Epistemology Flashcards
Define acquaintance knowledge
To ‘know of’…
Define ability knowledge
To ‘know how’…
Define propositional knowledge
To ‘know that’…
Outline the nature of definition as proposed by Linda Zagzebski
State the four ideas Linda Zagzebski said should be avoided in any definition
Explain the tripartite view of knowledge.
The tripartite view of knowledge is justified, true belief. It says the following conditions are both individually necessary and jointly sufficient for person, a, to know some proposition, p:
- The proposition p is true;
- a believes that p;
- a’s belief that p is justified
What are the two possible issues with JTB?
- JTB is not jointly sufficient
- The conditions of JTB are not individually necessary
Outline Gettier’s original counterexample
P1: Smith and Jones are interviewing for the same job
P2: Smith hears the interviewer say “I’m going to give Jones the job”
P3: Smith also sees Jones count 10 coins from his pocket
C1: Smith thus forms the belief that “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket”
However, Smith gets the job, not Jones and, by coincidence, Smith also has 10 coins in his pocket.
Explain how Gettier’s original counterexample critiques JTB
Although Smith’s belief is true, as the man who gets the job (Smith) did indeed have 10 coins in his pocket, and is also justified, as Smith hears the interviewer say Jones will get the job whilst knowing Jones had 10 coins in his pocket, it would seem wrong to deem this knowledge.
Smith has only come about his belief through sheer luck and thus is not really knowledge, despite meeting the criteria of JTB. This example is JTB but is not knowledge, therefore proves that JTB is not jointly sufficient.
Name the 5 definitions of knowledge
- Justified true belief (the tripartite definition)
- JTB + No false lemmas
- Reliabilism
- Virtue epistemology
- Infallibilism
State the conditions of JTB + No false lemmas
- p is true;
- you believe that p;
- your belief that p is justified;
- you did not infer that p from a false belief
How does No false Lemmas solve Gettier’s counterexamples?
In both original counterexamples proposed by Gettier, the agent derives his conclusion from a false belief, or a false lemma. In the case of Smith and Jones, Smith’s belief that Jones would get the job was a false lemma.
State an advantage and disadvantage of No False Lemmas
ADV: No false lemmas solves Gettiers original counterexamples, and it can be argued this provides a closer definition to that of knowledge.
DIS: No false lemmas fails to deal with the underlying worry about truth and justification ‘coming apart’. In her article ‘what is knowledge’, Linda Zagzebski also found a new counterexample to critique JTB + No false lemmas.
Explain Lindas Zagzebski Virus X & Y counterexample
P1. I’m a doctor and have very good inductive evidence that my patient, Smith, is suffering from virus X.
P2. He exhibits all of the symptoms of this virus, a blood test has shown that his antibody levels against virus X are extremely high, and his symptoms are not compatible with any other known virus.
C1. As a result, I come to believe that Smith has virus X.
P3. However, Smith’s symptoms are due to a distinct and unknown virus Y, and he exhibits high antibody levels to virus X because of various idiosyncratic features of his biochemistry that cause him to maintain unusually high antibody levels long after a past infection.
P4. As it turns out, though, Smith has very recently contracted virus X, but so recently that he does not yet exhibit symptoms.
State the proof (Ps and Cs) of Infallibilism
P1. No one can know what is false.
C1. Therefore, if I know that p, then I can’t be mistaken about p.
C2. Therefore, for justification to secure knowledge, justification must guarantee truth.
C3. Therefore, if I am justified in believing that p, I can’t possibly be mistaken
C4. Therefore if it is possible that I am mistaken, then I can’t be justified in believing that p.
C5. Therefore, infallibilism is true.
