definitions of knowledge

Question 1

Explain how infallibilism strengthens the tripartite definition of knowledge

Answer 1

• Infallibilism is the theory of propositional knowledge that a truth claim can only count as knowledge if it is concluded via completely infallible premises (this being reason, according to Descartes, as everything beyond those truths derived from pure intuition and deduction can be doubted, and so aren’t infallible).
• anything that cannot be doubted
• This strengthens the tripartite definition of knowledge (that propositional knowledge must be a justified true belief) by disallowing any fallacies or uncertain assumptions (i.e., those that lead to case of epistemic ‘luck’ - Getiier counterexamples) , thus resulting in only that which must be true and possesses indisputable justification (for example, Descartes’ cogito).

Question 2

Explain how the addition of a ‘no false lemmas’ condition strengthens the tripartite definition of knowledge

Answer 2

• Disallowing any falsehoods in reasoning or false premises from the process of forming knowledge means that true belief cannot involve veristic epistemic luck (coincidence/chance).
• Without this condition, the tripartite ‘justified true belief’ view allowed conclusions based on false grounds but incidentally true to count as knowledge
• smiths belief = as a result of the false lemma that jones will get the job. therefore this wouldnt count as knowledge

Question 3

Explain the view that belief is not a necessary condition for knowledge

Answer 3

• There are certain cases where arguably belief is not an aspect of knowledge.
• belief = a mental state that expresses a truth apt preposition
• two versions of belief
• weak version —> we can know something without believing it —> teacher + student example, thinks he doesnt know answer but gets it right
• not a lucky guess, because he subconsciously recalled it from class without realising so it was justified
• strong version = belief = not infalliable so can be doubted so can never be a part of knowledge —> plato and descartes view , we cannot know things we are not certain of
• Thus, the condition of belief is not always necessary, opposing Plato’s tripartite account of the definition of knowledge.

Question 4

Explain the view that justification is not a necessary condition for knowledge

Answer 4

• There have been recorded instances of demonstrably true beliefs, appearing as knowledge, lacking any justification.
• justification = reasoning behind something
• we dont always need justification we can simply have a true belief
• if I am looking at a red thing. To claim there really exists a red thing in an external world would require some justification, however merely to know that I am having an experience of redness arguably requires no justification since it is known immediately with no process of reasoning or inference
• interrogation example
• This view opposes Plato’s tripartite definition of knowledge since if true, justification isn’t always a necessary condition of knowledge acquisition.

Question 5

Explain the view that justification, truth and belief are not collectively sufficient conditions for knowledge.

Answer 5

• Collectively sufficient conditions for knowledge account for all knowledge
• a proposition with all three (J, T & B) is always knowledge, without exception.
• However, credible exceptions have been proposed which demonstrate that JTB cannot therefore be collectively sufficient, involving the notion of epistemic luck —> when we reach a true belief by accident
• Such examples are highlighted in the infamous ‘Gettier’ cases —> job interview
• simths beliefs were justified and true so according to JTB should count as knowledge but it is just EL
• proves we can have a JTB without it being knowlede
• so JTB = collectively insufficient

Question 6

Explain the view that truth is not a necessary condition for knowledge

Answer 6

• There is an argument against JTB that falsehoods can count as meaningful knowledge.
• For example, a cavewoman in the stone age would have believed the Earth to be flat, based on her perception (it looked flat, people didn’t fall off etc.!), and this would have been a coherent aspect of her wealth of empirical understanding.
• Thus, arguably, she could know something without it being true.
• ALSO two theories of truth
• correspondance = a belief is true if it corresponds with reality
• coherence = a belief is true if it fits with out current understanding of the world at that time
• coherence = more important than correspondane

Question 7

Explain what is meant by an account of epistemic virtue

Answer 7

• Epistemic virtue, or virtue epistemology, is the theory of knowledge that (much like Aristotle’s virtue ethics) is agent-centred and based around the notion that
• dispositions that aim towards truth (honesty integrity, openess, curiosity) = intellectal act
• Knowledge is that which is obtained via the application of epistemic virtue to the justification of a truth claim. This is most famously summarised in Sosa’s ‘triple A’ analysis of knowledge (knowledge must be accurate, adroit, and apt).

Question 8

Explain what knowledge is, according to reliabilism

Answer 8

• Reliabilism is the theory of propositional knowledge that knowledge is that which was obtained via a reliable source.
• All that is required to justify a truth claim is that it was derived from a source which produces more truth than falsehood.
• This theory is liberal, and accommodates propositions which were not justified by firsthand experience to count as knowledge (such as being told/taught something - this, the view allows for knowledge in children without the need for first hand justification)
• however it does not result in absolute certainties. - - Reliable methods would include good memory, relevant expertise, and 20:20 vision

Question 9

Outline a case in which someone has a lucky true belief/Outline one of Gettier’s counter examples to the tripartite definition of knowledge

Answer 9

• Gettier proposed several scenarios that appeared to contradict the tripartite definition of knowledge as a justified true belief, implying these criteria to be insufficient.
• One such example was that of a man at a job interview who held the belief that ‘the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket’.
• This was justified because he had overheard the interviewer (CEO) say that the other man would get the job; this other man he had witnessed count ten coins from his pocket.
• However, the other man did not get the job, and yet this belief remained true as it turned out both of them had ten coins in their pocket.
• On account of the luck involved, most would be reluctant to call this justified true belief knowledge, suggesting there is an element missing from the JTB definition.

Question 10

Outline and explain the tripartite view of knowledge

Answer 10

• Plato’s tripartite view of propositional knowledge (Meno and Theaetetus) defines it as justified true belief - truth, belief, and justification are individually necessary and collectively sufficient conditions for knowledge.
• S believes that p (propositional attitude); p is true (proposition); S is justified (has a reason for believing) that p.

Question 11

explain the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions

Answer 11

• used to determine the definition of something
• NECESSARY = minimal requirement for something to be the case but ALONE is not enough for it to be the case
• SUFFICIENT = enough for something to be the case but not always needed for it to be the case
• UV light = necessary condition for photosynthesis but not sufficient as not always needed as it can be obtained in other ways