Epistemology
study of knowledge
deals with theories of knowledge
questions
how can we prove to know something?
how do we know when a belief is justified?
when and how should we be skeptical?
Rene Descartes + epistemology
“cogito ergo sum”
I think, therefore I am
expresses what should be inarguably true for even the most skeptical person
if you can feel yourself thinking, you know you exist, or you are at least experiencing something
Immanuel Kant + knowledge
Critique of Pure Reason
devised 2 types of knowledge: a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge
A Priori Knowledge
before experience
knowledge that is independent of experience
something that can be proven through reason alone
also known as rationalism
e.g.
if Sam was born a year before Sally, he must be older
1 + 1 = 2
January comes before February in a calendar year
Rationalism
believing knowledge is derived from reason and logic
math is the tool to discover all knowledge
genuine knowledge is certain
you want the bigger pizza
A Posteriori Knowledge
after experience
knowledge that is dependent on experience
cannot be proven through reason alone
also known as empiricism
e.g.
the population of Canada is approximately 38 million people
the earth is closer to the sun than Jupiter
WW2 was fought through the years 1937-1945
empiricism
absolute empiricists hold that there are no A Priori concepts (knowledge independent of experience)
experience, observation, and sensory perception is the primary source of knowledge
True knowledge
true (turns out to be correct)
justified (you have a reason for believing it)
a belief (you believe it to be true)
Ockham’s Razor
associated with English friar William of Ockham
argued that “entities should not be multiplied without necessity”
cut out unnecessary assumptions or explanations when you encounter them
while generally a good principle for making strong inferences, it won’t always lead you to the correct answer
sometimes the more complicated answer is the correct one, especially if it involves something naturally complex like science
epistemic paradox
a counter-intuitive problem especially concerned with areas of knowledge
can be useful in demonstrating common errors in identifying and acknowledging new information
some are simply though experiments
Monty Hall Paradox
based on game show Let’s Make a Deal
suppose you were a contestant and could choose to open 1 of 3 doors
behind 2 of the doors are goats and 1 is the car
pretend you picked door 2
before showing us whether door 2 is the winning door, host reveals that there’s a goat behind door 2
host gives you opportunity to switch your pick from door 2 to door 3
should you make the switch?
answer
yes because its 2x more likely to be behind door 3
1/3 chance it’s behind door 2, but 2/3 chance it’s behind door 3 because it was already revealed there’s a goat behind door 1 (probability shifted)
shows that we can oftentimes easily dismiss or reject new info when it’s presented to us and instead rely on gut instincts
Surprise test paradox
deals with using logic to eliminate possibilities, only to find that the surprise can end up being unexpected anway
math teacher announces that there will be a surprise next week, and it most certainly will be a surprise
premise 1: can’t be Friday because if it got to Thursday and there was no test, then it won’t be a surprise anymore
premise 2: can’t be Thursday because of the same reasoning
premise 3: you continue to reason this way until you’ve eliminated every day of the week
conclusion: there will be no surprise test because no day will be a surprise
however, teacher gives test on Tuesday, which is a total surprise to you
it’s possible to eliminate Friday as a surprise test day, but it is nonsensical to use that reasoning for the entire week
Moore’s paradox
problem that deals with stating a fact then stating a contradictory belief
e.g. it’s raining, but I don’t believe it
paradoxical statement because it’s contradictory in nature
ur indoors and away from windows
you get a text from someone in the same building saying it’s raining
weather app confirms this
it was sunny just minutes ago
for something to be true, you need to believe in it, so you can’t state a fact without believing in it
Gettier problem
attacks the notion that knowledge is a true, justified belief
argues that it is possible to “know” something correctly with false or untrue information, or for the wrong reasons
e.g. someone looks at a clock for time, not knowing the clock is broken, but the clock happens to be correct
Mary’s room
examines the differences between knowledge and experience
imagine a neuroscientist who has only every seen black and white things, but is an expert in color vision and knows everything about its physics and biology
if, one day, she sees color, does she learn anything new?
is there anything about perceiving color that wasn’t captured in her preexisting knowledge?
subjective qualities that you cannot describe or quantify are called qualia
many scientists would argue that qualia is what allows Mary to learn something new in the thought experiment
qualia
subjective qualities that you can’t describe or quantify
Anchoring
basing one’s beliefs on an anchor point / irrational benchmark
e.g. the holocaust killed 6 million people but Nanjing Massacre killed 300k, so it wasn’t that bad
Sunk cost fallacy
definition
a subject spends a significant amount of time or money on something and fails to get the result they desire
but after spending so much on it, it feels as though they have to continue to spend until they achieve the desired outcome
example
gambling
Availability heuristic
when something that is easy to remember is deemed significant
seeing your own accomplishments as more important than others because you remember them more
curse of knowledge
when a person engaging in conversation assumes that the person they are talking to has the same background knowledge as them, therefore leading them to come to inaccurate conclusions
e.g. tapping out the melody of a song and assuming that others can tell what song is being tapped out
confirmation bias
you look for ways to justify your existing beliefs
primed to see and agree with ideas that fit our perceptions and ignore info that conflicts with them
Dunning-Kruger effect
the more you know, the less confident you’re likely to be
experts know how much they don’ know whereas non-experts don’t know how much they don’t know, so they overestimate themselves
self-serving bias
you believe your failures are due to external factors, yet you’re personally responsible for your success
backfire effect
when your core beliefs are challenged, it can cause you to believe even more strongly due to emotional response being triggered
the Barnum effect
you see personal specifics in vague statements by filling in the gaps and making connections
e.g. personality tests, astrology, fortune telling
groupthink
you let the social dynamics of a group situation override the best outcomes
sheep
individual raises opinion, but is ignored because they go with the flow of the group
Negativity bias
allowing negative things to disproportionately influence your thinking
pain of loss and hurt are felt more keenly and persistently than the fleeting gratification of pleasant things
amplified emotional responses to negative events compared to positive events of equal magnitude
Declinism
you remember the past as better than it was, and expect the future to be worse than it will likely be
“back in my day…”
nostalgia
framing effect
allowing yourself to be unduly influenced by context and delivery
fundamental attribution error
you judge others on their character, but yourself on the situation
optimism/pessimism bias
you overestimate the likelihood of positive or negative outcomes
just world hypothesis
your preference for a just world makes you presume that it exists
in-group bias
you unfairly favor those who belong to your group
Placebo effect
if you believe you’re taking medicine, it can sometimes “work” even if it’s fake
skepticism
area of epistemology that questions the possibility of certainty and knowledge
Greek verb skeptomai - to look carefully
there are varying degrees of philosophical skepticism that will determine how one internalizes new information
Credulity
tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true
being gullible or easily convinced
denialism
choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth
if often used in discussions about science, history, and public health
pyrrhonism
one of the earliest forms of philosophical skepticism
founded by Pyrrho of Elis
we can’t know anything for certain, and even the ability to reason is doubtful
academic skepticism
developed as a school of thought around 266 BC in
Greece
founded by Arcesilaus
argued that knowledge is improbable, but we can still make probabilistic judgments
cartesian skepticism
atrributed to Rene Descartes
similar to academic skepticism
argued that knowledge of the world is virtually impossible considering everything we can plausibly be skeptical about
“I think, therefore I am” is meant to be the sole truth claim accepted by Cartesian or Academic skeptics
common sense hypothesis
argued by George Edward Moore
argued it’s unnecessary to reject ordinary beliefs about the world
we are justified in believing our own common sense
“here’s one hand… and here’s another”
pragmatism
popularized by William James
argued that philosophy (especially epistemic philosophy) is only really relevant of true if it has a practical impact on our everyday lives
thus if different answers to an argument make no difference to us, then the dispute is trivial
representative theory of perception
by John Locke
argued that although everyday objects exist as distinct and separate entities from us, they exist in the mind as psychological entities
when you see something, your senses trigger the thought of the object, which is different from the object itself
objects and ideas are separate and distinct
Phenomenalism
knowledge comes from what we experience with out sensory perceptions
we see only appearances of objects and the physical world
there is something more behind these appearances
there are many different ways for people to perceive the external world and material objects
there is a nature of material objects beyond what we can see in its appearance
CT: the moon landing never happened
fake because of the rush to beat the Russians to the moon
think they filmed it somewhere in area 51 or Hollywood
2001 space odyssey looks too similar
plausibility
scientists believe the way flag was waving was impossible on the moon (but it could have waved from carried momentum)
boot prints were different????
CT: aliens have visited earth at some point
not many people in scientific community support this theory
no evidence to back up these claims
many people have claimed to see extraterrestrial things like UFOs
CT: extraterrestrials built the pyramids
vast size and heaviness of stones = too impressive for that time because many construction methods and tools didn’t exist yet
no concrete record to show how they moved the heavy stones without a wheel
CT: covid19 was created in a lab
not natural phenomenon but an artificial creation stemming from genetic engineering research
most commonly connected to the proximity of the Wuhan virology lab to the market where the virus infected patient 0
lab was only 8 miles from sites of early cases
majority believe it was of natural origin
researcher claims with a variety of witnesses that he isolated the virus from a series of engineered proteins, which genetic studied reveal may have happened
CT: JFK was assassinated by the CIA
he cut CIA’s budget by 20%
fired the director of the CIA
highly probable that a second gunman did fire on Kennedy
group of right wing extremists were supposedly involved with elements of the CIA in a conspiracy to kill JFK
CT: flat earth
earth is a flat disk, either circular or square shaped
believed because horizon is flat, water doesn’t stick to a curved surface, and opposite gravity
comes from lack of trust in authorities
science says otherwise
Foundationalism
we can only ever know something for certain if we can trace it back to an undoubtable, irrefutable truth
this truth = foundation from which all other knowledge and beliefs can be built and justified