Essay plans

Definitions of Knowledge ✅✅

Factors

  • JTB

  • Infallibilism

  • No False lemmas

  • Virtue epistemology

Introduction

  1. What is needed for a good definition of knowledge (Must be a theoretical definition not a nominal one, conditions must be individually necessary and jointly sufficient)

  2. How can a definition be proved weak: a definition can be deemed weak if it fails to address all necessary conditions for knowledge, allowing for scenarios where fulfilment

  3. of the given criteria may not suffice to constitute knowledge, thereby undermining its reliability.

P1-JTB

Define: S knows that P iff:

S believes that P,

P is true,

S is justified in believing that P.

Object- Conditions not individually necessary:

Truth- Flat earth

Justification- Children and animals

Belief: Test answers

Object- Not jointly sufficient

Gettier case using job interview example

P2- No False lemmas

Define: S knows the P iff:

P is true

P is believed by S

S is justified in believing P

P is not inferred from any false beliefs

Explain: How does this resolve issues with JTB

Objections- Not jointly sufficient

Zabzebski’s virus X and Virus Y example: A doctor examines a patient and concludes (B) on the basis of a variety of tests and observations(J) that the patient has Virus X. This belief is justified but the patient actually has the much rarer Virus Y which causes similar symptoms. It just so happens that the patient has just caught virus X(T), but it is too early for symptoms to develop.

Objection- Not necessary

Dress colour example

SLATE AND SHRED TO PEICES

P3- Infallibilism (time dependent)

Define: S knows that P iff:

S believes that P

P is true

S has infallible justification for believing that P

Explain: How does this solve JTB

Object: Ridiculously narrow definition

P4 Virtue

Define: S knows that P iff:

S believes that P

P is true

S belief that P from an exercise of epistemic virtue

Explain: How does this resolve Gettier issues

Objections- Do motives matter (uni student & children, can’t fully respond), Fake barns and animal knowledge V Reflective knowledge

Theories of Perception ✅✅

Factors

  • Direct realism

  • Indirect realism

  • Idealism

Intro

  1. Explain theory given in the question

  2. Present examples of philosophers who support these theories, such as Locke for indirect realism and Berkeley for idealism.

  3. Outline the main arguments and counterarguments for both perspectives.

P1- Indirect realism

  • Define- a theory of perception in which the mind independent objects of reality are represented by mind dependent objects- we perceive the physical world indirectly

  • Give strengths- accounts for perceptual variation

  • Explain scepticism objection- if we never directly perceive mind-independent objects how can we know what they’re like, if they’re truly the cause of sense data and if they even exist

  • Explain responses of involuntary nature & best hypothesis

  • Mind dependent could never resemble mind independent objection

P2- Idealism

  • Define- everything that exists is a mind or is dependent of a mind- physical objects are bundles of ideas, there is no matter

  • Strengths - Simplicity, idealism is the most simple theory, dealing only with mind dependent things, therefore best respects empiricism

  • Weaknesses e.g. from hallucination & illusion (back up)

  • Solipsism & infer other minds response

P3- Direct realism

  • Define- the immediate objects of perceptions are mind-independent objects & their properties

  • Explain argument from illusion & from hallucination

  • Explain responses- relational and non relational properties, disjunctivism - veridical perceptions and hallucinations are two completely different kinds of mental states; just because we cannot tell the difference doesn’t mean they’re the same/ that we see the same thing

Do we have innate knowledge

Factors

P1

P2

P3

To what extent is Descartes’ intuition and deduction thesis successful? ✅✅

Factors

  • evaluate cogito

  • Evaluate existence of God

  • Evaluate existence of the external world

P1

Point: Descartes cogito is successful proof of himself as a thing that thinks.

Explain: how Descartes arrives at the cogito as the first certainty that he can know even in the evil demon scenario

Support: Supports the point as even if all else can be questioned, the act of doubting itself confirms existence, thereby reinforcing the foundational truth of "I think, therefore I am “ and confirming the cogito as successful proof of his own existence as a thinking thing

Objections- what is the “I” and does it actually exist from one thought to the next as the strongest objection

Response: this may be true but does not take away from the fact that the I must exist in some capacity which allows Descartes to continue with his exercise of reason

P2

Point:

Explain how Descartes arrives at God’s existence through cosmological argument- I am either uncaused (just no) self caused or caused by something outside of myself, i cannot be self caused or I would give myself all perfections so I must be caused by something outside myself- whatever caused me must either be self caused or caused by another- ultimate self-caused is God

Explain possible objections- Hume says we don’t know enough about causation- Can there be uncaused causes? Hume says that we can imagine a brick coming into existence without a cause, so how do we know that is impossible?

Response: Imagining nothing followed by a brick is not the same as imagining a brick coming into existence uncaused.

P3

Explain existence of the external world- involuntary experiences with external cause, cannot be God as i often form false beliefs and that would make god a deceiver, therefore it must be the outside world

Best response to Scepticism✅✅

Factors

  • Reliabilism

  • Cogito

  • Empiricism

P1- Cogito

Explain the cogito and how it defeats scepticism

Explain weaknesses- could still be brain in a vat & Cartesian circle

P2-Empiricism

Explain how empiricists believe we gain knowledge-

1.A priori knowledge of analytic propositions

2.A posteriori knowledge of synthetic propositions about the external world

3.Knowledge of our own minds

Explain best hypothesis

Explain objection- Is it really

P3- Reliabilism

You have knowledge so long as you aren’t a brain in a vat

But what if i am???