4.+Epistemology+--+Pollock
Introduction to Skepticism and Knowledge
J. Pollock introduces the thought experiment "A brain in a vat" which challenges our understanding of knowledge.
Thought Experiment
Stipulation regarding Harry as a BIV (Brain in a Vat) vs. Mike as an embodied person reveals critical questions about knowledge.
Key questions:
Can Harry know he is walking, showering, etc.?
How about Mike, when he believes the milk is on the counter or has just finished dinner?
Would volunteering for the procedure clear Mike’s doubts?
What tests can one perform to distinguish whether they are a BIV?
Discussion prompts for evaluating one's own knowledge about the reality.
Classical Analysis of Knowledge
Classical conditions for knowing that a proposition (p) is true:
S believes that p.
p is true.
S is adequately justified in believing p.
Harry lacks knowledge of having hands due to false belief.
For Mike, adequacy of justification can be questioned:
He may have perceptual evidence but is unable to exclude the possibility of being a BIV.
The exclusion principle:
Adequately justified beliefs must rule out all possibilities where p is false, making BIV a critical counterexample.
Examining Knowledge and Error
Ruling out possibilities of error is essential in affirming knowledge.
Skeptical scenarios increase an individual's doubt about knowledge claims:
Possible errors include dreaming, BIV, or deception by an evil demon.
Knowledge demands more stringent evidence than typical everyday situations.
Error Possibilities Exercise
Identify possible error scenarios for various beliefs:
You are a TAMUCC student.
Your neighbor Jose is mowing the lawn.
Other humans typically feel pain when sustaining a serious injury.
You have a brain.
You are in pain right now.
Argument for Skepticism about External World
Knowledge of the external world hinges on the ability to rule out error.
Since this is impossible with our evidence, knowledge of the external world cannot be claimed.
Infinite Regress of Reasons
Examines chains of justification:
If a basic belief lacks justification, it undermines the entire chain.
Such chains may continue infinitely, creating a predicament for knowledge claims.
Example of Justification
Illustrates practical reasoning:
Belief: "I know Tim won’t be in town this Friday."
Justification involves several layers:
Tim will be in NYC.
Tim has a job interview there.
Overheard information adds to credibility.
Structure of Knowledge and Response to Skepticism
Presents an argument for skepticism:
Knowledge requires an infinite chain of justifiers.
Finite beings cannot establish such justifiers.
Thus, knowledge is deemed impossible.
Strategies to avoid skepticism:
Foundationalism: Ends of reasoning chains with basic beliefs.
Supported by Descartes, who posits foundational beliefs underpin all knowledge claims.
Coherentism: Circular reasoning considered harmless and justifiable.