definition of knowledge Flashcards
what is aquaintance knowledge?
knowledge of - i KNOW fred well
what is ability knowledge?
knowledge how - i know how to ride a bike well
what is propositional knowledge?
knowledge that - I know that london is the capital of england
what is the tripartite definition of knowledge?
Plato argues that knowledge must be
- justified
- true
- believed
what are necessary conditions for knowledge?
one that must be present in every case
e.g. unmarried and man are both necessary to be a bachelor (without them, you cannot be bachelor)
what are sufficient conditions for knowledge?
one which need not be present in every case but when it is present it is enough all by itself.
e.g. being an unmarried man is sufficient to be a bachelor because everything that meets these conditions is a bachelor
what is the counter argument against neccesary and sufficient conditions?
a baby boy is all of those things (male, single and human) yet is not a bachelor.
what are the gettier cases?
they are counterarguments against the JTB that say that the conditions are not sufficient
what is the first gettier case?
smith and jones have the same interview and smith has strong evidence that ‘jones will get the job and jones has 10 coins in his pocket’
proposition: the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket
but then smith gets the job and unbeknownst to him, he also has 10 coins in his pocket
what is the second gettier case?
after the interview they leave and jones gets into a ford.
smith comes to the conclusion that either jones owns a ford or brown (another friend) lives in barcelona.
it so happens that jones had rented the ford and brown really was in barcelona.
what is the problem with JTB that the conditions are not necessary?
J - the fact that children and animals appear to have knowledge suggests that justification is not necessary
T - zagzebski’s def of knowledge does not explicitly include true but talks about it as intellectual virtue. there may be no such thing as a objective truth
B - someone may know something but not believe it. you know that pluto has 5 moons but have forgotten it. when someone asks you answer 5 but do not believe your own answer
what are the alternative definitions of knowledge?
- JTB + no false lemmas
- infallibilism
- reliabilism
epistemic virtue
what is no false lemmas?
james has knowledge if:
- P is true
- James believes that P
- james’ belief is justified
- james did not infer that P from anything else
this avoids the gettier problem as the belief that the man who will get the job has 10 coins is inferred from ‘jones will get the job’
what is a problem for no false lemmas?
the fake barn county
- the locals create fake barns that look identical to real barns
- henry is driving through but he doesn’t know this
- he thinks theres a barn every time he sees a fake one
- but on the one occasion where he sees a real barn he thinks theres a barn
this belief is true, justified and is not inferred from anything false
how does no false lemmas deal with gettier cases?
smith reaches his conclusion from that the person who will get the job from his false belief that jones will get the job
- therefore it is not knowledge
how do no false lemmas deal with false barns case?
henry has a justified true belief that this is a barn
- his belief does not rest on any false beliefs
- the theory does not work here
what is reliabilism?
james knows if:
- p is true
- james believes p
- james’ belief that P is caused by a reliable method
eyesight would count as a reliable method if it was good
acurate memory would be a reliable method
K= J+T+B+reliable method
what is an advantage of reliabilism?
it allows for young children and animals to have knowledge
- all other forms imply that they cannot have knowledge - they cannot justify, they cannot have intellectual virtues
- but they have reliable processes e.g. eyesight
what is an argument against reliabilism?
fake barn county can also be used against.
- it is caused by a reliable process but is not knowledge
how well does reliabilism deal with the gettier cases?
smith’s methods include relying on testimony and relying on logical reasoning
- these are usually reliable methods so unless you argue that it is not a reliable method
the theory might say this is not a problem
how does reliabilism deal with fake barns case?
henry’s methods involves relying on ordinary perception in ordinary light and this is normally reliable.
- the reliabilist might have to disagree with common sense and allow henry does have knowledge
someone may argue that henry only has knowledge if he can reliably tell the difference between fake barns and true barns
what is infallibilism?
for a belief to count as knowledge, it must be true and justified in such as way to make it certain
K=J+T+B+certainty
what is a problem with infallibilism?
it is too strict - it says that almost everything fails to qualify as knowledge
- i know that water boils at 100 can be doubted = your science teacher could be lying, you may have misread, etc..
we can argue that certainty is not a necessary condition of knowledge
how does infallibilism deal with the gettier cases?
smith could be wrong - the manager may be lying or made a mistake in counting or he could be hallucinating
- therefore, the theory says this is not a problem
how does infallibilism deal with fake barn?
henry could be wrong - he cannot be certain therefore he does not have knowledge
what is virtue epistemology?
there is a link between a belief and intellectual virtue
- intellectual virtues are somewhat analogous to the sort of moral virtues considered in virtue ethics but instead of focusing on moral good, they focus on epistemic good
what is zagzebski’s virtue epistemology?
she argues that the other definitions of knowledge will always fall victim to gettier sytle cases and she provides a formula for making gettier cases to defeat these definitions
what is zagzebski’s formula for gettier cases?
- start with a situation where there is a belief that fits the definition but is false due to bad luck
- then change the situation to one where the belief fits that definition but is true due to good luck
- in the second case, the belief will still fit the definition because it is basically the same as the first case but the second case won’t be knowledge
what is the purpose of zagzebski’s formula?
she argues that the formula will always provide a means to defeat any definition of knowledge that takes the form ‘true belief + a third condition’
- this is because the truth and the third condition are simply added together but not linked.
this leads a gap where lucky cases can fit the definition
what is zagzebski’s definition of knowledge?
she says that james know p if:
- james believes P
- james’ belief that P arises from an act of intelectual virtues
you must have both the correct motivation (you want to find the truth) and succeed as a result of that virtue (your belief is true because you acted virtuously)
virtues motivate us to persue what is good (good knowledge is true) and they enable us to achieve our goals
what is sosa’s virtue epistemology
sosa argues that knowledge has three properties: accuracy, adroitness and aptness.
he uses an archery analogy
what is accuracy?
for knowledge the accuracy means that the belief is true
for archery the arrow hits the target
what is adroitness?
for knowledge the believer would have intellectual virtues
for archery the archer is skilled
what is aptness?
for knowledge, the belief is true because of the believer’s intellectual virtues
for archery, the arrow hits the target because of the archer’s skill, not just luck
what qualifies as knowledge according to sosa?
the belief must be true as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of the beliver exercising their intellectual virtues - it must be APT
- aptness provides a link between truth and the third condition that rules out the gettier sytle cases
how does sosa’s virtue epistemology attack fake barn?
it could correctly say that henry’s belief that there is a barn would not qualify as knowledge despite being TRUE (accurate) and formed by a RELIABLE METHOD (adroitness). but it is not APT
- he only formed the true belief as a result of luck not because of intellectual virtues
what is a problem for virtue epistemology?
it rules out the possibility of children and animals possessing knowledge but arguably they can know many things
