you good but not decisive reasoning to believe the conclusion
-these are inductive arguments
Necessary conditions
A condition is necessary for something if it must be satisfied for that something
ex- in order to be a cat, it is necessary that something is (a) alive, (b) an animal, (c ) a mammal
However non of these conditions are sufficient - I am alive and a mammal but not a cat
Sufficient conditions
A sufficient conditions guarantees (suffices for) that something
ex. it suffices to be a dog that something is a beagle
- this is not necessary for being a dog that something is a beagles after all there are other ways to be dogs
Gettier examples and the traditional analysis of knowledge
x knows p iff= traditional analysis
for something to be knowledge it must be a) believed, b) justified, c) true
His example
-Smith and Jones have applied for a certain job
-Smith has strong evidence that Jones is the man that will get the job and Jones has 10 coins in his pocket
-Suppose that he comes to believe the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket
-Smith is actually going to get the job and he has 10 coins in his pocket
-In this case Smiths beliefs are justified and true
- but it is not knowledge because we can have a justified true belief that is independent of the justification
Another example
-Suppose you look at a hitherto-reliable clock that just happens to be stopped. The clock reads 11:52 and it is in fact 11:52 at the time you look at it
-you have a justified true belief but not knowledge
Goldmans causal theory of analysis
Ones beliefs that things are thus-and-so must be caused by things actually being thus-and-so
x knows p iff :
a) x believes p
b) p is true
c) x is justified in believing p
d) s’s belief that p is not based on a false premise
ex. Smith believes (p) John owns a Ford and the source for this belief is perfectly reliable. When the source told Smith (p) , it was perfectly true. But John has since lost his Ford and (by accident) gained another. In that case it seems that Smith does not know.
ex. I enter fake barn country, a region of barns with with hundreds of fake barn facades and just 1 real barn and I look at one and believe it is the actual barn. It is the actual. Many intuit that I do not know it is a barn because my belief could have easily been false.
