What is knowledge?- 3.1.1 (copy) (copy)

epistemology

epistemology

study of knowledge

acquaintance knowledge

knowing of someone, a place etc (I know Ruby)

ability knowledge

knowing how to do something (I know how to ride a bike)

propositional knowledge

knowing that some claim is true or false (Ellie’s top is orange)

Zabzebski on nature of propositional knowledge

treat knowledge as if it has real essence- we should adopt the aim of providing real definition of knowledge until we can show we have failed to find one- trying and failing to succeed

what technique does Zagzebski use

conceptual analysis to find necessary conditions for a true example for the concept to occur

Zagzebski pitfalls of knowledge

Circular, obscure, negative, Ad hoc

2 types of ways in which knowledge can be defined

1. Locke’s ‘real essence’- some objects have underlying cause that makes it the way it is such as water as it is H20- if an object has a real essence, oit can have a real definition

2. ‘weeds’ example- there is no underlying cause that makes weeds weeds- we can still give a definition for the term yet it will not be a real definition as weeds do not have ‘real essence’

Plato’s example of difference between having true belief and knowledge

Imagine travelling to Larissa with a guide who knows the way- he would be good but if you had a guide that guessed the way he too would be good. In both cases you end up at the right town so why should we prefer knowledge over true belief?- comes up with the JTB

Propositional knowledge is defined as Justified True Belief, a person, S, knows that p if and only if:

1. S is justified in believing P

2. p is true

3. S believes that p

Why does Plato state we prefer knowledge over true belief?

It is backed up by reason/evidence

The conditions of the JTB are individually …… and jointly…..

individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for knowledge

necessary condition

something you need in order to have the thing in question

example of necessary condition

water is a necessary condition of rain- you cannot have rain without water but water alone is not enough to guarantee rain

sufficient condition

sufficient conditions when met mean you will always have the thing in question

sufficient condition example

being an aunt is a sufficient condition for having relatives- ‘Aunthood’ guarantees relatives yet you can still have relatives without being an aunt

Give an example of a condition that is both necessary and jointly sufficient

bachelor example- having never been married and being a man are the necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for being a bachelor

summary of the belief condition (issues with the tripartite view)

the belief condition says that a necessary condition for your knowing that p is that you believe p- it would be incoherent to say: ‘I know that it is raining but I don’t believe it’

how would some argue that we can have knowledge without belief

some equate knowledge with successful action- you may answer a quiz question hesitantly (having been taught it correctly but not remembering being taught it)- it could be argued that you knew the answer yet you didn’t believe it

reply to quiz example- belief is not a necessary condition of knowledge (2)

1. You don’t know the answer

2. You have unconscious belief that amounts to knowledge

Explain idea that belief and knowledge are different mental states

Plato later argues in ‘The Republic’ that knowledge and belief are separate- knowledge is infallible (100% sure) and belief is fallible so they must be fundamentally different, knowledge goes beyond

phrase that supports idea that knowledge and belief are different mental states

“I don’t just believe that I will win, I know I will”

Zagzebski reply to Plato’s distinction of knowledge and belief

Zagzebski notes that everyone disagrees with Plato’s distinction as the difference is because: knowledge is always true and justified belief, yet belief in general can be true or false, justified or unjustified

the truth condition summary

can you have knowledge without truth- all ideas point to truth being necessary to knowledge

Raquel the cavewoman example:

Raquel the cavewoman believes the world is flat based on evidence available at the time- is it possible she knew the Earth was flat- 2 ways of answering correspondence theory vs coherence theory

correspondence theory of truth

truth consists of correspondence between a claim and relevant fact- in this theory the claim- the Earth is flat- does not correspond to fact and therefore Raquel’s justified belief IS NOT TRUE

coherence theory of truth

belief is true if it is one of the web of beliefs held by a society to be true web of beliefs is internally coherent so in Raquel’s day she did know the world was flat and SHE DID HAVE JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF

What do both the correspondence and coherence theory of truth have in common?

both theories still agree with truth being one of the necessary conditions of knowledge

the justification condition summary

can we have knowledge without justification ?- justification IS NOT always necessary

justification dice example

a friend guesses that a dice will land on a 6 and it does- we are reluctant to say she knows this as true belief alone is not enough- a valid justification is needed e.g. it was a loaded dice

reliabilism

linking knowledge with the reliability of the process that led to it

Opposition to justification being a necessary condition

conscious ‘justification’ may not be necessary instead, we should only grant the status of knowledge to those beliefs that we have formed by a reliable cognitive process

example of a case of true belief with no rational justification

John has a rare gift to be able to tell you which day any date in the future will be, he is unable to say how he does it but is very accurate- true belief and reliable so justification may not always be necessary

What do the Gettier examples demonstrate

JTB conditions are not jointly sufficient

Name Gettier’s 2 examples

1. Smith and Jones

2. Brown in Barcelona