Epistemology

Deductive argument

a logical structure where true premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion

Where is the antecedent?

Premise 1: if a mushroom has brown gills, then it is safe to eat

Premise 2: this mushroom has brown gills

Conclusion: therefore it is safe to eat

Premise 1: if a mushroom has brown gills, then it is safe to eat

Premise 2: this mushroom has brown gills

Conclusion: therefore it is safe to eat

Where is the consequent?

Premise 1: if a mushroom has brown gills, then it is safe to eat

Premise 2: this mushroom has brown gills

Conclusion: therefore it is safe to eat

Premise 1: if a mushroom has brown gills, then it is safe to eat

Premise 2: this mushroom has brown gills

Conclusion: therefore it is safe to eat

Where is the hypothetical?

Premise 1: if a mushroom has brown gills, then it is safe to eat

Premise 2: this mushroom has brown gills

Conclusion: therefore it is safe to eat

Premise 1: if a mushroom has brown gills, then it is safe to eat

Premise 2: this mushroom has brown gills

Conclusion: therefore it is safe to eat

syllogism

a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given or assumed propositions

claim

premise

conclusion

deduction from premises

inference

move from premises to conclusion

law of thought

a basic principle of logic that describes the most fundamental rules that our thinking must follow if it is to make sense

law of non-contradiction

something cannot be A and non-A at the same time

truth

statements are either true or false, properties of individual statements only

validity

• refers to the relationship between premises and conclusion,

• property of argument,

• refers to form of argument

• an argument is valid when the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises

logical fallacy

 a fallacy is a deficit in reasoning (intentional or unintentional)

soundness

• entire argument

• truth (of premises) + validity

• property of deductive argument

argument that is valid with true premises

 true and sound argument

argument that is invalid and/or has true premises

true and unsound argument

inductive argument

a) generalising from past to future

b) generalising from a restricted to an unrestricted number of cases

weak inductive argument

one in which the premises provide little support for the conclusion

cogent inductive argument

the premises are true and the inductive reasoning is strong

abduction

inference to the best explanation

three kinds of knowledge

1. Ability knowledge - knowing HOW

2. Knowledge by acquaintance - knowing OF

3. Propositional knowledge - knowing THAT

conditions under which we can say a person knows a fact. the conclusion from these.

1. We can only know things we’re certain about

2. We know a lot of things

The more you emphasise certainty in a, the less you actually know in b, the more you emphasise in b, the less knowledge is about certainty

belief

• a thought which is about the world,

• a mental representation claiming that something is the case

• can be true or false

proposition

• what a statement says or asserts about the world

• can be true or false

fact

• something that is the case in the world

• cannot be true or false, it just is

truth

• a correspondence between a belief or proposition and the world

• the link between all three

four ways a definition cannot occur

1. Circular - "justice is what happens when just acts occur”

2. Negative - “a good act is one that is not wrong"

3. Obscure - “knowledge is a mental state characterised by noetic verisimilitude”

4. Ad hoc - “knowledge is a justified true belief that isn’t a weird counterexample" (ransom, no reasoning)

tripartite view

K=J+T+B

sufficient condition

• guarantees the outcome

• if you assume this you’ll get what you want

necessary condition

you can’t get what you want without assuming this

dispositional belief

knowledge you didn't know you had

the belief condition

a necessary condition for knowing that p is to believe that p

arguments that belief is not a necessary condition for knowledge

1. Knowledge + belief can be separated

2. Knowledge is more about responding correctly than a state of mind

3. Belief is fallible, knowledge is infallible - plato

coherence theory of truth

a belief or statement is true if it fits consistently and logically with a system of other beliefs we already accepted as true

correspondence theory of truth

a statement is true iff it corresponds with reality - a belief is true if what it says matches the way the world actually is

the justification condition

a necessary condition for knowing that p is for p to be justified

arguments that justification is not a necessary condition for knowledge

1. Justification is sometimes not necessary - someone can know something even if they can’t explain why they knew it or prove it with evidence

2. Time belief by inadequate evidence - unjustified true belief /=/ evidence - sometimes a person can know something even if their evidence or reasoning is weak or absent as long as their belief is true

Moore’s paradox

you cannot say that i know it is raining but i dont believe it

the truth condition

a necessary condition for knowing that p is for p to be true

the anatomy of a Gettier case

1. Justified - genuinely good evidence, nothing careless or irrational

2. True - the belief turns out to be true, but not for an expected reason

3. Luck - unexpected twist keans the belief is true ‘by accident’, disconnected from the original evidence

J + T + B with no proper connection between J and T = not K

entailment case

Smith and Jones case

disjunction definition and Gettier case

• a statement ‘P or Q’ is true as long as one of ‘P’ or ‘Q’ is true

• Smith and Jones and Brown case

perceptual Gettier cases

show JTB can be present without knowledge, even when the belief comes from seeing and no inference is made - no inferential tricks

1. Sheep in the field

2. Fake barn county

infallibilism

the view that knowledge requires absolute certainty

lemma

a belief or assumption that is held to be true and used to justify a piece of knowledge

finding the false lemmas in the Smith Jones Gettier case

P1: the company president has told Smith that Jones will get the job

P2: Smith has counted ten coins in Jones’ pocket

P3: Jones will get the job

C: therefore, the person who has ten coins in his pocket will get the job

finding the false lemma in the Smith and Jones and brown case

Jones owns a Ford

Gilbert Harman’s principle p

“reasoning that essentially involves false conclusions, intermediate or final, cannot give one knowledge”

argument against No False Lemmas theory

Broken clock theory - no false lemmas theory doesn’t work - no claim, just a clock

Essential Assumption

plays crucial role in making our evidence support our conclusion

who created the No Essential False Assumptions theory

William Lyon

process reliabilism

the view that a belief counts as knowledge if it is true and produced by a reliable process that usually leads to the truth - eternalist theory of knowledge

a person knows that p iff (according to reliabilism)

• p is true

• The believe p

• Their belief was produced by a reliable cognitive process

example of reliabilism - Joe is making coffee

Belief - Joe is making coffee, I know Joe is making coffee iff

• Joe is actually making coffee

• I believe Joe is making coffee

• My sense of smell and vision are working properly

new definition according to reliabilism

R+T+B = K

casual theory of knowledge

A person S knows that p iff

• P is true

• S believes that p

• S’s belief that p is casually connected in the right way to the fact that makes it true

casually connected

connection between persons belief and it being true

argument against casual theory of knowledge

Fake barn county breaks this - there is a link - response is process reliabilism

argument against process reliabilism

1. Relevant alternatives - discrimination - who chooses what alternatives

2. Generality problem - every example of gaining knowledge from a reliable process is unique

sensitivity condition

• if p were false, S would not believe p

• Knowledge = your belief tracks the truth

does it work to replace J with R

• J and R cannot be equated

• Justifications are internal, involve conscious thoughts and can be explained by the subject

• A reliable process doesn’t necessarily involve a conscious thought process

• A person involved is a reliable process cannot necessarily tell you the process is reliable or explain it

• Reliabilism is external to the belief

• If one is internal the othe is external

arguments for process reliabilism

• Accounts for animal knowledge

• Have evolved to have reliable processes that help them find food and avoid danger