defining knowledge Flashcards
what is the tripartite definition of knowledge?
Justified, True, Belief
what are the three types of knowledge?
ability (I know how)
acquaintance (I know of)
propositional (i know that)
what are necessary conditions?
conditions that are required for something to fit a definition
—> ‘unmarried’ is a necessary condition for batchelor
what are sufficient conditions?
set of conditions that fully cover every requirement of a definition
—> unmarried man are sufficient conditions for bachelor
what are Gettier cases?
problems demonstrating that JTB isn’t a suitable definition of knowledge, they aren’t sufficient conditions
describe Gettier case 1
- Smith and Jones interview for job
- Smith hears interview say “I’m gonna give Jones the job”
- Smith knows Jones has 10 coins in his pocket
- Smith forms the Justified True Belief that “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket”
- But Smith gets job, not Jones
- Smith realises he coincidentally has 10 coins in his pocket too
its JTB, but isn’t knowledge because it was just lucky
describe Gettier Case 2
- Smith has a Justified Belief that “Jones owns a Ford”
- Smith doesn’t know where Brown is, he has the Justified Belief that “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona”
- By coincidence, Jones doesn’t own a Ford
- By coincidence, Brown is in Barcelona
- Smith’s belief is true but not the way he thought it was
name four alternative definitions of knowledge
No False Lemmas
Reliabilism
Virtue Epistemology
Infallibilism
what is the No False Lemmas definition of knowledge?
knowledge =
Justified
True
Belief
thats based on no false lemmas (beliefs)
name 3 strengths of No False Lemmas
— strengthens justification, preventing falsity
— deals with original Gettier cases
— allows past examples of “knowledge” that have been disproven to no longer count as knowledge
name 2 weaknesses of No False Lemmas
— doesn’t deal with modern Gettier cases (Ginet’s red barn)
— we might not realise that current knowledge is based on a false lemma: it leads to scepticism?
what is the Reliabilist definition of knowledge?
a true belief caused by a RELIABLE METHOD (‘justified’ is too vague and subjective)
Reliable
True
Belief
a reliable method is something that produces a high percentage of true beliefs
give 3 strengths of the reliabilist definition of knowledge
— potentially better and more specific than justification
— allows children and animals to have knowledge without justification
— Nozick gets around Gettier cases
give 3 weaknesses of reliabilist definition of knowledge
— original version (before Nozick) fails to deal with Gettier cases
— potentially just as vague as justification
— ‘reliable’ still leaves room for error: most processes COULD be wrong in some cases
Nozick’s reliabilist solution to Gettier problems
a process is reliable if the belief formed from it being wrong changes your mind
Virtue Epistemology definition of knowledge
Virtuous (epistemic)
True
Belief
—> you must arrive at the true belief using epistemic virtue
what is epistemic virtue according to Sosa?
AAA
Adroitness (skill)
Accuracy (correctness)
Aptness (arriving at the accurate belief as a result of adroitness)
how does Sosa solve Ginet’s Fake Red Barn cases?
2 types of knowledge:
ANIMAL (lesser standard of adroitness and intellect)
REFLECTIVE (higher standard of adroitness and intellect, humans achieving greater udnerstanding of aptness)
—> knowledge of red barns is ANIMAL KNOWLEDGE
give 3 strengths of virtue epistemology
— bridges the gap between justification + knowledge
— gets around Gettier cases
— recognises that humans can have a higher standard of knowledge
give 2 weaknesses of virtue epistemology
— maybe struggles with red barns?
— reliabilism says it doesn’t have necessary justification for knowledge (epistemic virtue doesn’t guarantee truth)
what is the infallibilist definition of knowledge?
based from Descartes’ sceptical approach
Infallibly 100% justified (no room for doubt)
True
Belief
Impossible to rationally doubt
give 3 strengths of infallibilism
— solves Gettier cases
— clearly defines ‘justification”
— aligns with our view that we have to be certain of something to know it
give 3 weaknesses of the infallibilism definition of knowledge
— rejects too much, leading to v high level of scepticism
— tells us what knowledge ideally SHOULD be, not how we actually currently use the term
— goes against our intuition of what we do know
what is the nature of definition according to Zagzebski?
???
What is Ginet’s Fake Red Barn Gettier case?
— there is a county full of fake barns that look identical to real barns
— Henry unknowingly drives through the county
— Henry often thinks “there’s a barn” when he looks at the fake barns: NOT KNOWLEDGE, BC ITS NOT TRUE
— BUT on once occasion Henry coincidentally looks at a REAL barn and thinks “there’s a barn”: it is a justified, true belief based on no false lemmas
defining knowledge essay
- tripartite definition + Gettier cases + Ginet
- infallibilism
yes solves gettier cases: integrate
BUT: leads to scepticism, what knowledge SHOULD be and not how it’s used currently. not pragmatic enough - reliabilism
yes solves gettier, integrate.
yes solves issues with infall + scepticism, integrate.
BUT: fails with Ginet red barns, potentially as vague as justification, leaves room for error
Nozick reworks reliabilism to solve this! So reliabilist best as it lowers threshold of knowledge enough to be a practical, pragmatic definition of knowledge that allows us to know things without scepticism getting in the way
