Epistemology Flashcards
Memorize
What is Practical knowledge? (What is Knowledge)
= know HOW
e.g. how to ride a bike
What is Acquaintance knowledge? (WK)
= know OF
e.g. I know Matthew
What is Propositional knowledge? (WK)
= know THAT
e.g. my door is white
Explain the Tripartite View (JTB) (WK)
Knowledge = Justified True Belief
e.g. “There is a llama in my garden”
For me to know this:
1. There must be a llama
2. I believe there is
3. I believe it as I can see it, therefore it is justified
Therefore I have knowledge of the llama in my garden
Explain how the conditions of JTB are not individually necessary (WK)
Justification: we think we need a justification rather that beliefs being lucky/random/unfounded. However, reliabilism asserts that we do not need to justify our knowledge, sometimes people have reliable processes that arrive at knowledge instead. Most easily replaced (RTB, VTB)
Truth: you cannot know something that is false. If you believed something false you did not know it. However, what is truth? Correspondence theory = truth corresponds to the way the world is. Coherence theory = truth coheres to other beliefs, a world view. To say the world was flat was deemed true in the past.
Belief: It doesn’t make intuitive or cohesive sense to ‘know’ something if you don’t ‘believe’ it. However, sometimes we may believe we don’t know something when we do. I may claim I don’t know the words to a song, but really I do, and can sing along
Explain how the conditions of JTB is insufficient (Gettier’s first example) (WK)
Gettier’s example:
- Smith and Jones go for a job
- Boss tells S, J will get it (justification)
- S sees 10 coins in J’s pocket (justification)
- S forms belief that the person who has 10 coins in their pocket will get the job (JTB)
- S is given the job
- Turns out S also has 10 coins in their pocket
= JTB but not knowledge
= Gettier’s case shows that JTB is not a sufficient definition for knowledge as although JTB are present Smith did not have knowledge of who would get the job
What are the four replacements for JTB? (WK)
- Infallibilism
- JTBN
- Reliabilism
- Virtue Epistemology (VTB)
Describe Infallibilism (WK)
Descartes = we only accept beliefs that cannot be doubted
2 things we cannot doubt:
1. Analytic knowledge
- necessary truth, no sense to deny, e.g. triangles have 3 sides
- tautological (repeating same information both sides) triangle 3 sided shape
2. Knowledge of our own minds
- e.g. I know that I am in pain > even if you don’t know why, or if it’s real, you still experience it
- Descartes says we cannot deny what we know through introspection
- e.g. I know that I am thinking
What are two strengths of Infallibilism (WK)
- Avoids Gettier
- an infallibilist would not accept sense perception as justification
- this is because a belief can only be justified if it’s analytic knowledge, or knowldge of our own mind - Provides clear and distinct classification of knowledge
What are two weaknesses of Infallibilism (WK)
- Too extreme
- excludes too much of what we would accept as knowledge
- scientific, historical knowledge etc would be dismissed - Cannot be helpful as a theory of knowledge as it doesn’t fit with what we mean by knowledge
Describe JTBN (WK)
Idea to add to JTB
“the boss tells Smith that Jones gets the job”
= a False Lemma (a false premise that leads to a conclusion)
JTBN = Justified True Belief with No false lemmas
Therefore avoids Gettier’s example
Outline Zagzebski’s example for JTBN (weakness) (WK)
- Dr Jones has good evidencd to believe Smith has virus X
- The symptoms and results show these consistent with X and no other virus is known to produce these (justification)
- But Smith’s results are from unknown virus Y
- However Smith also has virus X (not enough to show up on results, but the belief is true)
- But: Dr Jones doesn’t know Smith has virus X because the evidence from which she infers her belief has nothing to do with the fact Smith has X
- So Jones has JTBN but still no knowledge
- JTBN is still insufficient
Outline the clock example for JTBN (weakness) (WK)
J = Look at a clock and see 12 o'clock T = It is 12 o'clock B = I believe it is 12 o'clock N = no false information However = the clock is broken, and just happens to be right No knowledge
A response could be to add A on the end = no false Assumptions, but it creates too many additions for easy judgment
Describe Reliabilism (WK)
Replacing the J with R = RTB, a reliable process that leads to TB
Looks at a causal link between a process and the truth
e.g. many people were convinced in 1957, that spaghetti grew on trees, because of an April Fools day documentary from the BBC show Panorama. It was run by a journalist, on a reliable source
What are 2 strengths of Reliabilism (WK)
- Some may argue that inferring false information, is not a reliable approach therefore RTB may avoid Smith and Jones
- Successfully explains that animals can have knowledge. JTB cannot explain animal knowledge as animals cannot give reasons/evidence for their knowledge. They can be seen to have a reliable process
What are 2 weaknesses of Reliabilism (WK)
- Doesn’t truly avoid Gettier
- Smith being told by their boss Jones would get the job would be seen as a reliable source of information, testimony of authority and perception should be reliable - No definition of a reliable process
Describe Virtue Epistemology (VTB) (WK)
Zagzebski warned against obscure definitions or changing definition to fit situations (like JTBN, JTBNA)
Virtue = excellence. Can be moral e.g. courage and intellectual e.g. wise
The more virtuous you are, the more you work at it
Replace J with V = VTB
[P] is true, you believe [P] is true, as a result of your intellectual virtue
Virtue epistemology defines knowledge as the product of academic virtue. If you arrive at a TB because of your academic ability = knowledge
Virtue is an APT true belief, ACCURATE because of your ADROITNESS (Sosa’s 3 A’s)
Describe Direct Realism (Perception as a source of Knowledge)
Objects (apple, table etc) exist mind-independently
They have mind-independent properties (taste, shape etc)
Our perception of the apple = the apple
No stage of mediation between the world and the human experience of the apple. We immediately and directly perceive the apples and it’s properties
Outline the “Perceptual Variation” Argument (PK)
Problems with Direct Realism
Perceptual Variation Argument:
> Our percetption of an object changes
> An object cannot be changing it’s colour contiually
> A table cannot be brown and yellow simultaneously
> Objects cannot be exactly as we directly percieve them
> We do not directly percieve the object but the appearence of the object in our minds
> Therefore direct realism is false
What did Berkley and Russel say about Perceptual Variation (PK)
(Problems with Direct Realism)
Berkley argued that colour is not an objective property belonging to an object. He noticed the clouds appear red from a distance but this varies on where you’re viewing the clouds from. Therefore properties are not found in the object themselves.
Russell observed that the colour of a table might look different in different lights, the shape depends on where you look at it from, and the texture on how closely you observe it. Modern example = black and blue/white and gold dress
What is the general response to the “Perceptual Variation” Argument (PK)
(Problems with Direct Realism)
A direct realist response is that we can directly perceive objects, and it only appears different due to perspective, meaning the objects have intrinsic and relational properties (understood in relation to other things)
Outline the “Illusion” Argument (PK)
Problems with Direct Realism
Sometimes I assign a property to an object that it does not possess e.g. a stick in water may appear bent. Therefore what we immediately perceive is not what is in the world, therefore direct realism is incorrect.
What is the response to the “Illusion” Argument (PK)
Problems with Direct Realism
A direct realist response is that we do not perceive the bent stick; we directly perceive a stick half-submerged in water which appears to be bent. The optic properties of water are different to air. Concludes that you can still directly perceive objects by taking into account external properties effecting your perception.
Outline the “Hallucinations” Argument (PK)
Problems with Direct Realism
Hallucinations present a difficulty for perception as they appear real, but aren’t. Both a hallucination and a veridical (real) perception appear to be the same. How can we claim perception as real if we cannot tell the difference?
What is the response to the “Hallucinations” Argument (PK)
Problems with Direct Realism
We can tell the difference otherwise we wouldn’t know about them e.g. Macbeth’s dagger
Hallucinations aren’t the same as veridical perception. There is no direct or indirect perception of the world, so it doesn’t support indirect realists either. It’s irrelevant, and doesn’t provide a significant criticism to the theory.
Outline the “Time-Lag” Argument (PK)
Problems with Direct Realism
What we see is often not what is the case. For example, Russell illustrates how the sun takes 8 minutes to travel to us. When we are perceiving the sun, we are perceiving the sun 8 minutes ago. If the sun ceased to exist 5 minutes ago, we wouldn’t know for another 3. Our experience of time is such, that what we perceive now might not correspond with how the world is. Therefore perception is not immediate or direct.
What is the response to the “Time-Lag” Argument (PK)
Problems with Direct Realism
Although direct realists accept there is a time-lag, it doesn’t mean that we do not directly perceive objects as they were. Direct realists would just conclude that our perception just isn’t instantaneous.
Describe Indirect Realism (PK)
Promotes the idea that the immediate objects are mind-dependent caused by mind-independent objects, perceived through sense data
SENSE DATA = refers to information such as size, shape, colour, sound etc. We can only perceive sense data rather than the object itself (indirect)
