what is knowledge? - knowledge and skeptiscism

what is ability knowledge? ‘how’

• knowing how to perform certain tasks

• doesn’t require an understanding

• doesn’t require the person to be concious of what they know

• doesn’t require them to be able to articulate what they know

• cannot be directly communicated from person to person

what is aquaintence knowledge? ‘of’

• when i come into contact with something and am made aware of it

• doesn’t require you to be able to articulate what you know

• cannot be expressed verbally

• cannot communicate from person to person

what is propositional knowledge? ‘that’

• factual knowledge

• can be expressed lingustically

• can be communicated from person to person

• involves believeing the proposition is true

how does Zagzebski define knowledge?

B - be brief
A - not ad hoc (made to solve a problem)
C - not circular
O - not obscure
N - not negative

what is a necessary condition and a sufficient condition?

necessary - a n condition for X is a condition which must be true for X to be true

sufficient - a s condition (or set of jointly sufficient conditions) for X is a condition/s which if it is true, means that X is true

what is the tripartite view? - JTB

• for someone to be in possesion of knowledge, the knowledge must meet the three conditions, justified, true and believed

• true - what they believe corresponds to a truth in reality

• believed - must be taken to be true by the knower

• justified - must be good reason why the person believes it

what is JTB expressed logically?

S knows that p if and only if S belives p, S is justified in believing p, and p is true

explain the problem for JTB - the conditions are not individually necessary (is it possible to have knowledge without these conditions?) - examining the belief condition

• mutually incompatible, if you have one you cannot have the other

• plato’s ‘republic’ - knowledge is infalliable and belief is fallible

• to have a belief is to be uncertain about the object of that belief, whereas knowledge requires certainty

• we may say ‘I don’t believe i’ll win, I know i’ll win’ - this suggests belief cannot be necessary for knowledge

response that belief is necessary for knowledge

• to believe something is to think it’s true

• it is willingness to assent a proposition

• so long as i assent to something i can be said to believe it

• knowledge requires people to believe it, without humans there can be no knowledge

• therefore, belief is necessary for knowledge, for I must assent to something to be said to know it

examining the truth condition for JTB

• people in the past knew things that turned out to be untrue

• example - people knew the earth was flat, but this turned out to be false

• therefore, truth is not a necessary condition for knowledge

response that truth is a necessary condition for knowledge

• when someone says they know something that turns out to be untrue, it is not knowledge, just a well justified belief

• no matter how well justified a belief is, it cannot be knowledge if it is false, since for a proposition to be known it is required to have some cognitive contact with reality

• even if you had good evidence the world was flat, it doesn’t correspond with reality, so is untrue

examining the justification condition for knowledge

• we may be said to have intuition or just to know things without justification, for example ‘I know i’ll roll a six’, and you do, it’s knowledge without justification

reason why justification is necessary for knowledge

• without justification you’re just making an unsupported assertion which by luck happens to be true

• having beliefs that turn out to be true despite you having no good justification for believing them is not the same as having knowledge

• example - the xenophobic judge who believes a man is guilty of a crime because he is scottish, he does turn out to be guilty, the judge had a true belief, but not knowledge, as he had no good justification

explain the gettier problem and how it proves that the conditions are not jointly sufficient for knowledge

• Smith and Jones have applied for the same job

• Smith is justified in believing that Jones will get the job (because the company president said he will) , and that Jones has 10 coins in his pocket (he saw him count them out from his pocket)

• Smith makes the justified inference that ‘the person who gets the job will have 10 coins in his pocket’

• Smith ends up getting the job, and has 10 coins in his pocket

• Therefore, he did not have knowledge, he just has a lucky, justified, true belief

explain modification 1 and how it attempts to solve the gettier problem - CTB (descarte)

• strengthen the justification condition to certainty

• I cannot know what is false

• if I know p, I cannot be mistaken about p

• for justification to secure to secure knowledge, it must therefore guarantee truth

• the only form of justification that can guarantee truth is certainty

• smiths belief that jones will get the job is certain, therefore his inference that the person who gets the job will have 10 coins in his pocket isn’t certain

what is the problem with CTB?

• this condition is too strong

• there are always reasons to doubt things

• leads to global philsophical skeptisism

explain modification 2: JTBN (no false lemmas) and how it attempts to solve the gettier problem

• proper justification cannot rely on false premises or inferences from false premises

• in gettier, the false lemmas are: that jones will get the job, and the inference that the person who gets the job will have 10 coins his pocket

what is the problem for JBTN?

• fake barn county

• locals create barns that look identical to real barns - doesn’t know they do this

• henry thinks ‘there’s a barn’ when he sees one

• these beliefs aren’t knowledge, as they’re not true

• he looks at one real barn and thinks ‘there’s a barn’

• the belief is true, it is justified by his visual perception and isn’t inferred from anything false

• it’s a coinicidence this barn is real

• we must accept that henry knows this barn is real

explain modification 3 (RTB) and how it attempts to solve the gettier problem

• replace justification with reliable process (reasoning)

• the truth of the belief must be a direct result of the reliable belief forming process

• smith uses reasoning to conclude the belief that ‘jones has 10 coins in his pocket’ but this becomes true by luck, and not the process

what is the problem with RTB (reliablism)

• we cannot prove the process is realible, we would then have to prove the proof was reliable, leading to infinate regress

explain modification 4: VTB and how it attempts to solve the gettier problem

• knowledge is a true belief that is formed in an ‘epistemically virtuous way’

• examples of epistemic virtue are logic and open mindedness

• it must be a direct result of these virtues and a desire to seek the truth that belief turns out to be true

• in the gettier case, smith uses epistemic virtue, but his belief is made true by luck and not his EV

what is the ernest sosa allegory for VTB ?

• a virtuous shot must be

• accurate (hit the target)

• adroit (skillfull archer shoots the arrow well)

• and apt (arrow must reach the target BECAUSE it was shot well)

• in context, a belief must be true bc of EV not lucky guesses

what’s the problem with VTB?

• too strong

• ordinary perceptual knowledge doesn’t require me to seek the truth to know it, I am a passive recipient of it and not using EV

• this condition means that children and animals cannot have knowledge, but they can know things from perception and perception inference without seeking the truth or using EV

what is practical skepticism? (normal incredulity)

• a person who adopts a skeptical attitude

• having a high standard of justification for knowledge

• knowledge remains possible and reasons for doubt may be removed

• opposition to dogmatism (blindly following beliefs) and credulity (willingness to form a belief based on unsound evidence)

what is philosophical skepticism?

• is used as a hypothetical tool (descarte) rather than an attitude (pyro)

• challenges the idea that beliefs can ever be justified - if knowledge is possible, as most claim knowledge requires certainty and certainty is impossible

what is global skepticism?

• philosophical skepticism applied to all knowledge claims

• we have no knowledge and no justification of our beliefs are adequate

what is local skepticism?

• philosophical skepticism about a specific subject or based on a specific type of justification

• doubt that a specific domain can give us knowledge bc the methods it uses to gain them are flawed e.g astrology

• doubt about types of justification for our knowledge e.g perception

outline the logical argument for descarte’s method of doubt

• knowledge requires certainty

• certainty is the absence of doubt

• therefore, if it is possible to doubt a proposition, it cannot be known

how does descarte use philosophical skepticism?

• uses it to question the foundations of his knowledge

• if he can doubt the foundations, he can doubt all the belifes built on the foundations

explain descarte’s first wave of doubt and how does he question this to lead to the second wave?

• sense experience has been deceptive in the past (stick bending in water example)

• we shouldn’t trust those who have decived us in the past

• we will never be able to tell when our senses are being deceptive and when they are being accurate

• therefore, senses cannot lead to knowledge as they can always be doubted

• however, how can i doubt all my experiences, such as the fact I am sitting down in my nightgown by the fire?

explain descarte’s second wave of doubt and what 2 questions does he think about to lead onto the third wave?

• he has been convinced in dreams that he is having everyday experiences

• there is no way to distinguish when we are awake from when we are asleep

• it is possible that when we think we are awake having experiences we are actually asleep

• therefore, we can doubt that our sense experience is accurate, as we could be dreaming

• however, things that appear in sleep are like representations that cannot be formed without a likeness to reality

• furthermore, I can know a priori analytic knowledge such as 2 + 3 = 5, this will be true wether I’m dreaming or not

explain the third wave

• there could be an evil demon who has set all his power on deciving me

• every experience is not caused by the EW, but by deception

• I am decivied even when I add 2 and 3

• therefore, I can doubt all belifes

what is Descarte’s conclusion from the method of doubt?

• all his belifes can be subject to doubt

• he must refrain from accepting them if he’s seeking knowledge

• he means to activly reject all beliefes that are subject to doubt

what does descarte do in his rationalist method? - response to skepticism - waves of doubt

• intuition and deduction thesis - finds the cogito can’t be doubted (intuition)

• uses deduction to prove the existence of god and the existence of the external world

• knowledge can be found through reason (a priori) rather than experience (a posteriori)

how do locke and russell undermine skepticism of…

• the existence of the EW

• are empiricsists (knowledge comes from experience) so think the EW is the cause of our sense data

• locke - involuntary nature of the senses, coherence of the senses

• russell - ew is the best hypothesis

how does berkeley undermine scepticism of…

• the existence of the EW

• is an idealist so doesn’t believe in the existence of the EW at all

• we know what we percieve exists and is real bc it is all that exists - to be is to be perceived

how would descarte respond to the empiricists scepticism + how would they respond back?

• d - don’t provide certain knowledge for the existence of the EW, for d, knowledge requires certainty

• l + r - d’s standard of justification is too high

what is reliabilism and how do they avoid sceptisism?

• knowledge requires that beliefs should be formed from reliable processes and are true bc of that

• EW example - is it exists, then my perception is reliable

• scepticism = lack of justification, relibalism avoids this, as justification isn’t nesecary - RTB