definitions of knowledge Flashcards
who said knowledge is justified true belief?
plato
who challenged JTB?
Edmund Gettier in 1963
what did Gettier do to challenge JTB?
Gettier describes two secnarios that are known as Gettier cases, where an individual has a justified true belief but that is not knowledge
what are the three kinds of knowledge?
ability, acquaintance and propositional knowledge
what is the definition of ability knowledge?
knowledge how, e.g, I know how to ride a bike
what is the definition of acquaintance knowledge?
knowledge of, e.g, I know Fred well
what is the definition of propositional knowledge?
knoweldge that, e.g, I know that London is the capital of England
what is the tripartite definition of knowledge?
justified true belief
are the conditions necessary?
we can argue that JTB are all necessary for knowledge.
- you can’t know something if it isn’t true. If someone said, “I know that the moon is made of green cheese” you wouldn’t consider that knowledge because it isn’t true.
- you can’t know something you don’t believe. It just wouldn’t make sense, for example, to say “I know today is Monday but I don’t believe today is Monday.”
- suppose someone asks you if you know how many moons Pluto has. you have no interest in astronomy but just have a strong feeling about the number 5 because it’s your lucky number or whatever. you’d be right – Pluto does indeed have 5 moons – but it seems a bit of a stretch to say you knew Pluto has 5 moons. your true belief “Pluto has 5 moons” is not properly justified and so would not count as knowledge.
so, ‘justified’, ‘true’, and ‘belief’ may each be necessary for knowledge
are the conditions of JTB sufficient?
if ‘justified true belief’ is also a sufficient definition of knowledge, then everything that is a justified true belief will be knowledge, Gettier cases challenges this
describe the reason why Gettier cases are an issue to JTB?
Gettier’s paper describes two scenarios where an individual has a justified true belief that is not knowledge. both scenarios describe a belief that fails to count as knowledge because the justified belief is only true as a result of luck.
describe Gettier case 1?
-Smith and Jones are interviewing for the same job
-Smith hears the interviewer say “I’m going to give Jones the job”
-Smith also sees Jones count 10 coins from his pocket
-Smith thus forms the belief that “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket”
-But Smith gets the job, not Jones
-Then Smith looks in his pocket and, by coincidence, he also has 10 coins in his pocket
Smiths belief is justified and true, however it was a lucky JTB
what does Gettier’s second case rely on?
-the logical principle of disjunction
-disjunction introduction says that if you have a true statement and add “or some other statement” then the full statement is also true.
describe Grttier’s second case?
-Smith has a justified belief that “Jones owns a Ford”
-So, using the principle of disjunctive introduction above, Smith can form the further justified belief that “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona”
-Smith thinks his belief that “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” is true because the first condition is true (i.e. that Jones owns a Ford)
-But it turns out that Jones does not own a Ford
-However, by sheer coincidence, Brown is in Barcelona
Smiths belief is true and justified, however it is wrong to say that Smith’s belief count as knowledge because it was just lucky.
what does the JTB + no false lemmas condition aim to do?
aims to strengthen the justification condition of the tripartite definition.
what does the JTB + no false lemmas say knowledge is?
It says that James has knowledge of P if:
P is true
James believes that P
James’s belief is justified
James did not infer that P from anything false
how does JTB + no false lemmas avoid the Gettier problems?
avoids the problems of Gettier cases because Smith’s belief “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket” is inferred from the false lemma “Jones will get the job”.
hows does no false lemmas appear to be more accurate than tripartite view?
it avoids saying Gettier cases count as knowledge
what is a problem with JTB + no false lemmas?
fake barn county situation:
In ‘fake barn county’, the locals create fake barns that look identical to real barns
Henry is driving through fake barn county, but he doesn’t know the locals do this
Henry often thinks “there’s a barn” when he looks at the fake barns
These beliefs are not knowledge, because they are not true – the barns are fake
However, on one occasion Henry looks at the one real barn and thinks “there’s a barn”
This time the belief is true
It’s also justified by his visual perception of the barn
And it’s not inferred from anything false.
According to the no false lemmas definition, Henry’s belief is knowledge.
what does reliabilism say knowledge is?
Reliabilism says James knows that P if:
-P is true
-James believes that P
-James’s belief that P is caused by a reliable method
-A reliable method is one that produces a high percentage of true beliefs.
what is an advantage of reliabilism?
An advantage of reliabilism is that it allows for young children and animals to have knowledge. However, pretty much all the other definitions of knowledge considered here imply that animals and young children can not have knowledge. For example, a seagull or a baby can’t justify its beliefs. However, both young children and animals are capable of forming beliefs via reliable processes, e.g. their eyesight, and so according to reliabilism are capable of possessing knowledge.
what is an issue with reliability?
fake barn county:
Henry’s true belief that “there’s a barn” is caused by a reliable cognitive process – his visual perception. Reliabilism would thus (incorrectly) say that Henry knows “there’s a barn” even though his belief is only true as a result of luck.
define zagzebski’s analysis of knowledge?
Zagzebski’s analysis of knowledge is that James knows that P if:
James believes that P
James’s belief that P arises from an act of intellectual virtue
what is an act of intellectul virtue?
An act of moral virtue is one where the actor both intends to do good and achieves that goal. Intellectual virtue is similar: You must both have the correct motivation (e.g. you want to find the truth) and succeed as a result of that virtue (i.e. your belief turns out to be true because you acted virtuously).
