Definition of knowledge Flashcards
What is knowledge?
3 sorts of knowledge:
- Practical: Knowledge of how to do something, or ‘know-how’
- Knowledge by acquaintance: ‘knowing’ in the sense of knowing a person, place or sensation
- Factual knowledge (Propositional): Knowing that something is the case e.g 2+2=4
What is JTB
S knows P if and only if:
- S believes that P
- P is true
- S has sufficient or adequate evidence for P, or is justified in believing P
These 3 conditions are said to be jointly sufficient and individually necessary for saying ‘S knows P’
What is Plato’s view of knowledge?
Tripartie definition:
- Knowledge is a justified, true belief
- A person knows something if they have a belief that is true and that has good justification
- Says true belief is not enough to grant knowledge
What are necessary and sufficient conditions?
Necessary condition - A necessary truth that is one which has to be true and cannot be otherwise. It is true in all possible worlds
Sufficient conditions - A is a necessary condition to have B. If you don’t have A you cannot have B. Having A is enough or sufficient to have B E.g being unmarried and being a man are sufficient conditions for being a bachelor. Every time you have an unmarried man, you have a bachelor.
Is belief a necessary condition?
- Some argue ‘no’ in a test remembering something, even though, unconfident may count as knowledge even if you don’t really believe it
- Infallibilism claims that knowledge is infallible and belief is fallible so they must be fundamentally different
- However belief is necessary
- Wouldn’t make sense to claim knowledge of something you don’t believe
- It makes no sense to say ‘I know x but I don’t believe x’
Is Truth a necessary condition?
- Often we claim we know something which turns out to be false
- But thinking you know something is not the same ass actually knowing something
- Truth is a necessary condition
- Belief has to correspond with reality
Is justification necessary?
- Plato argued we are reluctant to grant someone knowledge if they have acquired it by sheer luck
- Unjustified true belief is not knowledge - justification is needed to distinguish from lucky guesses
- However some claim a reliable process that produces true beliefs is what counts as knowledge
- Justification is not necessary
What are the issues with JTB?
Conditions are not individually necessary:
- Justification is not necessary e.g ‘I know but I don’t know how’
- Truth is not necessary(through scepticism about truth)
- Belief is not necessary(e.g a series of reliably good answers in a quiz that S would characterise as guesses - “ She knows P but doesn’t believe P)
The conditions are not jointly sufficient:
- Gettier cases show justified true beliefs where we are not willing to grant them knowledge
- Justification should be either strengthened, added to or replaced
What is ‘No false Lemmas’ condition?
Adds condition:
- P is true
- You believe that P
- You did not infer P from anything false (A false Lemma)
Solves Gettier problem of Smith and Jones as Smith inferred from a lie the employees told him
Problems with ‘no false lemmas’
Doesn’t deal with underlying worry about truth and justification coming apart
Also there are Gettier cases where nothing is inferred so no false lemmas is satisfied but still don’t have knowledge - Barn county
-This time the belief is true
-It is justified by visual perception of the barn
-Not inferred from anything false
so it counts as knowledge according to no false lemmas so no false lemma must be false
Issues with infallibilism?
Too strict:
- it is rare the evidence we have rules out the possibility of error
- Therefore infallibilism grants very little knowledge
- Descartes demonstrates pretty much any belief can be doubted
- So infallibilism leads to scepticism rather than secure knowledge
Response:
Relative alternatives theory - softens infallibilism by not considering all possible alternatives but only relevant ones
What is infallibilism?
Attempts to overcome Gettier by strengthening what is meant by justification
-Argues that for a belief to count as knowledge it must be true and justifies in such way as to make it certain - Meaning (To Descartes) the impossibility of doubt.
It solves the Gettier case
- No one can know what’s False
2Therefore if I know P, then I can’t be mistaken about P
3.Therefore for justification to secure knowledge , justification must guarantee truth - Therefore if I am justified in believing P , I can’t possibly be mistaken
- Therefore if it is possible I am mistaken, then I can’t be justified in believing P
- Therefore infallibilism is true
What are responses to Gettier?
Need to strengthen what is meant by justification -> Infallibilism
Need to add condition to JTB -> No false lemmas
Need to replace justification condition with something else -> Reliabilism+ virtue epistemology
What is virtue epistemology?
Virtue -Intellectual values such as skills, abilities or traits which contribute to the truth
You know P if: 1. P is true 2. You believe that P 3. Your belief in P is a result of exercising your intellectual virtues K = V+T+B
Triple AAA rating shows why we get knowledge and avoids knowledge by dumb luck
What is Triple AAA rating?
Virtue epistemology
Compares with archery
…Accuracy - Did the arrow hit the target?
…Adroitness- how skilful was the shot?
…Aptness- did the arrow hit the target because it was shot well?
Linking to knowledge;
…Accuracy - Is the belief true?
…Adroitness-Is the way that the person formed the belief an exercise of their intellectual virtues?
…Aptness- Is the belief true because the person who used their intellectual values when preforming it?
