definitions of knowledge content Flashcards
what is acquaintance knowledge
knowing of something —> i know of the collge in godalming, i know of the colour yellow
what is ability knowledge
knowing how to do something —> i know how to ride a bike
what is prepositional knowledge
knowing that —> i know that london is in england
what is the full definition of prepositional knowledge
- knowledge of truth apt statements
- statements have a truth value so can be true or false
- JTB
what are the 2 types of knowledge according to Linda Zagzebski
1) real definitions
2) contingent statements
what are real definitions according to LZ
water
- tell us the nature of what a thing is
- analytic
- water is H20
what are contingent definitions according to LZ hint = rich example
- tell us what a thing is dependant on context and in relation to others
- comparative, contingent, synthetic
- if someone is rich it depends who they are being compared to
why might a definition not be a good one
- ad hoc
- circular
- negative
- obscure
ad hoc definition
- modified definitions that avoid an objection
negative definition
- saying what something is not rather than what it is
circular definition
- using the same term in the definition of the word
—> justice is when a just act occurs
obscure definition
- unnecessarily using terms more complex than the one being defined
what are necessary conditions —> used to determine the definition of something
- minimal requirement that is needed for something to be the case but when alone, it isnt enough for it to be the case
—> UV light is needed for photosynthesis
what are sufficiant conditions —> used to determine the definition of something
- enough for something to be the case but not always needed for it to be the case
—> the sun is needed for photosynthesis to occur in plants but it isnt always needed, UV can also be obtained from UV lights underground
what are the 5 definitions of knowledge
- JTB/Tripartite
- No false lemmas
- Infallibilism
- Reliabilism
- Virtue epistemology
What is the Tripartite definition of knowledge?
Does it reach the right conclusion with the Gettier case (that it doesnt count as knowledge)?
What are issues with this definition?
- JTB
- No, it would count —> can describe knowledge well and may be good enough
- Gettier Cases
What is the No false lemmas definition of knowledge?
a belief or a part of reasoning which is
Does it reach the right conclusion with the Gettier case (that it doesnt count as knowledge)?
What are issues with this definition?
modifiedobjections that…, n, v
- a belief or part of reasoning which is accepted true in a reasoning process
- Yes, wouldnt count —> seems to describe knowledge well
- ad hoc, negative, virus x
—> made precisely to rule out the gettier cases and only tells us what shouldnt be knowledge
What is the inafibalism definition of knowledge?
doubt
Does it reach the right conclusion with the Gettier case (that it doesnt count as knowledge)?
What are issues with this definition?
too…?
- knowledge must be impossible to doubt and certain, prepositions which count as knowledge must be beyond doubt
- yes, wouldnt count —> does describe knowledge well but rules out most things we would normally count as knowledge so actually probably doesnt describe it well
- too narrow
What is the reliabalism definition of knowledge?
Does it reach the right conclusion with the Gettier case (that it doesnt count as knowledge)?
What are issues with this definition?
- knowledge has to be reliable, have a high % of true beliefs
- yes, wouldnt count —> still doesnt seem to describe knowledge well
- fake barn county, cannot describe a reliable process —> circular
What is the virtue epistemology definition of knowledge?dispositions that…
Does it reach the right conclusion with the Gettier case (that it doesnt count as knowledge)?
What are issues with this definition?
def. of IV = ?
doesntaccount for
- dispositions that aim towards the truth
- yes, wouldnt count —> still doesnt seem to describe knowledge well
- circular definition of intellectual virtues, doesnt seem to account for what we understand knowledge to be
What is the tripartite definition
- JTB
- J = we are able to provide reasons for why we hold the belief that we do
- T = corresponds w/ the world
- B = mental state that expresses truth apt propositions that we are committed to
- S knows that P iff
—> P is true, S believes that P, S’ belief that P is true is justified
What is a coherence theory of truth
-world is flat
-truth is …
a belief that is true if it fits with our current understanding of the world at the time
- truth is mind dependant so can change over time
what is the correspondance theory of truth
a belief is true if it corresponds with reality
why might justification not be necessary for knowledge
- we dont always need to justify why we know something, we can be happy with a mere true belief
- may also be concern about the limits of providing knowledge —> if we were continually interogated about something, we would eventually run out of reasons why we hold that belief
why might belief not be necessary for knowledge
1) weak version —> it is possible to know something without believing it —> being asked a question, thinking you dont know the answer but still getting the answer correct
2) strong version —> a belief can be doubted as it is not infalliable,
why might truth not be necessary for knowledge
2 types
the way we understand truth differs
- correspondance = there will always be a right/wrong answer at any moment that relates the then world
- coherence = what we currently understand to be truth may turn out to be false later
what is epistemic luck
when we reach a TB via an accident
what is the job interview example
- 2 characters smith + jones
- smith believes jones will get the job for some reason, smith also notices that jones has 10 gold coins in his pocket so —> “the person with 10 gold coins in their pocket will get the job”
- BUT smith ends up getting the job
- also smith finds 10 gold coins in his pocket
- so the statement smith made was JT (by accident)
- smiths belief = J+T so according to JTB it counts as knowledge however it is just a case of epistemic luck so shouldnt count
what is the implication of the gettier case for JTB —> useful for 12 markers
- having a JTB = sufficiant grounds for knowledge however this proves we can have JTB without having knowledge
- therefore simply having a JTB is not sufficiant for knowldges
- therefore JTB = false, lacking
- therefore we need a different definition or to modify this one
what is a lemma
- a b/p/a which is acceptrd as true ina …
- s knows thhat p
- a belief, premise or assumption or any other part of reasoning which is accepted as true in a reasoning process
- S knows that P iff
—> P is true, S believes that P, S’ belief that P is justified, S didnt infer that P from a false lemma
what is virus x and how does this undermine the no false lemmas definition of knowledge
- despite passing the no false lemmas solution, this should not count as knowledge —> it is epistemic luck
- smith has all the symptoms of virus x and lab results also agree with this
- so dr jones believes that smith has virus x BUT smith actually has virus y which has all the same symptoms
- coincidently, prior to taking the lab tests, smith also caught virus x but it was too early for this to show up in the tests
- so dr jones has a JTB that “smith has virus x “ which includes no false lemmas
- since there is nothing here that is false, everthing should count as knowledge
- BUT this is just a case of epistemic luck
infallibilism definition
hint = doubt
s knows that p iff…
- impossible to doubt
- prepositions that count as knowledge are those which are beyond doubt
- S knows that P iff
—> P is true, S believes that P, S’ belief thay P is true is justified and certain
does the infallibilism definition rule out the GC
beyonddoubt
result of SE so open to
yes
smith had a JTB but it isnt beyond doubt —> result of sense experience so open to doubt and could be wrong
2 issues with infallibilism
- restricts severly what we can count as knowledge —> sense experience, because it is open to doubt
- overly narrow definition, gone too far
what is reliabilism and what are reliable and unreliable sources of info
- produces a high % of true beliefs, more than false ones
S knows that P iff P is true, S believes that P, S’ belief that P is true is produced by a reliable process - reliable = sense perception, information or testimony from an expert
- unreliable = guessing, conspiricies
How does the fake barn county undermine the relibilist definition
- a man points out various objects to a child as they drive in the countryside
—>”there is a cow/tractor/barn’’ , he has no doubt about the existence of these objects - he has formed this belief out of his reliable senses
- what if he was driving through a county where all the villagers had made fake barns but the one he had pointed out was the one real barn in the whole county —> so his belief “that is a barn” is true and as a result of a reliable process but also down to luck so we do not want to count this as knowledge
- other issues = unclear what is a reliable process and we cannot know whether process are reliable
what is an intellectual virtue+examples
dispositions
- dispositions that aim towards truth for example honesty, integrity, openness
- S knows that P iff —> S believes that P, S’ belief that P arises from an act of intellectual or epistemic virtue
how does Sosa define an intellectual virtue
- triple a standard
iff :
- it is accurate —> a true belief
- it is adroit —> result of skilfullness
- it is apt —> a true belief as a result of skilfullness
- known as triple a standard
skillfulness = not as a result of luck
how does zagzebski define an intellectual virtue
iff :
- motivated by a desire to know
- it is what an intellectually virtuous person would do
- it is successful —> results in a TB
what are the issues with VE
-doesnt account for
- reflects … rather than
- reflects an ideal process for gaining knowledge rather than defining knowledge itself
- definition doesn’t account for what we mean when we say we know something
why does Paul ziff argue that JTB is good enough
- just because we can find exceptions to JTB doesn’t make it false
- if we are happy to accept contingent rather than real definitions of knowledge then JTB is enough
- JTB holds in most cases except those involving epistemic luck —>exceptional and unlikely situations
- compares JTB to ‘‘a cheetah can outrun a man’’ —> true if e.g the cheetah was weighed down but this doesn’t make the overall statement false
