What is Knowledge Flashcards

Question

Replace ‘justified with ‘reliably informed’ Reliabilism (R+T+B)

Answer 1

Infallibilism sets too high a standard for knowledge as it requires justification to be infallible. This means that there are many things that we cannot claim to know. Perhaps in order to loosen this condition, we need to replace justification with ‘reliably informed’. According to reliabilism, you know that p iff: 1. p is true, 2. you believe that p, and 3. your belief is produced by a reliable cognitive process. Some sources are reliable because they deliver a high percentage chance of certainty. 1. Memory 2. Introspection 3. Testimony 4. Perception using the senses 5. Simple arithmetic

Answer 2

It is more lenient than infallibilism and so it allows for more of what we ordinarily call knowledge to be included in our definition of it. It allows us to say that animals and young children have knowledge. Animals and young children may not be able to justify their beliefs through evidence or complicated reasoning, but they use other reliable cognitive processes when forming their beliefs. Much more in line with our intuitive/everyday understanding of what knowledge is. Reliabilism is an externalist theory. As long as the process which produces a belief reliably produces true beliefs then no further understanding or complex justification is required. I may not be able to justify my faith that my senses are not deceiving me. As long as my senses are reliable, I can claim to have knowledge when I use them. No ‘internal’ understanding or justification of the reliable cognitive method is required. In other words, I don’t need to be able to know that I know! So a) Reliabilism gives us an account of knowledge in which justification is not required. b) Reliabilism allows for the subject (knower) to have knowledge without knowing that they have knowledge.

Answer 3

Think back to Dr Jones and viruses X and Y. When she formulated the proposition ‘Smith had virus X’ she was using an extremely reliable method: blood tests that are correct in the overwhelming majority of cases. And yet she didn’t have knowledge!

Answer 4

In ‘fake barn county’, the locals create fake barns that look identical to real barns Henry is driving through fake barn county, but he doesn’t know the locals do this Henry often thinks “there’s a barn” when he looks at the fake barns These beliefs are not knowledge, because they are not true – the barns are fake However, on one occasion Henry looks at the one real barn and thinks “there’s a barn” This time the belief is true Henry has also used a reliable cognitive process to reach this conclusion; he has used his visual sense perception. Like all other Gettier examples, the fact that this belief is true is a matter of luck; it is accidentally true and so cannot count as knowledge.

Answer 5

Doesn't apply to infallibilism Zagzebski claims that this is because the ‘third condition’ is always independent of the truth. Although it is closely connected to the truth, it is independent of it and cannot therefore guarantee it. She says that it doesn’t matter how we add to the conditions for knowledge, we will always be able to construct Gettier cases that show that the definition is inadequate. Formula 1. Choose a definition of knowledge that involves TB + a third condition, e.g. reliably informed, no false lemmas etc. 2. Now imagine a scenario in which this definition is used to make a knowledge claim but it turns out to be false due to bad luck, e.g. Henry believes he’s seen a barn but in fact he’s just seen a facade. This is not knowledge because it is false. 3. Now imagine a scenario in which this definition is used to make a knowledge claim that turns out to be true due to good luck, e.g. Henry believes he’s seen a barn when in fact it is the only real barn in Fake Barn County. This is not knowledge because it is a Gettier problem. In both cases, the definition of knowledge remains the same (TB + third condition) and yet the truthfulness of the propositions is quite accidental. This is a demonstration that any ‘TB + third condition’ will always be susceptible to Gettier problems. Zagzebski claims that this shows that all definitions of knowledge of the form we have been looking at are susceptible to Gettier style problems because the Truth condition is disconnected from the Third condition

Answer 6

Virtue epistemology is an attempt to define knowledge whilst avoiding Gettier problems. It does so by explicitly linking the justification condition to the truth of the belief. In this way, there can be none of the lucky true beliefs that cause Gettier problems. The justification condition is changed very radically. Knowledge is justified in terms of the intellectual virtues and vices of the knower. Intellectual virtues are character traits, tendencies, or DISPOSITIONS to use reliable processes to gain knowledge. If a friend is intellectually virtuous, then we tend to believe what they say. If a friend often uses unreliable processes (vices), we tend not to fully believe the things they tell us because they may not be fully justified. According to virtue epistemology, you know that p iff: 1. p is true, 2. you believe that p, and 3. p is true as a result of you exercising your intellectual virtues. Gettier cases are what happens we have a belief that is accurate (true) and typically arrived at via skillful means (they are adroit). However, there is no connection between the truth of the belief and the means by which it was made. Gettier cases are lucky true beliefs. Because lucky true beliefs are impossible according to virtue theory, there is no possibility of Gettier cases arising.

Answer 7

Accuracy refers to whether the target is hit or not. (Note that the archer may get lucky and accidentally hit the target.) Adroitness refers to the skill of the archer. (Note that a skilful shot doesn’t guarantee accuracy; there may be a sudden gust of wind!) Aptness refers to the situation in which the shot hits the target (is accurate) because of the skill of the archer (her adroitness). Accuracy: An accurate belief is a true belief. Adroitness: An adroit belief is one that was formed on the basis of intellectual virtue (using a reliable intellectual process). Aptness: An apt belief is a true belief that is true because it is adroit.

Answer 8

Henry uses his intellectual virtues (relying on his clear visual impression of a barn) to believe that there is a barn. This is an Accurate belief. It is Adroit (he exercised his intellectual virtues). It is Apt (it is true because it is Adroit). And yet it is only accidentally true and so doesn’t count as knowledge.

Answer 9

He argues that Henry does have knowledge. He does, after all, have an apt belief when he identifies the barn. However, because Henry is unaware of the unusual context, he is unable to tell if his belief is apt or not, or make a judgement about whether it is lucky or not. Sosa refers to this form of knowledge as animal knowledge, as opposed to reflective human knowledge. Animal knowledge: This is when the subject has an apt belief, but she is unable to tell that her belief is apt. This is the case for Henry in Fake Barn County. Human Knowledge: This is when the subject has an apt belief and is able to tell that her belief is apt. This is fully reflective knowledge.