Defining Knoweldge

Question 1

Circular reasoning

Answer 1

Find a definition of knoweldge
Make a list of instances of knoweldge
Identify instances of knowledge
Knowing the defining features of knowledge
Possesing the definition of knowledge

Identifying instances of knowledge requires knowing what the criteria for knowledge are
Knowing what the criteria for knowledge are requires beingable to identify instances of knowledge

Question 2

Problem can be defined as: Extension and Intension

Answer 2

Example planets
Intension: Relativiley large natural body that revolves in an orbit around a star and that is not radiating engery from internal nuclear fusions reactions
Extensions: Earth, Venus. Jupiter, Neptune
How can one know the Extension without knowing the intension

Question 3

How to break out of the circle?

Answer 3

P1: You are able to identify instances of knowledge only if (→) you already know what the criteria for knowledge are
P2: You can know what the criteria for knowledge are only if (→) you are already able to identify instances of knowledge

2 options and both are quesiton begging in realtion to eachoter
Option 1: Give up the first principle
Option 2: Give up the second principle

Question 4

Begging the question

Answer 4

Informal fallacy in argumentation (petitio principii)
Occurs when the premise of an argument already assumes the
Truth of the conclusion (dependency), or the premise and the
Conclusion are the same proposition (equivalence).

Question 5

Methodism

Answer 5

Give up the second principle
It is possible to know what the criteria for knowledge are, without already being able to identify instances of knowledge
Subsequently, use the criteria for knowledge to figure out which instances are indeed instances of knowledge
This option is called methodism
Descartes’ philosophy instantiates methodism

Question 6

Particularism

Answer 6

Give up the first principle
It is possible to identify instances of knowledge, without already knowing what the criteria for knowledge are
Subsequently, use the identified instances of knowledge to figure
Out the criteria for knowledge
This option is called particularism
Most contemporary epistemologists

Question 7

Skepticism

Answer 7

Give up the both principles
There is no independent way to establish either principle, and if neither of the principles can be established independently, they cannot be answered at all
Consequently, there is no solution to the problem of the criterion
However, this response begs the question as well:
* It assumes that there are no independent way to establish principle 1 or 2
* This assumption needs to be substantiated!

Question 8

The pros and cons of methodism

Answer 8

We can know what the criteria for knowledge are without already being able to identify concrete instances of knowledge (= abstract philosophical reflection suffices)

• Advantage: The problem of skepticism is taken seriously
  Knowing what the criteria for knowledge does not mean: knowing that anything satisfies these criteria

> It does not assume the falsity of skepticism but it leaves an open question whether there is anything that meets the criteria

• Disadvantage: Achieving knowledge about the criteria for knowledge in this way seems to be very difficult/mysterious.

Question 9

The pros and cons of particularism

Answer 9

We are able to identify instances of knowledge, without already knowing what the criteria for knowledge are

Advantage: Less extravagant than methodism

We only suppose that we can correctly identify particular instances of
knowledge, not its defining features!

• Disadvantage: The skeptical hypothesis is not taken
  seriously

Question 10

The (im)plausibility of methodism

Answer 10

If the criteria for knowledge are pretty obvious:
o Coming to know them through reflection is pretty realistic
o Methodism is a pretty plausible position

f the criteria for knowledge are very complicated:
o Coming to know them through reflection is very unrealistic
o Methodism is a very implausible position

The criteria for knowledge are indeed very complicated

Thus, methodism seems very implausible

Question 11

The classical account of knowledge

Answer 11

Knowledge = justified true belief (JTB)

Question 12

Gettier cases

Answer 12

counter examples to the JTB

Question 13

The basic ingredients of Gettier cases

Answer 13

Fallibility:
The justification provided in each case is fallible.
Although it offers good support for the truth of the belief in
question, that support is far from perfect.

Luck
here is a significant degree of luck in how the belief
manages to combine being true with being justified in Gettier
cases. Odd circumstances are invoked

Question 14

Do we really need justification?

Answer 14

Some epistemologists have argued that we should look for a criterion
that can replace justification (instead of K=JTF + X, we need K=?TF)

Belief and justification can obtain in all sorts of bizarre and
strange situations

Question 15

Goldman (1967) “The causal theory of knowledge“

Answer 15

Basic idea: S knows that p iff S’s belief that p is caused by the fact that p

S knows that p iff S’s belief that p is causally connected in an appropriate way with the fact that p

Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions to the Gettier
problem! (Barn)

Question 16

Chisholm’s defense of particularism

Answer 16

Particularism, methodism and skepticism are all question begging in
relation to each other (based on unfounded assumptions)

Methodism, given the difficulty of finding the right criteria for knowledge, leads to skepticis

o Skepticism bars any progress in epistemology

o Particularism does not

o Particularism is the best of a set of bad options