What is Knowledge (Epistomology) Flashcards
3 Types of Knowledge
Ability: Knowing HOW to do something
(eg i know how to ride a bike)
Acquaintance: Knowing OF something
(eg i know what an apple tastes like)
Propositional(factual): knowing claims that are true/false
(eg i know paris is the capital of france)
Nature of definitions (Real vs Contingent definitions)
- Real definition: Something with a real objective essence (a real, underlying cause that makes a thing the way it is)
(e.g. Water is the way it is because of its chemical composition: H2O)
If an object has a real essence, it can have a real definition - Contingent definition: Something that has no real essence
(e.g. weeds, there’s no underlying cause that makes weeds weeds; no genetic difference between weeds and non weeds)
Zagzebski’s view on whether knowledge has a real definition
She’s skeptical about whether it has a real essence or not, but says we should treat knowledge as if it does. We should only give up if we are defeated in finding its essence.
4 Pitfalls to avoid according to zagzebski when giving a definition
- Circular: Should not include the term being defined
(eg justice is when a just act occurs) - Obscure: The terms in a definition shouldn’t be more obscure than the original term
(eg chewing is a form of mastication) - Negative: Defining a term by what it’s not
(eg a good act is one that’s not wrong) - Ad hoc: A definition that is specific to a particular problem
(eg “a bird is an animal that can fly”. But what about a mosquito? Okay: “a bird is an animal that can fly apart from a mosquito)
Necessary vs Sufficient conditions
+ jointly necessary and sufficient
- Necessary condition: Something you need to have the thing in question.
e.g. in order to have rain, it’s necessary to have water. However, water does not guarantee rain. It’s necessary but not sufficient for it to happen. - Sufficient condition: When met, means you will always have the thing in question
e.g. Being an aunt is sufficient for having relatives, but it’s not necessary to be an aunt to have relatives - Some conditions are both necessary and jointly sufficient
e.g. to be a bachelor (unmarried man) it’s necessary to be a man and unmarried, while that’s also sufficient to be called a bachelor
The JTB view of knowledge says that j,t and b are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for knowledge
Correspondance vs Coherence theory of truth
- Correspondence: The truth must correspond to the world and match up with the real facts to be considered a real truth
eg flat earther cavewomen was wrong - Coherence: The truth must match the internal web of beliefs held by a society to be true
So, cavewomen would have been right as that was the society’s belief at that time
Knowledge without Belief
Getting an answer right in a test dispite not remembering learning it so you don’t know you know it.
You have knowledge of the answer, without the belief that you have the knowledge of the answer.
Knowledge without Truth
Cavewoman in 10,000BC has ‘knowledge’ that the world is flat
- According to the coherence theory of truth, she does have knowledge
- According to the correspondence theory, she does not
Knowledge with out evidence/justification
- John has a rare gift from birth. If you give him any date in the future he can tell you what day that date will be.
Eg 14 march 2134 = a tuesday.
Case of true belief with no rational justification. His answers are right however, so justification may not be necessary for knowledge.
Gettier’s First example - The job
- Smith and Jones are both going for a job.
- Smith has strong evidence that Jones will get the job (The president told him so).
Smith also has strong evidence that jones has 10 coins in his pocket - Smith forms the belief that ‘the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket’
- However, it turns out Smith (not jones) gets the job.
- By coincidence, Smith also has 10 coins in his pocket
So Smith’s belief that ‘the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket’ was 1. A belief 2.True 3. Justified
However, most people would claim Smith didn’t have knowledge because luck was involved. He was lucky to have 10 coins in his pocket and unlucky to be wrong about jones getting the job
Fake Barn Case
Barney is driving through fake barn county; a county full of barns that just consist of the front of the barn and nothing behind (like a movie set)
Barney looks to the side and sees a big red barn. On this basis he believes there is a big red barn there.
However, it just so happens barney sees the only real barn in the area! Does barney know there’s a barn there?
Barney saw a real barn(J), believed there was a real barn(B) and there was a real barn(T).
Belief is luckily true as it was the only real barn.
Fake barn cases vs Gettier counter-example differences
Gettier counter examples: Rely on a double luck; the justification unluckily not applying while the belief luckily being true.
Fake barn cases: Justification is not false in anyway, the believer does not know they are in an unusual context which makes their belief luckily true
If these examples do not count as knowledge, JTB cannot be sufficient conditions for knowledge.
Response to Gettier examples: Infallibilism
- Infalliblism says we should only count things as knowledge we cannot rationally doubt.
eg 2+2=4 or the fact i exist.
This takes away the luck involved in the gettier examples as the justification needs to be so strong truth is guaranteed.
- Infalliblism isn’t open to gettier examples as all of them are open to doubt/alternative explanations so therefore can’t be called knowledge.
Infallibilist distinction of knowledge and belief
- Belief occurs when doubt is possible.
- Knowledge occurs when doubt is impossible.
Example of pain:
When you are in pain, you know you’re in pain. It wouldn’t make sense to say you believe you’re in pain as there’s no doubt about it, you know you are.
Someone else may observe you and infer you’re in pain. This person believes you’re in pain as they do not know for certain you’re actually in pain. There is still a possibility of an alternative explanation/error (you could be faking!)
Reliabalism (R + T + B) def
Aims to link knowledge with a reliable process of obtaining it.
Replaces Justification with Reliably formed
This means we can only count beliefs to be counted as knowledge if they were reliably formed in a way that is highly likely to result in truth.
