Explain how the counterexample method works in conceptual analysis.
Explain the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge.
Categorize knowledge as either propositional, procedural, or by acquaintance.
What Epistemology Studies
Epistemology is derived from the Greek words episteme, meaning “knowledge,” and logos, meaning “explanation.”
-logia translates as "the study of."
Epistemology is the study of knowledge.
Focuses on: What knowledge is, types of knowledge.
Also includes: The possibility of justification, the sources and nature of justification, the sources of beliefs, and the nature of truth.
How to Do Epistemology
Epistemology begins with doubting and asking questions.
What if everything we think we know is false?
Can we be sure of the truth of our beliefs?
What does it even mean for a belief to be true?
Philosophers:
Ask questions about the nature and possibility of knowledge.
Craft possible answers.
Identify problems with those answers.
Formulate possible solutions to those problems.
Look for counterarguments.
Questioning the possibility of knowledge:
Philosophers imagine ways the world could be such that our beliefs are false.
Try to determine whether we can rule out that possibility.
Example: Evil demon feeding you conscious experiences.
In answering epistemological questions, theorists utilize arguments. Philosophers also offer counterexamples to assess theories and positions. And many philosophers utilize research to apply epistemological concerns to current issues and other areas of study. These are the tools used in epistemological investigation: arguments, conceptual analysis, counterexamples, and research.
Conceptual Analysis and Counterexamples
Conceptual analysis: analyzing what concepts mean.
Theorists attempt to identify the essential features of the concept, or its necessary conditions. Researchers are not only interested in isolating the necessary conditions for concepts such as knowledge; they also want to determine what set of conditions, when taken together, always amounts to knowledge—that is, its sufficient conditions.
Counterexample: a case that illustrates that a statement, definition, or argument is flawed.
Take the form of hypothetical cases
thought experiments intended to show that a definition includes features that are either not necessary or not sufficient for the concept.
If a counterexample works to defeat an analysis, then theorists will amend the analysis, offer a new definition, and start the process over again.
The counterexample method is part of the philosophical practice of getting closer to an accurate account of a concept.
Understanding the process of conceptual analysis is key to following the debate in epistemological theorizing about knowledge and justification.
Arguments
Argumentation involves offering reasons in support of a conclusion.
The counterexample method is a type of argumentation.
aim is to prove that an analysis or definition is flawed.
Example of structured argument:
Testimonial injustice occurs when the opinions of individuals/groups are unfairly ignored or treated as untrustworthy.
If the testimony of women in criminal court cases is less likely to be believed than that of men, then this is unfair.
So, if the testimony of women in criminal court cases is less likely to be believed than that of men, this is a case of testimonial injustice.
Research
Philosophers can offer further arguments and utilize empirical research.
Philosophers often search for and utilize research from other areas of study. The research used can be wide-ranging.
Epistemologists may use research from psychology, sociology, economics, medicine, or criminal justice.
In the social and hard sciences, the goal is to accurately describe trends and phenomena.
For epistemology, the goal is not only to describe but also to prescribe.
argue that unjustifiably discounting the opinions of groups is bad and to be avoided.
epistemology is a normative discipline.
The Normative Nature of Epistemology
Humans do not like being proven wrong in their beliefs.
Possessing justification in the form of reasons and support for beliefs makes a person less likely to be wrong.
Both justification and knowledge are valuable.
Normativity: the assumption that certain actions, beliefs, or other mental states are good and ought to be pursued or realized.
Epistemology prescribes the proper way to form beliefs.
We treat knowledge as valuable and further judge others according to the justification for their beliefs.
A Preliminary Look at Knowledge
To say that a person knows something directly implies that the person is not wrong, so knowledge implies truth.
Knowledge also implies effort—that the person who has knowledge did more than just form a belief; they somehow earned it; often, in epistemology, this is understood as justification.
Ways of Knowing
The distinction between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge reveals something important about the possible ways a person can gain knowledge.
A priori knowledge is knowledge that can be gained using reason alone.
The acquisition of a priori knowledge does not depend on experience.
Logically prior to experience.
Knowledge that exists before experience (prior in time) is innate knowledge, or knowledge that one is somehow born with.
Example: 4 \times 2 = 8
A posteriori knowledge is knowledge that can only be gained through experience.
Depends on experience, is empirical.
Empirical: based on and verifiable through observation and experience.
Example: Belief that there’s a bird on the branch outside my window.
A priori knowledge can be learned through experience. multiplication tables
Things You Can Know: Types of Knowledge
Philosophers classify knowledge not only by source but also by type.
Propositional knowledge is knowledge of propositions or statements.
A proposition or statement is a declarative sentence with a truth value—that is, a sentence that is either true or false.
If one knows a statement, that means that the statement is true.
True statements about the world are usually called facts.
Propositional knowledge is best thought of as knowledge of facts.
Often, philosophers describe propositional knowledge as “knowledge that.”
Examples: "Nairobi is the capital of Kenya," "the square root of 9 is 3"
Can be a priori or a posteriori.
Procedural knowledge is best understood as know-how.
Involves the ability to perform some task successfully.
Having propositional knowledge concerning a task does not guarantee that one has procedural knowledge of that task.
Example: Knowing the physics of cycling doesn't guarantee knowing how to ride a bike.
Knowledge by acquaintance is knowledge gained from direct experience.
A person knows something by acquaintance when they are directly aware of that thing.
This awareness comes from direct perception using one’s senses.
Example: I have knowledge by acquaintance of pain when I am in pain.
Bertrand Russell articulated a distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and propositional knowledge, which he called knowledge by description.
Knowledge by acquaintance is a direct form of knowledge.
A person has knowledge by acquaintance when they have direct cognitive awareness of it, which is awareness absent of inference.
All knowledge by acquaintance is a posteriori, but not all a posteriori knowledge is knowledge by acquaintance.
Sense data are sensations gained from perceptual experience; they are the raw data obtained through the senses (seeing, smelling, feeling, etc.).
Russell's view implies that people always use reasoning to access the external world.
I have knowledge by acquaintance of my perceptual experience of seeing a bird; I then infer ever so quickly (and often unconsciously) that there is a bird on the branch, which is propositional knowledge.
Not all philosophers think that experience of the external world is mediated through sense data.
Some philosophers contend that people can directly perceive objects in the external world.
Russell’s theory introduces an important possibility in epistemological thinking: that there is a gap between one’s experience of the world and the world itself.
This potential gap opens up the possibility for error.
Truth
Philosophers who argue that knowledge of the external world is impossible do so based on the idea that one can never be certain of the truth of one’s external world beliefs.
For statements and propositions, there is only one truth value.
People do not each personally get to decide whether a statement is true.
Creating a noncircular and illuminating account of truth is a difficult task.
Aristotle claimed that a true statement is one that says of something that it is what it is or that it is not what it is not.
A possible interpretation of Aristotle’s idea is that “A is B” is true if and only if A is B.
The correspondence theory of truth proposes that a statement is true if and only if that statement corresponds to some fact (David 2015).
A fact is a state of affairs in the world—an arrangement of objects and properties in reality—so the statement “The dog is under the bed” is true if and only if there exists in the world a dog and a bed and the dog is related to the bed by being underneath it.
The correspondence theory of truth makes truth a relation between statements and the world. If statements are appropriately related to the world—if they correspond to the world—then those statements can be said to be true.