Epistemology Flashcards
Explain the distinction between acquaintance knowledge, ability knowledge and propositional knowledge.
Acquaintance knowledge is knowledge of. (i.e. I know James).
Ability knowledge is knowledge how. (I.e. I know how to ride a bike).
Propositional knowledge is knowledge that (I.e. I know that Paris is the capital of France).
What are Zagzebski’s four pitfalls to avoid when giving a definition?
- Circular. This means they should not include the term being defined.
- Obscure. The terms in any definition should not be more obscure than the original term.
- Negative. Defining a term by what it is not does not help.
- Ad hoc. This means coming up with a definition that is specific to meeting a particular problem.
Define ‘individually necessary’ and ‘jointly sufficient’.
An individually necessary condition is something that you need in order to have the thing in question. Sufficient conditions, when met, mean that you will always have the thing in question.
Explain the Tripartite view of knowledge.
Propositional knowledge is defined as justified true belief: S knows that p if and only if:
S is justified in believing that p,
p is true and
S believes that p
(these conditions are individually necessary and jointly sufficient)
State two criticisms of the Tripartite view of knowedge.
The conditions are not individually necessary.
The conditions are not sufficient – cases of lucky true beliefs (Gettier’s original two counter-examples)
Give an example of where ‘belief’ is not necessary for knowledge.
Some equate knowledge more with a sucsessful action than a belief. For example, if you hesitantly get the answer correct to a quiz question (having been taught it correctly, but do not remember being taught). In this case you might have known it even if you didn’t believe it.
Explain the distinction between the correspondence & coherence theories of truth.
Correspondence: This theory says that truth consists in a correspondance between a claim and the relevant fact.
Coherence: The coherence theory of truth has different varieties, but one kind proposes that a belief is true if it is one of the web of beliefs held by a society to be true.
Give an example of where ‘truth’ is not necessary for knowledge.
According to the coherence theory of truth, what is true is relative to the beliefs of society at that time. This allows for views like ‘the earth is flat’ to count as knowledge when it was a dominant theory in society. ‘Truth’ as we know it now may not be a condition of knowledge of the past.
Give an example of where ‘justification’ is not necessary for knowledge.
John has a rare gift. If you give him any date in the future he is able to tell you what day of the week it’ll be. This is a case of true belief without justification. However, John is very reliable. (See Reliabilism).
Outline Gettiers first original counterexample.
- 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 10 coins from his pocket
- Smith thus forms the belief that “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket”
- But Smith gets the job, not Jones
- Then Smith looks in his pocket and, by coincidence, he also has 10 coins in his pocket
Smith’s belief “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket” is:
- Justified: he hears the interviewer say Jones will get the job and he sees that Jones has 10 coins in his pocket
- *True: *the man who gets the job (Smith) does indeed have 10 coins in his pocket.
But despite being a justified true belief, we do not want to say that Smith’s belief counts as knowledge because it’s just luck that led to him being correct.
Outline Gettiers second original counterexample.
- Smith has a justified belief that “Jones owns a Ford”
- So, Smith forms the further justified belief that “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona”
- Smith thinks his belief that “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” is true because the first condition is true (i.e. that Jones owns a Ford)
- But it turns out that Jones does not own a Ford
- However, by sheer coincidence, Brown is in Barcelona
So, Smith’s belief that “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” is:
- True: “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” turns out to be true. But Smith thought it was true because of the first condition (Jones owns a Ford) whereas it turns out it is true because of the second condition (Brown is in Barcelona)
- Justified: The original belief “Jones owns a Ford” is justified, and so disjunction introduction means that the second belief “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” is also justified.
But despite being a justified true belief, it is wrong to say that Smith’s belief counts as knowledge, because it was just luck that led to him being correct.
What are the four post-Gettier definitions of knowledge?
Strengthen the justification condition (ie infallibilism)
Add a ‘no false lemmas’ condition (J+T+B+N)
Replace ‘justified’ with ‘reliably formed’ (R+T+B) (ie reliabilism)
Replace ‘justified’ with an account of epistemic virtue (V+T+B).
Explain the ‘no false lemmas’ definition of knowledge.
JTB + N says that James has knowledge of P if:
P is true
James believes that P
James’s belief is justified
James did not infer that P from anything false
This avoids the problems of Gettier cases because Smith’s belief “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket” is inferred from the false lemma “Jones will get the job”.
Outline an issue with the ‘JTB + N’ definition of knowledge.
Fake Barn County:
- In ‘fake barn county’, the locals create fake barns that look identical to real barns.
- Henry is driving through fake barn county, but he doesn’t know the locals do this.
- Henry often thinks “there’s a barn” when he looks at the fake barns.
- However, on one occasion Henry looks at the one real barn and thinks “there’s a barn”
- This time the belief is true
- It’s also justified by his visual perception of the barn
- And it’s not inferred from anything false.
According to the no false lemmas definition, Henry’s belief is knowledge. But this shows that the no false lemmas definition must be false. Henry’s belief is clearly not knowledge – he’s just lucky in this instance.
Explain the reliabilist definition of knowledge.
Reliabilism says James knows that P if:
P is true
James believes that P
James’s belief that P is caused by a reliable method
A reliable method is one that produces a high percentage of true beliefs.
Suggest an advantage of the reliabilist definition of knowledge.
An advantage of reliabilism is that it allows for young children and animals to have knowledge. All the other definitions of knowledge considered here imply that animals and young children can not have knowledge. For example, a seagull or a baby can’t justify its beliefs and so justified true belief rules out seagulls and young babies from having knowledge.
However, both young children and animals are capable of forming beliefs via reliable processes, e.g. their eyesight, and so according to reliabilism are capable of possessing knowledge.
Outline an issue with the reliabilist definition of knowledge.
Fake barn county again. Henery has perfect eyesight , good memory etc. and so forms his beleif via a reliable method. But it still isn’t knowledge because it’s still just lucky that he’s right this time.
Explain the infallibilist definition of knowledge.
Infallibilism argues that for a belief to count as knowledge, it must be true and justified in such a way as to make it certain beyond rational doubt.
So, even though Smith has good reasons for his beliefs in the Gettier case, they’re not good enough to provide certainty. Certainty, to philosophers like Descartes, means the impossibility of doubt.
Outline an issue with the infallibilist definition of knowledge.
Too strict! By this definition we can’t know “grass is green” or “London is the capital of England” even though we clearly do know such things. In other words, certainty of doubt is not necessary for knowledge.
Explain Linda Zagzebski’s argument against ‘true beleif + x’ definitions.
Philosopher Linda Zagzebski argues that definitions of knowledge of the kind we have looked at so far (i.e. ‘true belief + some third condition’) will always fall victim to Gettier-style cases. She provides a formula for constructing such Gettier cases to defeat these definitions:
- Start with a situation where there is a belief that fits the definition (‘true belief + some third condition’) but is false due to bad luck
- Then change the situation to one where the belief fits that definition (‘true belief + some third condition’) but is true due to good luck
- In the second case, the belief will still fit the definition (‘true belief + some third condition’) because it’s basically the same as the first case
- But the second case won’t be knowledge, because it’s only true due to luck
Explain Zagzebski’s definition of knowledge.
Zagzebski’s analysis of knowledge is that James knows that P if:
James believes that P
James’s belief that P arises from an act of intellectual virtue
Acting with intellectual virtue is acting with the correct motivation (e.g. you want to find the truth) and succeeding by utilising intellectual virtues. (i.e. your belief turns out to be true because you acted virtuously).
Explain Sosa’s definition of AAA & knowledge.
Sosa argues that the following key elements are essential in defininf knowledge. Beliefs with all three are Triple A (AAA) rated.
- Accuracy: the belief is true
- Adroitness: the believer is intellectually virtuous and has used their virtues effectively.
- Aptness: The belief is true because of the believer’s intellectual virtues.
Sosa goes on to define knowledge as ‘apt belief’. For a belief to be apt, it must also be accurate (true) and adroit (formed in a virtuous mind), however it must be accurate because the believer is adroit.
How does Sosa’s definition of knowledge respond to fake barn county?
Sosa’s virtue epistemology could (correctly) say Henry’s belief “there’s a barn” in fake barn county would not qualify as knowledge because it is not apt. He only formed the true belief as a result of luck, not because he used his intellectual virtues.
Outline an issue with virtue epistemology.
Animals and children. If virtue epistemology is the correct definition, it is hard to see how a seagull or a newly born baby could possess intellectual virtues of care about forming true beliefs and thus possess knowledge.