Epistemology Flashcards
What is Apriori knowledge?
Knowledge that can be acquired independently of any experience
Argument from illusion?
Against direct realism
Disagrees with DR as we can be subject to illusions, which distort our perception of reality, meaning immediate objects of reality can’t be material objects
P1 When under an illusion, an object can appear to have a different property (Eg a “bent” straw in water)
P2 The perceiver is directly aware of this apparent property
P3 But the object doesn’t have this property in reality
C1 So what we perceive in comparison to the actual reality is different
C2 Which makes direct realism false as we need to make the distinction between what is apparent and what is real
What is the Primary/secondary Quality distinction?
For IR
Idea: Whatsoever the mind percieves in itself, or the immediate object of perception
Quality: The power to product any idea in our mind
Primary qualities (Shape, size, motion, position) are inseparable from an object, meaning however the object is altered, it must still retain some size, or position. Without these qualities, they wouldn’t be essential at all
P1: If you continually divide an object, the parts must retain the primary qualities even when they are to small to be percieved
P2: Therefore primary qualities exist mind independently
Secondary qualities are “powers” that produce a sensation in us, and they alter and vanish. Secondary qualities are dependent on primary qualities and require a mind to appear (eg. a pounded almond visibily changes, alongside its taste and colour, and if we block our senses its becomes null)
What is Berkeleys attack on Primary/secondary Quality distinction?
Attack IR
Berkeley wishes to establish that all properties are mind dependent, and attacks the distinction by trying to prove that primary qualities exist dependently
P1- Secondary qualities are subject to interpersonal perceptual variation (objects can have different tastes, colours) making them MD
P2- primary qualities are also subject to interpesonal PV (objects have different sizes, shapes)
C1- This makes primary qualities mind dependent
What is Innatism? (Including slave boy argument)
The claim that we’re born with knowledge
Plato believed this knowledge to be “printed on our souls at the point of existence”, and we have simply forgotten it
We can recollect this knowledge through a series of questions/reasoning (rationalism)
Slave boy argument (Argument that shows how to access these innate ideas)
P1)The slave has never been taught geometry
P2)Socrates simply asks questions, he doesn’t teach the slave anything
P3)After questioning, the slave manages to correctly answer Socrates’ question
P4)he now has a truth about geometry
C1)the truth didn’t derive from his own experience, so it must’ve been innate
What is no universal assent?
Locke’s attack on Innatism + 25 marker on experience
Attacks the idea of ideas being innate as they are held by the majority as
Children and idiots do not possess these innate principles
P1- Any innate ideas/concepts x would be universally held
P2- Children and idiiots do not have an ideas of x
P3- If an idea is held in the mind then you must be aware of it
C1- So x isn’t universally held
C2- Therefore x isn’t innate, concepts arent innate
What is JTB (tripartite view of knowledge)
For 25 marker: is knowledge JTB? 2015
S only knows P if and only if
S is justified in believing P
P is true
S believes that P
These conditions are jointly sufficient for knowledge
What is the gettier counter example (Lucky true belief)
For 25 marker: is knowledge JTB? 2015
Aims to disprove JTB by challenging the sufficiency of the tripariate definition, by showing how its possible to have JTB but not knowledge
P1)Smith and Jones want the same Job
P2)Smith has evidence of Jones getting the job (He’s told by the president of the company)
P3)He also sees that Jones has 10 coins in his pocket
P4)Smith forms the belief that the man with 10 coins in his pocket gets the job
P5)Smith ends up getting the job, and then finds out he has 10 coins in his pocket also
C1)Therefore JTB isn’t sufficient for knowledge
He didn’t have knowledge despite meeting all the criterias, he was lucky to have had 10 coins in his pocket
What is JTBN?
For 25 marker: is knowledge JTB? 2015
Lemma: premise that is accepted as true in an argument
Aims to strengthen JTB argument by adding an extra condition
P1) I believe Jones has 10 coins (He sees this)
P2) I believe jones will get the job(Is told this)
P3) I believe the person with 10 coins will get the job
P2) is a false lemma, it isn’t true as his belief is false (Jones doesn’t get the job, smith ends up getting it)
What is RTB
For 25 marker: is knowledge JTB? 2015
Aims to improve the JTB by replacing J with R (A reliable cognitive process)
Reliable cognitive process (Believing, reading from trust worthy sources, seeing up close)
P is true
S believes that P
S belief that P is formed by a reliable cognitive process
What is the fake barn county argument?
For 25 marker: is knowledge JTB? 2015
Aims to disprove reliabilism by showing how it incorrectly justifies knowledge
P1)In fake barn county, locals place up facades of barns
P2)Henry doesn’t know this as he drives through and thinks “these are barns”
P3)obviously, not knowledge as the beliefs aren’t true
P4)On one occasion he sees a real barn and thinks the same thing
P5)He’s justified through perception (Also a reliable cognitive process)
P6)it isn’t inferred through a false belief
C1)the belief is true
Shows his belief isn’t knowledge, he’s lucky. RTB would argue that Henry knows theres a barn, even though it was by luck making it false
Aquaintance, Ability and propersitional knowledge
Knowing of (I know of Oxford University)
Knowing how ( I know how to ride a bike)
Knowing that (Eg. I know that elephants are heavier than mice)
What is Berkleys Master argument?
Argues in favour of idealism and aims to show that it is a contradiction to claim we can concieve of mind independent objects as if one concieves of an object, its dependent on their mind
P1- Try to concieve of a tree which exists independently of any mind
P2- In doing so, the tree is being concived by you
C- Therefore the tree is in your mind and isn’t independent of any mind after all
Descartes cogito as an example of apriori intuition
The cogito is Descartes claim that he exists as a thinking thing, that is clear and distinct
P1- I am thinking
P2- All thinking things exist
C- Therefore I exist
Its an apriori intuition as it isn’t known through emprical observation/sense experience, and is a direct awareness of a truth discovered by thinking and reasoning only
What is Indirect realism?
for 12 marker how does it lead to scepticism
Mind independent objects exist in the external world, but we don’t directly percieve them
We perceive the world and physical objects indirectly through sense data(We are directly aware of this, these are appearances)
Indirect realism leading to scepticism
for 12 marker how does it lead to scepticism
P1-If we never directly perceive mind independent objects , our perceptual experiences cant give us evidence of them existing
P2-Our claims would then have to be inferred from claims about our sense data (ideas)
P3-The inference cant be justifed (even through experience or reason) as our senses can decieve us (eg. Brain in a vat, evil decieving demon)
C-Therefore the indirect realist cant know that there is any mind independent reality beyond what’s percieved
Locke’s response to IR lead to scepticism based on involuntary nature of existence
for 12 marker how does it lead to scepticism
Inductive argument
Locke argues that we aren’t in control of our sense data, and our sensations must be caused by something external
Eg. if he opens his eyes he will recieve sense data, not by choice
Having involuntary experiences suggest that they are caused by mind independent physical objects, since ideas are mind dependent and stem from our own imagination
What is Solipsism?
The belief that only my mind exists (no other minds exist, nor are there any mind independent objects/properties)
The only thing that is real mind/mental states, I alone exist as a thinking thing
its not possible for me to know the existence of anything apart from my mind/mental states
Existence of external world is the “best hypothesis” (Russell)
Against IR
A hypothesis that acknowledges that although we cannot prove for certain that external objects exist which cause our experiences, the existence of an external world is preferrable because
Its simpler, and accounts better for differences in percieved properties between multiple experiences (eg, a cat in one location, then in another, hungry and then not hungry) the best explanation of these experiences is caused by a mind independent cat that changes whilst unobserved
Our belief in an external world is instinctive, and shouldn’t be dropped unless a better alternative is available
Since it doesn’t lead to any difficulties, and simplifies our account for experiences, there isn’t a good reason for dropping it
What is Direct realism?
For 12 marker 2017
Direct realism is the belief that we immediately perceive mind independent physical objects, and our senses detect the properties of these objects
The objects retain these properties when unperceived
(eg. Leaving an apple in a drawer, it still retains its properties when forgotten about)
What is the Hallucination argument?
For 12 marker 2017
Hallucinations happen when humans perceive something mind-dependent (which doesn’t exist outside of their own mind)
P1 Hallucinations can be selectively indistinguishable from veridical perceptions (Truthful accurate representation)
P2 If they are subjectively indistinguishable, then they must be aware of the same thing in both cases
C1 This means that during veridical perception what we directly perceive is sense data
C2 meaning we perceive the world indirectly making direct realism false
What does Descarte mean by clear and distinct ideas?
An idea is clear if the content/truth of propersition is immediately accessible, indubitable, known with certainty, self evident/justified
An idea is distinct if one can distinguish the concept/propersition from others, and it cant be confused with other ones
These are apriori (known through thought/reason alone
Explain why there might be a problem with the role played by God in Idealism
Idealism: Immediate objects of perception are mind independent objects
Role of God in Idealism: Argued that God is the cause of our sensory ideas, Gods mind contains ideas when they aren’t percieved by us, God maintains the laws of nature, God is an ontological guarantor (Garuntees existence of objects which exist independent of our minds)
The problem: If God percives all and is the source of our sense experience, this means he is subject to sensations and cannot be perfect
P1- Berkley claims what we percieve is in the mind of God
C1- This follows from the idea that pain is in the mind of God, so God suffers pain
P2- If God suffers pain, he’s imperfect
P3-God is defined as a perfect being
C2- Therefore Berkleys views lead to a contradiction
Explain view that belief isn’t a necessary condition for knowledge
Radford example aims to prove belief isn’t necessary by equating knowledge with sucessful action rather than belief
P1: Imagine a person learns some information and forgets it
P2: They do a quiz and get a large amount correct even though they were guessing
C1- We could conclude that the person knows the answers even though they don’t believe anything that they said to be true
What is Philosophical scepticism
outline philo scepticism, explain how reliabilism responds (12)
Attempts to make doubtful all propersitions that we believe to be knowable
Position that one or more of our usual methods of justification for claiming that our believes amount to knowledge are inadequate, so we don’t have knowledge
Doubts all forms of knowledge/everything we think we know due to global sceptical scenarios
(Brain in a vat, evil demon)
How does reliabilism repsond to philosophical scepticism?
Reliabilism:
A belief is only true if and only if
S knows that p
P is true
S believes that p
S belief that P was produced by a reliable cognitive process (memory)
Responds to scepticism by claiming that the reliabalist is unaffected as they do not think having a justification is a necessary condition for knowledge. They are concerned as whether P was reliably produced rather than giving a justification that defeats scepticism P
Eg. Whether I know that theres a desk in front of me depends on if my belief is reliably formed
if caused by an demon, then it hasn’t been reliably formed and isn’t knowledge
If caused in ordinary way, there is knowledge that there is a desk
Difference between apriori and aposterori knowledge
apriori:Knowledge that can be acquired independently of any experience
aposterori: knowledge that cannot be acquired independently of experience
Explain the view that the mind is a tabula rasa at birth
+(25)are empiricists right to claim all concept come from experience
the claim that the mind is a tabula rasa at birth, is to claim that there aren’t any concepts nor knowledge in the mind at this point
Tabula rasa: blank slate
Our mind recieves impressions from the senses and turns these into ideas ( simple ideas of smell, brings idea of red, breaks into complex idea of unicorn
Claiming this is to deny the existence of innate concepts/knowledge
P1- Theory of innate ideas claims we are born with innate ideas
P2- All of our ideas can be shown to be derived of experience
C- Innate ideas is redundant
Explain Descartes 3rd wave of doubt
Undermines even the most basic of knowledge. (Doubting everything due to the possibility of an evil demon controlling his experience
Descarte imagines a scenario where an evil demon is able to deceive him about the existence of the physical world and his beliefs
P1-It is possible that there is a demon continuously decieving me and all my perception of the external world and reasoning (eg maths)
P2-In order to know that P, I must rule out the possibility
P3- I can’t rule out this possibility as regardless of it being true or false, my experience/beliefs stay the same
C: Therefore I can’t know anything (global scepticism)
What is VTB
(12) explain how VTB can show why smith lacks knowledge in gettier count
Vtb argues S knows P if and only if
P is true
S believes that P
S belief in P is as a result of S successfully exercising intellectual virtues
In case of gettier counter example, Smiths beliefs do not count as knowledge as his success is the result of luck and not his intellectual virtue: His belief is true, but only because he has 10 coins, and he gets the job
Leibniz response to Universal assent
for 25 marker on experience
Disagrees with P2: chidlren and idiots do possess innate principles in their everyday actions , even if not articulated
Innate ideas (Leibniz)
for 25 marker: do we have innate knowledge
Claim that the human mind can gain knowledge through reason alone, and that we have innate ideas
Aims to prove innatism correct through necessary truths: truths revealed by reason and not senses (math)
P1- Senses only reveal general truths
P2-Senses cant reveal the necessity of general truth
P3- Minds can see the necessity of some general truths
C- Our ability to do this isn’t derived from senses, but innate principles
Reply-Tabula rasa
What is Perceptual variation?
(25) is direct realism convincing
Argues DR is false as appearance of physical objects vary depending on the conditions in which they are percieved
P1- DR claims immediate objects of perception are material objects and their properties
P2- When we percieve these, the appearance can vary (A table appears to have difference sizes depending on the angle)
P3- So the properties of the objects can vary
C- Making DR false as the apparent properties are not the same as the real properties of objectsd
What is Relational properties
25 is DR convincing
A relational property is a property that something has in relation to something else (eg. being to the north of)
P1-DR claims when perceiving physical objects, some we perceive are relational while others are not
P2- The object doesn’t change, but the perceiver
C- Therefore the relational property changes, not the object
Response to PV and illusion/hallucination
Idealism leading to solipsism
for 25 marker is idealism convincing
P1-Solipsism is the view that only ones mind exists, there are no other minds and no mind independent objects
P2-Idealism argues that mind independent objects do not exist, and everything we percieve is mind dependent
P3-This would mean that nothing exists beyond our own experience, including other minds
C1-Therefore idealism leads to solipsism
Response: Role of God
Berkeley response to idealism leading to solipsism
for 25 marker is idealism convincing
Berkeley doesnt claim that things can only exist in ones mind, but they must exist in some mind
Claiims God is a permanent perciever of the universe when no human is perciving it, and this is how objects retain their permanence
Hallucination and Illusion issue for Idealism
for 25 marker is idealism convincing
Idealism says all physical things depend on the mind
Illusions occur when our mind depnedent sesnes data misleads us about a mind independent reality
Hallucinations occur when there is notihng in realit corresponding with sense data
If there isn’t a mind independent reality, illusions and hallucinatiosn are no different from veridical perceptions, which doesnt fit our common sense
Berkeley response to Hallucination and Illusion
for 25 marker is idealism convincing
when subject to an illusion, im not mistaken about the actual sense data, and is indistinguishable from hallucinations
we regard them as illusionary as they incline us to make false inferences about the real world
judging on the basis of these things causes an error ( tryng to take a dagger out of thin air)
Necessary truth
Statements that have to be true
Impossible to be false
Descartes 1st wave of doubt
Illusion
Descarte can doubt the realiability of his senses as they have decieved him in the past (Pencil in water appears bent) the fact that this can happen is enough evidence to suggest that he should doubt his senses
Descartes 2nd wave of doubt
Dreaming
Everything that you perceive can be false, because when dreamiong, your perceptions are imaginary and you believe they are real
Descarte argues that basic ideas are common in dreams and reality though: geometry/math, which are the only things that are safe
Mackies argument from relativity
Challenges moral realism- Aims to show that it isn’t subjective and is incorrect as there isn’t any moral propeties that exist independently of us
P1-There are differences in moral codes in different societies
P2-Accompanying these differences from society to society are disagreements between people and moral codes
P3-These happen because there’s an objective truth about the matter, but peoples opinions are disorted
P4-Moral disagreements may occur between people because there are objective moral values but peoples perceptions are disorted
C-The best explanation of moral disagreements is that there are no objective moral values
