what is knowledge ( epistemology topic 1) Flashcards
(22 cards)
explain the equivocation objection to infallibilism (5m)
The Equivocation response to infallibilism attacks the argument because it suggest that infallibilist move from the claim that is I know something then I cannot be wrong about ( as supported by P1 of argument for infallibilism) to the claim that if I know p I could not possibly be mistaken about p. However, we know this is false because there are lots of good justification, we use in the day to day which could be false but are not and we consider them knowledge
explain the tripartite theory of knowledge (5m)
The tripartite theory of knowledge purposes a definition for knowledge originally argued for by Plato. It claims that the sufficient conditions for knowledge is justified true belief. It claims you know a proposition if and only if:
The proposition p is true
You believe that p
And you belief that p is justified
It aims to provide a complete analysis of propositional knowledge. The conditions individually necessary and conjointly sufficient for knowledge whereby any instance of the 3 conditions is knowledge.
Outline Zagzebski’s virtue epistemology. (5)
Zagzebski removes the condition of justification of JTB and claims that you have knowledge if and only if :
You believe that p
Your belief that p arises from an cat or intellectual virtue
A virtue being a state of a [person that is good by way of helping the person reach some good purpose. They have two properties: virtues must motivate us to pursue what is good so intellectual virtue motivate us to pursue the truth and care about believing what is true and the 2nd property is that virtue involves a component that enables us to be successful so intellectual virtues give us the ability to be reliable in forming true beliefs. Someone with an intellectual virtue will reliably choose a belief that is true but not always as people make mistakes. A belief is therefore not good if achieved through an accident much like how an act is not good if done by accident.
Outline Nozick’s truth-tracking reliabilism. (5)
Nozick’s approach shifts the focus to the relationship between belief and truth, emphasizing the importance of a belief being sensitive to the truth of a proposition – knowledge must “track the truth” across different possible scenarios. So you can only have knowledge if and only if :
S believes that P.
P is true.
If P were false, S would not believe that P (Sensitivity Condition).
In a possible worlds where P is false, S would not believe that P. This ensures that the belief is sensitive to the truth.
If P were true, S would believe that P (Adherence Condition).
In a possible worlds where P is true, S would still believe that P. This ensures that the belief is adherent to the truth.
For example, if you look at a functioning and correct clock and it says its 3pm you form the belief that it is 3pm, this is true. However, if the clock had displayed that it was 11pm you would not from the belief that it is 3pm.
Outline Sosa’s AAA account of virtue epistemology. (5)
Sosa is a virtue reliabilist who claims that you only have knowledge when the AAA conditions are met (sufficient and necessary conditions). So you can only have knowledge if an only if the belief is true ( accuracy), if the agent acquired the belief through using their intellectual virtues ( adroitness) and if the belief is true because ( is the reason why the belief if true) of the agent exercised their intellectual virtues ( aptness). The first two conditions ( accuracy and adroitness) are good but it must be apt for it to be considered knowledge. Virtues are understood as intellectual virtues which are reliable cognitive faculties like perception and memory which is developed and used correctly.
what is empiricism (3m)
Claims that all our knowledge comes from experience and so there is no a priori knowledge which is either innate or gained from rational insight and reasoning without experience.
What is rationalism about knowledge? (3)
Rationalism claims that we have some a priori knowledge from rational insight and reasoning
What is innatism about knowledge? ( 3m)
Claims that we have some innate knowledge which is knowledge from birth so without sense experience.
Define: A) Acquaintance Knowledge B) Ability Knowledge C) Propositional Knowledge (3)
Acquaintance knowledge involves direct contact with something in experience like a person or place. For example, I know London. Ability knowledge is knowledge of how to do something. For example, I have ability knowledge of how to ride a bike. Propositional knowledge is knowledge that some claim about reality is true or false. For example, I know that Paris is the capital of France.
What are necessary and sufficient conditions? (3m)
A necessary condition is one ( possibly one of several conditions) that must be true in order for another condition to occur. A sufficient condition is one that if true, guarantees a certain outcome
Outline the difference between analytic and synthetic truths (3)
something is analytic is it is true or false in virtue of the meaning of the words. For example, it is an analytic truth that square have four sides because it’s the definition of a square that it has 4 sides. Whereas, a synthetic truth is not analytic in that a proposition is not true or false in virtue of the meaning of the words but instead in virtue of the how the world actually is. For example, it’s a synthetic truth that tomatoes are red but they do not have to be.
What is the difference between a necessary and a contingent truth? (3)
A contingent truth is a proposition that is possible that it could be true or false depending on the way the world is. For example, I am writing this answer but the world could have been different in that I would be doing something else. Whereas a necessary truth is one that must always be true in all possible worlds. For example 2+2=4 is a necessary truth because for it the not +4 would be logically impossible.
Outline the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge (3)
A priori is knowledge through reasoning and without experience. For example a bachelor is an unmarried man is a priori knowledge because it is true b definition and you do not need to experience a bachelor to know this. Whereas a posterior knowledge is knowledge that can only be established through sense experience.
Explain Hume’s Fork. (5)
Hume claims we can have knowledge or 2 sorts of claims: relations of ideas and matters of fact. Relation of ideas can be established apriori through purely logical reasoning. They cannot be denied without contradiction whereas matters of fact must be established a posterior through sense experience and do not implore a contradiction when denied. Relations of ideas can be further split into analytic and necessary truths. Necessary truths are ones that must always be the case in all possible worlds and an analytic claim is true or false in virtue of the meaning of the words. Matters of fact can be rather synthetic or contingent. Synthetic is when the claim could be true or false but happens to be the way it is like snow being white but it would still be snow if it were orange and a contingent claim is one that is true or false but could be different if the world were different like the claim “ there is a cat in the room” is true or false based on the room you are actually in.
How does one of Gettier’s counterexamples object to the tripartite theory? (5)
Gettier’s example of Smith and jones objects to the tripartite theory of knowledge because it demonstrates that justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge. In the example Smith and Jones are applying for a job. Smith sees that Jone’s has 10 coins in his pockets and is told by the boss of the company that Jones will get the job. So, smith has a justified true belief (JTB) that the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket. However, Smith does not know he also has 10 coins in his pocket, and he gets the job. Smith had JTB because the proposition that the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pockets is true and he was justified in believing so, but we cannot say smith has knowledge because smith inferred his belief from a false belief (that Jones would get the job). It is only by luck that Smiths final proposition is true.
Outline the ‘no false lemmas’ theory of knowledge. (5)
The no false lemmas theory claims that you can have knowledge if and only if :
The proposition p is true
You believe that p
your belief that p is justified
You did not infer that p from a false belief
A lemmas is a claim made part way through an argument. This attempts to avoid calling JTB achieved through luck- like in Gettier’s two examples of Smith and Jones applying for a job and Jones and Brown- to be knowledge. The conditions individually necessary and conjointly sufficient for knowledge whereby any instance of the 4 conditions is knowledge.
Outline the infallibilist theory of knowledge. (5)
Infallibilism attempts to amend the tripartite theory of Knowlege to avoid the issue of Gettier cases as an counterexample. It claims that knowledge must be certain so the justification must prove the definite truth of the statement. So, if a belief is not certain it is not justified or at least not sufficiently justified to count as knowledge. The implication of this is that are belief are rarely have knowledge because our beliefs are almost never certain. This is to bridge the gap between truth and justification found in Gettier cases by making justification so strong it is impossible to have something be sufficiently justified and false, the justification guarantees the truth of the belief. This makes Gettier problems impossible.
what is the reliablist account of knowledge ( 5)
Reliabilism attempts to amend the definition of knowledge purposed by tripartide theory of knowledge and infallibilism. It does this by rejecting that justification is needed for knowledge instead it argues that the belief needs to have been produced by a reliable cognitive process. So you only have knowledge if and only if ( these are the sufficient and necessary conditions) :
P is true
You believe that p
You belief that p was produced by a reliable cognitive process
A reliable cognitive process is one that produces a high percentage of true beliefs and includes perception and memory
Explain the argument that belief is a necessary condition for knowledge. (5)
Belief is a necessary condition for knowledge because one most hold something to be the case in order to know it. belief is the contact someone has with reality in order to have knowledge. Without belief there is no overlap between what is in your mind and what is in reality. For example, if someone was in an exam and wrote answers they did not believe, we would either say they knew the answers subconsciously because they really did believe them or did not believe them so did not have knowledge
Explain the argument that justification is a necessary condition for knowledge. (5)
Justification is a necessary condition for knowledge in the tripartite theory’s definition of knowledge. We can have true beliefs without justification and instead from irrational grounds or luck. However Zagzebski notes that we think there is something good about knowledge as we acknowledge the difficulty of acquiring it. However true beliefs without justification are not praiseworthy because to guess something from luck is not good in the same way knowledge is. It is counterintuitive to same that simply a true belief is knowledge without justification.
Explain the argument that truth is a necessary condition for knowledge (5m)
Truth is a necessary condition purposed in all definition of knowledge. It is necessary because a justified belief that isn’t true is not knowledge. Propositional knowledge is contact with reality where reality describes what is true, not what is false, what is false is precisely what reality is not. So we can only know what is true. For example if someone is justified in believing that the earth is flat but it is not they don’t have knowledge.
