epistemology 3 markers Flashcards
gettier case
an example that shows the 3 conditions not to be jointly sufficient (JTB)
(false) lemma
a (false) proposition that you rely on as part of your justification of another proposition
ability knowledge
knowing how to perform an action
acquaintance knowledge
knowing X by experience of X
propositional knowledge
knowing that a proposition is true or false
virtue epistemology
the view that S knows P if and only if; S is justified in believing it, its true and it is truth apt
infalibilism
belief must be infallibly justified (without doubt)
no false lemmas theory
knowledge is justified if an only if; its justified, true, you believe it and the justification doesn’t involve a false belief
reliabilism
belief must be caused by a reliable cognitive process, must be true and have belief
tripartite view of knowledge
the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge are; JTB
global scepticism
the view that we can extend doubt without limit; that none of our usual forms of justification for our beliefs are adequate
local scepticism
the view that we can extend doubt to all beliefs of a specific type (e.g. those about the past); none of our usual forms of justification for certain kinds of beliefs are adequate.
philosophical scepticism
something that’s generated by philosophers as a tool to uncover what we can know
normal incredulity
your normal, natural everyday doubts
impressions
experiences - they are “forceful and vivid”.
ideas
caused by impressions and are “copies of impressions” that we can recall later - they are (normally) less forceful and duller than impressions.
berkley’s idealism
The immediate objects of perception (ie ordinary objects such as tables, chairs, etc) are mind-dependent objects.
direct realism
The view that (a) mind-independent material/physical objects and their properties exist and (b) we perceive them immediatel;y (i.e. without any intermediaries/sense data)
hallucination
It seems to you as if there is an object that has some properties. But there is NO suitable mind-independent object with these properties
illusion
A mind-independent object exists. It seems to you as if an object has a particular property. But the mind-independent object does not have this property
indirect realism
The immediate objects of perception are mind-dependent objects (sense-data) that are caused by and represent mind-independent objects
perceptual variation
A mind-independent object exists. The mind-independent object’s properties do not change in a certain respect. But, it seems to you as if the properties do change in that respect. The changes occur because of changes in the perceiver or in the relationship between the perceiver’s body and the object.
primary quality
powers of mind-independent objects to cause IDEAS in our minds which resemble the actual inherent properties of the object eg number, extension, motion, shape, solidity.
secondary qualities
powers in the mind-independent objects to cause IDEAS in our minds which do not resemble the the actual inherent properties of the object eg colour, taste, smell, sound, texture.
solipsism
the view that the only mind that exists is your own
time-tag
the view that the process of perception always requires more than zero time to take place.
a priori deduction/argument
An argument in which a conclusion is inferred validly from a priori knowledge
a priori intuition
Belief which is (1) non-inferentially justified (you do not infer an intuition FROM something else that you believe; you just believe it immediately without needing to argue for it) and (2) a priori / ‘rational’ (i.e. justified without the need for experience/s)
clear and distinct idea
It is CLEAR = the truth of the belief is immediately accessible through thought (it is “clear” to me). It is DISTINCT = I can distinguish it from other truths (I won’t confuse it with other things).
empiricism
The view that (a) all of our concepts are ultimately derived from sense experience (so there are no innate concepts) and (b) all of synthetic knowledge is ultimately derived from sense experience (i.e. it is a posteriori) (so there is no innate knowledge, and no synthetic a priori knowledge).
hume’s fork
All knowledge is either (a) knowledge of matters of fact (which are a posteriori, contingent and synthetic) or (b) knowledge of relations of ideas (which are a priori, necessary and analytic).
innatism
The claim that (at least some) concepts/truths exist within the mind at the moment that it exists - they are not caused to be there by experience. Minds are not “tabula rasas”/blank slates.
intuition and deduction thesis
All knowledge is either: (a) justified non-inferentially by a priori intuition or (b) justified inferentially through a priori deduction from these a priori intuitions using sound arguments
meno’s paradox
Either you know what you’re looking for or you don’t know what you’re looking for.
If you know what you’re looking for, inquiry is unnecessary.
If you don’t know what you’re looking for, inquiry is impossible.
Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible.
innate knowledge thesis
We have knowledge of at least some truths as part of our rational nature which (a) are “discovered”/”uncovered”/”recollected”, (b) are not “intuited”/”deduced” and (c) are not, and could not be, justified by experience and so are a priori (though experience might ‘trigger’ our discovery of them)
innate concepts thesis
We have at least some concepts as part of our rational nature which (a) are “discovered”/”uncovered”/”recollected” and (b) are not, and could not be, based (directly or indirectly) on experience and so are a priori (though experience might ‘trigger’ our discovery of them)
simple concepts
(a) are phenomenally simple/ ‘uncompounded’ so cannot be analysed in terms of other concepts and (b) are the effects or copies of impressions (Hume) or of reality (Locke).
complex concepts
(a) can be analysed in terms of other concepts and (b) need not be a copy of anything that exists.
tabula rasa
The claim that the mind is a ‘tabula rasa’ is the claim that no concepts/truths exist within the mind at the moment that it exists.
cogito
“I exist” - an indubitable, non-inferentialy justified a priori intuition which (according to Descartes) is the foundation of one’s other knowledge and survives sceptical doubt.
epistemology
The area of philosophy that examines the source, the limits and the nature of our concepts/knowledge
external world
The sum total of all mind-independent objects and their properties.
