Epistemology Flashcards
Give definitions and examples of ability, acquaintance and propositional knowledge.
Propositional knowledge (knowledge that) is the knowledge of facts, not acquaintance (knowledge of) or ability (knowledge how).
Example:
Dean meets the president of smart corp.
- Knowledge THAT the man is the president of smart corp.
- Knowledge OF now knowing this man is the president of smart corp.
- Knowledge HOW to give an impressive handshake.
What pitfalls should be avoided when discussing definitions of knowledge?
Definitions should not be:
1. Circular
- Should not include term being defined
2. Obscure
- Use simple language
3. Negative
- Don’t just say what “X” is not
4. Ad hoc
- A definition that is specific to counter a problem
Outline sufficient and necessary conditions.
A good definition of knowledge will consist of conditions that are individually necessary (are needed but individually aren’t enough) and jointly sufficient (what meets these conditions is knowledge).
Example:
A bachelor is a man and he is unmarried. But a man is not always a bachelor. Being a man is necessary but not sufficient.
Outline why knowledge might be defined as justified true belief with reference to Plato.
Tripartite view of knowledge:
Plato’s argument that knowledge is a “true belief accompanied by a rational account is knowledge”. So knowledge is a Justified, True, Belief. The JTB definition.
The reason we value knowledge over true belief is that it is backed up by evidence (justification), the two guides example.
Is justification individually necessary for knowledge?
Knowledge without justification:
- Is possible.
If you give John any date in the future, he can tell which weekday it is 100% accuracy. John does not know how he does this. This knowledge was a true belief, but without justification.
Is truth individually necessary for knowledge?
Knowledge without truth:
- Is not possible.
- Correspondence theory of truth:
- Truth consists in correspondence between a claim and relevant fact. - Coherence theory of truth:
- A belief is true if held by a society to be true, it is internally coherent.
A caveman’s belief that the earth is flat is not true using 1 so is not knowledge. But it is true using 2 - so is knowledge. Either way truth is pivotal and necessary to knowledge.
Is belief individually necessary for knowledge?
Knowledge without belief:
- It is possible
Imagine a flash card test. You are presented with a question and immediately think of an answer. You don’t believe in it, but the answer is correct. Old knowledge that was justified and true, but not a belief.
Are the three conditions of JTB jointly sufficient, outline the first Gettier case.
- 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 ten coins from his pocket.
- Smith forms the belief that the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.
- But Smith gets the job not Jones
- Also, by sheer coincidence Smith has ten unnoticed coins in his pocket.
Smith had a justified, true, belief - but this is not knowledge as it is down to luck, so the JTB definition of knowledge is NOT sufficient.
Are the three conditions of JTB jointly sufficient, outline the second Gettier case.
Makes use of a of a disjunction introduction.
“x is true OR y is true”. Even if one of them is fake the whole statement is true because the or means only one half has to be true.
- Smith has a justified belief that Jones owns a Ford.
- Smith forms the belief that either Jones owns a Ford of Brown is in Barcelona.
- However, last week Jones sold his Ford.
- But by sheer coincidence Brown is in Barcelona.
Smith had a justified, true, belief. But again it was not knowledge as it was due to luck.
Outline and evaluate: No false lemmas
(JTB + N)
In response to the Gettier cases another condition for knowledge was added (N) which means “not inferred from a false lemma” (false lemma = false belief). This counters the first two cases.
But…Fake Barn County
- In fake barn county the locals create fake barns that look identical to the real barns from the outside.
- Henry drives through the country and falsely thinks “there’s a barn”.
- But one time Henry looks at the only real barn and thinks “that’s a barn”.
- This time the belief is true, justified and not inferred from a false lemma. Yet still it is not knowledge as Henry was just lucky. JTB + N is not sufficient either.
Outline and evaluate: Reliabilism
RTB Definition
A definition of knowledge that gets rid of the Justification condition and replaces it with the condition that the true belief must be formed via some reliable method.
A reliable belief is one that produces a high percentage of true beliefs (e.g Good eyesight or Good memory). An advantage is that it can explain how animals and young children have knowledge which isn’t true for other methods.
However, the RTB definition is also undermined by the Fake Barn County argument.
Outline and evaluate: Infallibilism
True belief that is justified in such a way that it is impossible to doubt - to the utter literal sense. It is good as it avoids Gettier cases by restricting knowledge to things that cannot be doubted.
The issue is that it’s far too strict, we can doubt any statement if we think hard enough. So according to the theory we can’t know that “London is the capital city of England”, but I know that it is. As such, the theory is false.
Outline Sosa’s virtue epistemology.
Sosa states Smith knows p if:
- Accurate, Adroit, Apt
- p is true (the accuracy condition is met)
- S believes that p
- S’s belief that p is apt (it is true/accurate because it is adroit/ formed by intellectual virtue)
An intellectual virtue = Intellectual skill, ability or trait that contributes to getting to the truth, such as a tendency to use a reliable process.
What is Direct realism?
The view that the immediate objects of our perception exist externally as mind independent objects. So we perceive our external world directly. Our senses detect the properties of these objects which exist in the external world and objects retain the properties when unperceived.
It seems like common sense and explains what I perceive/ how everyone reports perceiving the same. It also avoids scepticism.
What is the issue that Russel and Berkley have with Direct realism?
Perceptual variation:
The appearance of objects can vary depending on the conditions under which they are perceived.
P1: Direct realism claims material objects possess mind-independent properties which we directly perceive.
P2: But when we perceive physical objects the appearance of their properties can vary.
P3: The properties of the objects themselves don’t vary.
C: Direct realism is false as the apparent properties are not the same as the real properties of physical objects.
Counterpoint:
Relational properties that the objects possess. The perceiver and perception of the object may change but the object itself does not change. We directly perceive the relational properties.
Outline and evaluate illusions as a problem for direct realism.
A straight straw in a submerged glass of water problem. It directly appears bent, but that is incorrect.
Counterpoint:
Relational properties, ones which change depending on how something is being perceived. The straw has the relational property of looking bent, though it is straight.
Outline and evaluate time lag as a problem for direct realism.
P1 The light from distant objects takes time to reach our eyes.
C1 What you are seeing may no longer exist.
C2 What we are seeing and what is there are different.
P2 This is no less true for physical objects at any distance
C3 We directly see the appearance, not the physical object. Direct realism is false.
Counterpoint:
Misunderstands theory. Direct realism is about what perceive, time-lag refers to how we perceive it. We still perceive directly, just how things were.
Outline and evaluate hallucination as a problem for direct realism.
Hallucinations are when we perceive something that doesn’t exist outside of our mind. It can be subjectively indistinguishable from a true perception, yet it does not exist in reality. Surely we cannot be perceiving directly.
Direct realists claim that it perhaps it is just something wrong in our minds that causes us to perceive hallucinations. In that case, they are still different from true perceptions and so true perception cannot occur only in the mind. However, this still means we are perceiving something that does not exist, thus we do not perceive everything directly.
Outline indirect realism and support for it.
John Locke
The immediate objects of perception are mind-dependant sense data, which are caused by and represent mind-independent objects. Three stages of perception.
The theory defeats all criticisms of direct realism.
Key ideas:
Ideas/ sense data are mind-dependant (require perceiving mind) but are caused by the qualities in matter.
Qualities/ matter are mind independent and have the power to cause ideas/ sense data.
Outline Locke’s primary and secondary qualities.
Primary qualities are analogous to the mind-independent external world.
- Size, shape, motion
Secondary qualities both depend on primary qualities and require a mind to appear as they are not in the objects themselves as we may perceive them.
- Colour, taste, smell
Outline Locke’s arguments for primary and secondary qualities and assess them.
- When an almond is crushed the shape is all that changes. But so does the taste and colour. This must be changed by changing the almonds shape.
=> Counterpoint:
- This just shows that both primary and secondary qualities can change. Plus, if the secondary qualities (taste) rely on the shape of the almond, then they are not mind-dependent. - Certain qualities disappear if we block our sense organs, so they depend on sense organs and do not exist as we see them in reality.
=> Counterpoint:
- Does not distinguish between qualities either. If we block our eyes then both disappear. - Porphyry if asked for definition of primary and secondary qualities.
Outline Locke’s perceptual variation argument as support for indirect realism.
P1 The same water can produce the idea of hot and cold.
P2 But the same water cannot be both hot and cold.
C1 Cold and warmth cannot belong to the material object alone.
C2 So cold and warmth are purely sensations produced in the perceiver.
Outline the argument against indirect realism that it leads to scepticism.
Since we are only aware of sense data, we must infer the existence of matter beyond our mind. Neither experience or reason can justify inference. Furthermore what if there is nothing external of our mind.
- Hypothetical world tree example
- Cartesian demon, brain in a vat etc.
Outline the three counters for the argument against indirect realism that it leads to scepticism
Counter 1: Involuntary nature of experience
- Locke shows we are not in control of sense data. I can imagine anything, but when I open my eyes I receive certain sense data over which I have no choice. There must be something external causing it.
Counter 2: Coherence of experience
Cockburn
- Different things occur together and allow us to predict. Hear barking, look around and see a dog. Two senses work together so must be perceiving same mind-independent thing.
Counter 3: External world best hypothesis
Russel
- We cant deductively prove external world exists, but most logical. Cat moving on sofa example.
Notes:
With 2 and 3 Locke accepts they don’t prove external world exist just because we are forced to perceive something (think dreams). Used to show logically possible.
Outline Berkley’s argument that the likeness principle undermines indirect realism.
Russel is only correct in saying indirect realism is logical if he is right to believe that the existence on material objects is not an incoherent one.
Berkley states that all sense data depends upon the mind. All the qualities we perceive require a perceiving mind to exist. But since matter is unperceived, it cannot have such properties. The only thing that can logically exist is our mind.
Outline Berkeley’s idealism and its advantages.
All that exist are minds and their ideas. Nothing exists “independently” of our minds, they are no more than collections of ideas.
However, objects don’t exist only when perceived by finite human minds. Universe is sustained by an infinite mind, God.
God directly causes our ideas.
Arguments for it:
- Master argument
- Attack on primary and secondary qualities
Outline Berkley’s attack on primary and secondary qualities and how effective it is.
P1 It is impossible to imagine an object with only primary qualities.
C1 Secondary qualities cannot be separated from primary ones.
C2 They must exist together
P2 Indirect realists accept secondary qualities are mind dependent.
P3 Primary qualities must also be mind dependent.
Counterpoint:
- Locke is saying that secondary qualities are mind-dependent in that they require a mind to be perceived. In fact, secondary qualities are the powers in external objects that cause ideas in us - so the qualities are in fact mind independent. Just because the qualities appear inseparable does not mean they only exist in the mind. Rather the sense data exist in the mind, not the qualities themselves.
Outline Berkley’s perceptual variation argument and whether it is effective.
- An object small to us looks big to an ant. It cannot be big and small. Size cannot be a property of material objects.
- Perceived shape of object changes depends on angle viewed at. It cannot have different shapes at the same time. Shape cannot be a property of material objects.
- Speed of object may appear slow or fast to different minds. It cannot be slow and fast at the same time. Speed cannot be a property of material objects.
Counterpoint:
- Indirect realists accept first two premises of all. But if we make distinction between objective size, shape and speed and the perceived quality of these - then a different conclusion is reached. Perceived can change, objective cannot - so Berkley’s perceptual variation argument fails.
Outline Berkley’s master argument and assess it.
P1 Try to conceive of a tree which exists independently of your mind.
P2 In doing so, the tree is perceived by you.
C The tree is in your mind and not independent of it.
Counterpoint:
Russel
- Berkley is confusing mental act of conceiving with the thing being conceived. My idea of a tree must be in my mind, but what my idea is about does not need to be in my mind.
Outline a problem of Berkley’s Idealism, illusions and hallucinations.
Everything we perceive are mind dependent sense data/ ideas. But common sense tells us imagined things also depend upon the mind, but real things are importantly different.
- Realist theories make this difference clear.
Imagination is not the same as a veridical perception as it is not as clear and I have control over it.
But illusions and hallucinations are more difficult to explain. They appear the exact same as veridical perception.
- Again, realist theories explain them simply.
Berkley says our sense data is correct, but what makes it an illusion is that it tricks our inference of what to expect next.
- Stick in water example.
But this leads us to the conclusion that for the moment the stick is in the water, it is bent? This goes against common sense and is a poor counter argument.
Outline a problem for Berkeley’s Idealism, that it leads to solipsism.
Berkley’s argument implies when we shut our eyes or go to sleep, the world disappears and then reappears when we next perceive it.
- This ignores the permanent perceiver, God. He perceives when there is no finite minds to.
But, a mind can only be aware of (and is possessors of) ideas - but not an idea itself. So, we cannot actually have an idea of what a mind is. So we cannot actually have an idea of God’s mind, nor any other mind.
And we have….solipsism. The view that only my mind exists is impractical and unhealthy.
Outline a problem for Berkley’s Idealism, the first problem with the role played by God.
NOTE:
- God is not a scapegoat. Berkley agrees with Locke and Russel that regularity and predictability of sense data implies external force. But since it cannot be matter, it must be a very powerful mind - God.
Counterpoint:
- Matter is a better explanation of our experience as it can better account for illusions and hallucinations.
Outline a problem for Berkley’s Idealism, the second problem with the role played by God.
Firstly:
P1 What we perceive is in the mind of God.
C1 Pain is in mind of God, he must feel pain.
P2 If he suffers pain, he is imperfect.
P3 God is defined as a perfect thing.
C2 Berkley’s view leads to a contradiction.
Secondly:
P1 Sensations are fleeting and changing.
P2 But God is eternal and unchanging.
P3 How can my changing perceptions come into existence if God is not unchanging.
C Berkeley’s view leads to a contradiction.
What is innatism?
The belief theory that individuals are born in possession of all knowledge, knowledge that can be justified independently of experience (a priori).
Innatists usually believe that this a priori knowledge is revealed to a person via reason.
What is empiricism?
The view that experience and evidence provides us with most, if not all, of our knowledge.
Outline Plato’s slave boy argument for innatism.
Plato’s view of knowledge is that innate ideas are “in us”, though we may not be aware of them. We can realise these innate ideas through reason and innate ideas provide timeless truths.
Meno’s slave:
P1 The slave boy has no prior knowledge of geometry.
P2 Socrates only asks him questions, he does not teach.
P3 After questioning, the boy can grasp eternal truth about geometry.
P4 Eternal truth did not come from prior experience, nor from Socrates.
C Eternal truth must have existed innately to begin with.
Overall, since Socrates only asked questions, knowledge could not have come from him and the boy had no prior experience. Through reason he accessed innate knowledge.
Evaluate Plato’s slave boy argument for innate knowledge.
Innate knowledge or reasoning?
Perhaps the slave is simply using reason to work out geometry. He appears to reason the answer to geometry. It appears more logical that he discovered truth via reason than he had innate knowledge which he unlocked through reasoning as we cannot look inside the slaves mind.
Outline Leibniz’s necessity of truth argument for innate ideas.
Distinction between two types of truth:
1. Contingent (general) truths
- A posteriori e.g the sun rises every day. Found via induction.
2. Necessary truths
- A priori e.g 2+3=5. Principles appear once prompted by senses but not derived from them.
P1 Senses only reveal general truths.
P2 Senses cannot reveal necessity of general truth.
P3 Our minds can see the necessity of some general truths.
C Our ability to see necessity of some truths is not derived from senses, but innate principles.
Outline Locke’s first empiricist argument against innatism, no universal assent. Evaluate it.
1) No universal assent
P1: Any innate idea (x), if its exists, would be universally held.
P2: Children and “idiots” do not have the idea of x.
P3: If an idea is held in the mind you must be aware of it.
C1: So x is not universally held.
C2: Therefore x is not innate.
Counter:
Leibniz, children and idiots DO have innate ideas, just that they can’t articulate the ideas in words.
Outline Locke’s second empiricist argument against innatism, transparency of ideas. Evaluate it.
2) Transparency of ideas
Our minds are transparent, we can see all thoughts in them. If you’ve never had an idea/thought, then how can it be “in” your mind?
Counter:
Perhaps there are ideas/memories “in” your mind you are unconscious of?
Outline Locke’s third empiricist argument against innatism, how to distinguish innate ideas from other ideas. Evaluate it.
3) How do we distinguish innate ideas from other ideas?
If some ideas are innate, and some gained from experience how can we even tell the difference? (Rationalism argument again).
Counter:
Leibniz says we can distinguish between the two as innate ideas are necessarily true.
Outline and evaluate the tabula rasa theory as an argument against innatism.
Tabula Rasa
All ideas and concepts are not innate, as knowledge is derived from senses/ experiences. Based of logical thinking and observation.
- Ockham’s razor explanation (if competing explanations explain some phenomenon equally well, go for the simpler one).
P1: Innatism claims ideas we are born with innate ideas.
P2: All of our ideas are shown to be derived from experience.
C: The theory of innate ideas is redundant.
Support:
- People born lacking a sense also lack the corresponding ideas.
- Thought experiment; imagine a new idea that is not ultimately derived from impressions have experienced.
Outline and apply Hume’s fork.
Hume’s account states something can only be knowledge if it is a “Relation of ideas” (revealed by reason) or if it’s a “Matter of fact”.
Prong 1: Relations of ideas
- Always true and known a priori by just thinking about the concept. A false one is a contradiction, so true by definition - analytic truth. e.g 2+2=4
Prong 2: Matters of fact
- Conceivably not always true. Generalisations about the world, substantial knowledge. Known a posteriori via experience. e.g Rishi Sunak is PM.
So, we can have analytic knowledge known a priori and synthetic knowledge known a posteriori. But NOT synthetic knowledge known a priori.
What is Rationalism?
The view that reason, by itself, can be a source of knowledge. They agree with Empiricists that analytic truths are a priori, but that there is also at least one synthetic truth that can be known a priori via reasoning.
For Descartes, they are:
- I exist
- God exists
- The external world exists
Outline Descartes definition of intuition.
A kind of mental seeing by which rational truths can be recognised. Descartes states the mind employs the faculty of intuition when it sees by the “light of reason” that (e.g) 2+2=4.
Outline Descartes definition of deduction.
A way in which one can derive true propositions from other true propositions.
Outline what Descartes means by clear and distinct ideas.
An idea is “clear” if it is very bright in the mind. An idea is “distinct” if it sharply separated from other ideas. So, a “clear and distinct” idea is one which is impossible of being false.
Outline and evaluate Descartes’ cogito argument.
P1 I am thinking.
P2 All thinking things exist.
C I exist.
- Even if the demon is deceiving him (global scepticism), there has to be something to deceive.
Counterpoint:
- Hume points out that we experience thoughts, but never a self…We cannot then deduce “I exist” from “I think”. We could just be a collection of disembodied thoughts created by an evil demon. No logical contradiction in “thought without thinker”.
- It is not a matter of fact as it conceivably not true. It is not a relation of ideas as it is not a contradiction for “thought without a thinker” to exist.
Outline and Descartes’ trademark argument as proof that “God exists” can be known a priori.
P1 The cause of something must be at least as perfect as the effect.
P2 My ideas must be caused by something.
P3 I’m an imperfect being.
P4 I have an idea of God, a perfect being.
C1 I cannot be the cause of my existence, only a perfect being can be the cause.
C2 God must exist.
Counterpoints:
- “P4” is incorrect, a perfect God is contradictory. Euthyphro dilemma, problem of the stone, issue of free-will.
- Causal principle does not work. “P1” is true for the physical world, but not the world of ideas. Our minds easily create better versions of real objects. So it is not an analytic truth as it is conceivably incorrect. So it cannot be known a priori, thus the argument is not fully a prior and fails.
Outline and Descartes’ contingency argument as proof that “God exists” can be known a priori.
P1 I cannot be the cause of my own existence as I would have created myself as perfect.
P2 Neither have I always existed, for then I would be aware of this.
P3 My parents may be the cause of my physical existence, but not of “me” as a thinking mind.
C By process of elimination, only God could have created “me”.
Counterpoints:
- Could we not have been created by a less than perfect being e.g evil scientist, demon, evolution.
- Would we have created ourselves with all perfections, and would be necessarily be aware of an eternal existence?
Outline and Descartes’ cosmological argument as proof that “God exists” can be known a priori.
P1 I have an idea of as a perfect being.
P2 A perfect being must have all perfections.
P3 Existence is a perfection.
C God exists.
Counterpoints:
- Gaunilo’s Island.
- Existence is not a predicate. Kant demonstrates there is no difference between the “idea of 100 gold coins” and the “idea of 100 existing gold coins”!
- Hume’s fork. “God exists” can only be a relation of ideas (known a priori) if the opposite is a contradiction. It is not so claims about anything’s existence will always be matters of fact.
Outline and evaluate Descartes’ argument that the existence of the external and material world can be known a priori.
P1 Sensations come from outside of me as they are not subject to my will, I perceive involuntarily.
P2 There are two possible sources: God or matter.
P3 If the origin is God, he is a deceiver as he has created me with a tendency to from false beliefs.
P4 But God is omnibenevolent and so not a deceiver.
C Sensation originates in matter.
Counterpoints:
- “P1”, sensations could come from inside of us. The issue of dreams, perceptions from inside our minds we cannot control.
- God might not exist, and if he doesn’t his argument fails. Even if he does exist, Euthyphro dilemma proves he is not omnibenevolent.
Describe the nature and purpose of philosophical scepticism.
An extreme form of scepticism in which things that are very tricky/ impossible to doubt are doubted by philosophers.
- e.g Are people emotionless zombies who respond to stimuli but have no sense of experience as we do.
It is used to test the strengths of philosophical claims.
Compare and distinguish between normal incredulity and philosophical scepticism.
Normal incredulity:
- Happens when ordinary evidence makes us challenge a particular belief.
- Is based in evidence and helps to ensure a particular belief is true and guides our actions.
- e.g Whether or not a wild mushroom is edible.
Philosophical scepticism:
- Happens when ordinary evidence makes a belief very likely to be true. Often involves highly unlikely (but conceivably possible) scenarios.
- Tests knowledge of grand claims, but is theoretical and does not often affect behaviour.
- e.g Does the world as we perceive it exist.
Describe the differences between local and global scepticism and the global application of philosophical scepticism.
Local scepticism:
- Concern some particular and restricted domain of knowledge, but do not cast doubt on knowledge as a whole.
Global scepticism:
- Raise doubt about all knowledge, such as “brain in a vat”. Knowledge in any area is as impossible, threaten to undermine a whole belief system.
Outline and evaluate Descartes’ three waves of doubt.
- Doubting the senses as they sometimes deceive us.
- Counterpoint: We can see that they are deceiving us because others seem accurate. We cannot doubt them all just because some trick us. - Dreaming is sometimes impossible to distinguish from reality, how can we tell if we are not always dreaming.
- Counterpoint: Relies on premise that he cannot distinguish between some dreams and real life. But if you know these dreams exist, they must be distinguishable. - Evil demon is tricking us about everything.
- Counterpoint: It makes no difference, if the demon is so powerful that there is no way for us to tell that the world does not exist, our life’s stay the same. The fake note argument.
Evaluate Descartes’ response to doubt.
- “Cogito ergo sum” is clear and distinct so beats evil demon.
- “Clear and distinct” is not clear enough, an application if correct is not clear. The argument itself CES is wrong. - God exists and he is kind so won’t make me perceive stuff incorrectly right? WRONG!!!
- God’s a dick (Euthyphro dilemma). Plus he probably does not exist. - The external world exists because God would not make me perceive falsely.
- WRONG.
Evaluate the empiricists’ response to doubt:
- Locke
We can’t see past the veil of perception, to reveal the essence of reality. But this does not mean giving up on the belief in the existence on an external world, even if scepticism is possible at the theoretical level. This is because the practical business of living is what matters, not the theoretical nature of scepticism.
Evaluate the empiricists’ response to doubt:
- Russel
Like Locke he appreciates we cannot prove the external world exists, but also that it does not exist.
Existence of an external world explains things logically, but the absence of anything external makes it tricky to explain much logically.
Evaluate the empiricists’ response to doubt:
- Berkeley
Scepticism thrives due to the gap between our perception and reality. By stating there is no external reality and that reality exists within the mind only - nothing is hidden and all is perceived directly. Thus Berkley defeats scepticism.
Evaluate Reliabilism as a response to doubt.
Reliabilism states one can have knowledge if it is reliably produced true belief, even if one does not have justification for it.
