Definition of Knowledge

define ability knowledge

knowledge where you know how to do something eg riding a bike

define acquaintance knowledge

knowledge where you know of something eg i know fred well

define propositional knowledge

knowledge where you know that something is the case eg Paris is the capital of France

what is a real definition?

a real definition picks out the real essence of a concept. not all concepts have real essences, only concepts with a true internal nature do and not concepts with a subjective external nature.

what is philosophical/ conceptual analysis?

defining a concept by exploring what conditions are necessary and sufficient for a true example of that concept to occur eg being unmarried and male are the necessary conditions to be a bachelor and since every unmarried man is a bachelor they are also the sufficient conditions

what does ZAGZEBSKI say are pitfalls of definitions?

circular - when the definition includes the term being defined

obscure - terms in the definition should not be more obscure than the original term

negative - defining a term by what it is not

ad hoc - coming up with a definition that is specific to meeting a specific problem

how does Zagzebski say knowledge should be defined? (in terms of the nature of definition)

should treat knowledge as though it has a real definition unless proven it does not and should define knowledge through conceptual analysis

who came up with the tripartite definition of knowledge?

Plato

what is the tripartite definition of knowledge?

knowledge is a justified true belief

what are the criticisms to the tripartite definition of knowledge?

conditions not being necessary

conditions are not sufficient (Gettier Case 1 and 2)

what is the criticism that belief is not a necessary condition? and its counterargument?

imagine John and Claire are driving to London

John does not know the way to London but Claire and her dad drive to London every week

Claire says she does not know the way to London but her dad says she does

while on the road, Claire manages to successfully drive to London

so it can be argued she knew the way to London without believing it

CA: it is an example of ability knowledge

what is the criticism that truth is not a necessary condition? and its counter example?

there are different theories on truth

correspondence theory of truth - a belief is true if it corresponds to what actually is the case in the world eg the earth is round

coherence theory of truth - a belief is true if it is part of the web of beliefs held true by society eg the belief the world was flat a few centuries ago

so knowledge doesn’t have to be true as what may seem true to us may actually be false like the earth being flat

CA: regardless of what theory is used, the truth is still required, it just means one theory is more lenient to call a statement knowledge than the other eg coherence allows the earth is flat to be knowledge while correspondence doesn’t but they still believe the statement needs to be thought of as true

what is the criticism that justification is not a necessary condition?

john has a rare gift where he can guess the date of any date

you ask him to correctly predict the day of 15/03/2123 and he correctly says monday

john does not know how he does this but he is always correct

so he has no justification but he can confidently say he has knowledge of these days

so justification is not necessary

outline Gettier Case 1

Smith and Jones interview for a job

s hears that j will get the job

s sees j has 10 coins in his pocket

s believes that ‘the man who will get this job has 10 coins in his pocket’

s gets the job instead

when s checks his pocket he finds out he has 10 coins in them

his belief was justified as he heard the interviewer say Jones will get the job and saw ten coins in Jones’ pocket and was true as the man who got the job did have ten coins in his pocket

but this wasn’t knowledge as it was luck/coincidence which made Smith’s belief correct

so justified, true beliefs are not sufficient conditions

outline Gettier Case 2

Smith believes Jones has a Ford since he saw him drive around in one

So S believes ‘ either J has a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona’

It turns out the J doesn’t have a Ford but Brown was in Barcelona

So S’s statement is still true as one of his statements in the disjunction introduction and it was a justified belief

but it isn’t knowledge as it was luck/ coincidence that made it true and Plato says we can not award knowledge to anyone on the basis of luck

so justified true belief is are not sufficient conditions

what are the alternative definitions of knowledge?

JTB + no false lemmas

infallibilism

reliabilism

virtue epistemology

what is infallibilism?

knowledge is what cannot be rationally doubted. infallibilists argue we can know logical truths, facts about our mind and some things through careful undoubtable reasoning (eg cogito ergo sum)

what are the strengths of infallibilism?

overcomes all Gettier cases and fake barn county because they leave room for doubt

what is a criticism of infallibilism?

since almost everything has doubts then almost nothing can be counted as knowledge which doesn’t seem right

it gives a prescriptive definition (what something should be) rather than a descriptive definition (what something actually is)

so infallibilism leaves behind the very concept we were trying to define in the first place

outline justified true belief and no false lemmas

James has knowledge of P if:

P is true

James believes that P is true

James’s belief of P is justified

James did not infer P from anything false (any false lemma)

what is the strength of JTB + no false lemmas?

avoids gettier case 1 as Smith’s belief was inferred from the false lemma that Jones would get the job and so is not knowledge

avoids Gettier case 2 as Smith’s beliefe was inferred from the false lemma that Jones owned a Ford and so is not knowledge

what is the criticism to JTB + no false lemmas?

fake barn county:

in fake barn county, the locals create fake barns

Henry drives through this county and as he is driving he often thinks ‘There’s a barn’ while looking at the fake barns

on one occasion, Henry spots the one real barn and believes “There’s a barn”

this statement was a justified true belief that was not based off of any false lemma but it still isn’t knowledge as it was true down to luck

so JTB + no false lemmas does not have sufficient conditions

outline Zagzebski’s virtue epistemology

James knows P if:

James believes P

James’ belief of P arises from an act of intellectual virtue

(the truth of P is implied by the act of intellectual virtue)

outline Sosa’s Virtue Epistemology

James knows P if:

P is true

James believes P

James’ true belief of P is a result of James exercising his intellectual virtue

define intellectual virtue

skill where you find out the truth because it was your intent ( the same way moral virtue is the skill where you do good because you intended to do good)

how does Sosa explain his third point in his virtue epistemology?

a virtuous shot in archery is:

accurate - hits target

adroit - archer is skillful and shoots the arrow well

apt - the arrow hits the target because it was shot well

Sosa argues a belief is knowledge when it is apt (accurate because it is adroit)

so the belief must be accurate (true), adroit (believer is skillful and uses reliable method) and apt (belief is found to be true because believer used reliable methods) for it to be knowledge

why does Zagzebski think virtue epistemology beats other theories of knowledge?

theories which state knowledge is a true belief and some third condition will always fail to problems like Gettier cases as they always have the possibility of being true due to luck. this is because the truth and third condition are never linked but virtue epistemology does link the truth and the third condition.

what are the criticisms for virtue epistemology?

children and animals

fake barn county

what is the children and animals criticism to virtue epistemology? and its counter argument?

since children and animals have no concept of truth or rationality, they have no intellectual virtue meaning they would not be able to possess knowledge

but this isn’t the case eg a baby knows that if it cries it will be fed milk

CA: is ability knowledge

what is the fake barn county criticism to virtue epistemology? and its counter argument?

Henry’s belief is accurate as it was a barn

Henry’s belief is adroit because he has the reliable method of seeing

it can be argued that Henry’s belief is apt and so is knowledge according to virtue epistemology

CA: can be argued it isn’t completely apt as it was also caused by luck and not reliable methods, (NOZICK’S sensitivity condition) if the barn had been fake Henry would still have said it was a real barn

outline reliabilism

James knows P if

P is true

James believes in P

James’ belief in P is caused by a reliable method

define reliable method

method which produces high percentage of true beliefs

what is the strength of reliabilism?

allows children and animals to have knowledge eg a baby knows that when it cries it will get milk because it has reliable method of testing this (crying and getting milk)

what are the criticisms to reliabilism?

Gettier Cases

Fake Barn County

definition of reliable methods is too circular

what are the Gettier and fake barn county criticisms to reliabilism?

Smith uses the reliable method of hearing/ seeing when forming his true beliefs eg hearing Jones will get the job, seeing ten coins in Jones’ pocket, seeing Jones drive a Ford

Henry also uses the reliable method of seeing when forming his belief that there is a barn

what is the counter argument to Gettier problems with reliabilism? and its response?

we can argue that the process which Smith used is inferring information from a false lemma which is not a reliable method

so the gettier cases are not cases of knowledge according to reliabilism

CA: raises the problem of how specific a process should be when examined for being reliable

eg when i believe i see my friend across the street, should i say the process i am using is just seeing or seeing in the rain or seeing from a distance of 10m etc

even though my actions and belief are the same, there are different types of processes i could choose from with different reliabilities so reliabilism doesn’t work as it can argue the same thing to be knowledge and not be knowledge

what is the counter argument to fake barn county?

NOZICK’S sensitivity condition:

a process is reliable as long as if P were false, S would not believe P

so if Henry’s process of seeing the barn was actually reliable, if the barn were fake he would not have believed that he was seeing a real barn

however we know that Henry would still have believed he was seeing a real barn as he believed he was seeing a real barn when looking at all the other fake barns

so Henry was not using a reliable method and so his case does not count as knowledge according to reliabilism

what is the criticism that reliabilism is circular?

ZAGZEBSKI said that a definition must avoid being circular to be successful

reliabilism argues that for something to be true, it must be reliable

for something to be reliable, it must produce true results