Epistemology

Question 0

What does this mean? What does Plato want to say with the allegory of the cave?

Answer 0

We sit in front of TV screen/ Facebook or our smartphones like the men on plato’s cave
We human beings take our lives and our perceptions and the world around us for granted instead of questioning it
We believe in what we are told by mass media, opinion leaders, mainstream thinking
Philosophy is the release from our prejudices and naive views on the world
But many people prefer to stay in cave, which is familiar and convenient

Question 1

Plato’s allegory of the cave

Answer 1

The cave

Cave inhabited by prisoners
Chained and held immobile since childhood
Compelled to gaze at a wall in front of them
Enormous fire behind prisoners
Between fire and prisoners, people walk carrying things
Prisoners cannot see the people walking, but watch the shadows, not knowing they are shadows
Prisoners would take the shadows to be real things
They would praise as clever, whoever could best guess which shadow comes next

The release
One prisoner is freed
He would believe the shadows on the wall to be more real than what he sees
After some time on the surface the freed prisoner would acclimate and see more and more things
He would understand that sun is the source of all light
He would understand that the shadows were merely shadows and not real things
He would consider himself happy and his fellow prisoners pitiable

The return
Would he return, he would be rather bad at the games of his fellow prisoners
It would be said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted
The fellow prisoners would conclude that it is not worth trying to go up
The prisoners, ignorant of the world behind them, would see the freed man with his corrupted eyes and be afraid of anything but what they already know

Question 2

What is epistemology?

Answer 2

Epistemology is one of the core areas of philosophy. It is concerned with the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. Epistemology has been primarily concerned with propositional knowledge, that is, knowledge that such-and-such is true, rather than other forms of knowledge, for example knowledge how to such-and-such. There is a vast array of views about propositional knowledge, but one virtually universal presupposition is that knowledge is true belief, but not mere true belief. For example, lucky guesses are not knowledge. Thus, a central question in epistemology is : what must be added to true beliefs to convert them into knowledge? (Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy )

Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: what are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is the structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: how are we to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one’s mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry.( Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy)

Question 3

Three questions of epistemology

Answer 3

What is knowledge? Stanford definition of knowledge 
Belief
Truth
Justification 
(But what is truth?) 

Is knowledge possible? 
Two basic answers
No! Skepticism
Yes! Non-skeptic approaches 
(Can we know?) 

What are the sources of knowledge?
Two basic answers 
Brain / thinking/ reason - rationalism 
Senses/ observation - empirism  
( where does knowledge come from?)

Question 4

A useful model

Answer 4

Perception of the world 
World 2
Erscheinung (phenomenon) 
Perzeptionswirklichkeit 
(Reality as we perceive it) 

Weltbildapparat
Perception tools

Karl Popper
Immanuel Kant
Werner Patzelt

External world 
World one 
Ding an sich (Thing in itself) 
Operationswirklichkeit
(Reality in which we operate)

Question 5

Comprehensive definition of science

Answer 5

Science is
Such human behavior (values, interests, irrationality, emotions)
That aims at ( intentions, possibility of failure)
The phrasing of statements about reality that .. ( results of scientific research are always statements about the world)
Are logically consistent ( logically consistency, validity of conclusion)
True, and ( empirical truth/ but: what does true mean?)
Reflect their Perspectivity, selectivity, and normativity.( this is the most important difference to common sense statements)
Science and research are about creating knowledge!

Question 6

What is knowledge?

What does it mean, if you say.. “I know..”?

Answer 6

S
Actor/ agent
Somebody who knows something

Knows that..

P
Proposition
A statement about reality, that can be true or false
Fact: “the kind of thing that makes a proposition true or false ( B. Russel)

Question 7

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for “knowledge”?

Answer 7

Necessary condition
A necessary condition for some state of affairs S is a condition that must be satisfied in order for S to obtain.
For example, a necessary condition for getting credit points in this class is that students pass the exam. This means that if a student does not pass the exam, then he will not get the credit points. If not b then not a

Sufficient condition
A sufficient condition for some state f affairs s is a condition that, if satisfied, guarantees that S obtains.
For example, a sufficient condition for a wet street is rain. This means that if it is raining, then the street is wet.

If a then b

Question 8

The standard definition of knowledge

Originally by Plato

Answer 8

A knows that p of and only if

S thinks / believes that P
belief(otherwise ignorance)

P is true
Truth ( otherwise error)

S can adduce adequate support to his opinion that p.
Justification (otherwise: simple belief)

Three necessary conditions for knowledge! The conjunction is a sufficient condition for knowledge.

Question 9

Two problems of knowledge

Answer 9

Belief
Everybody knows what it means to belief something
I believe that Warsaw is the capital of Poland. (No problem)

Truth
What is truth? What does true mean?
How can I know that p is true? (Circular reasoning)

Justification
Under which circumstances is s justifies to believe that p?
Problem of justification

Question 10

What is truth?

Answer 10

Four theories of truth

Correspondence
Classical approach
Tarski

Coherence

Consensus
Habermas
Pierce

Other approaches
Pragmatic approaches
Evidence
Redundancy

Question 11

Correspondence theory of truth

Answer 11

Basic statement: a belief is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact.

Thomas aquinas: truth is adaequatio intellectus et rei
Aristotle: “ to say that (either) that which is, is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is, is and that which is not is not, is true.”
Modern philosophers of science “p” is true if there is a fact that corresponds with p. P is true if it describes reality adequately.
Relation between a statement and objects.

This seems to be very plausible but

A: p!
B: is p really true? 
A: p corresponds to the fact p
= q
B: is q really true? 
A: q corresponds to the fact q 

Tarski: p is true if and only if p
No relation between proposition and reality but rather between two propositions: metaproposition and proposition on the object level.

Question 12

Coherence theory of truth

Answer 12

Basic statement: a belief is true if and only if it is coherent to beliefs that are already established

Criterium: consistency with an established system of belief

Difference to correspondence theory of truth: according to the coherence theory, the truth conditions of propositions consist in other propositions. The correspondence theory, in contrast, states that the truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world.

Key problem: a belief can be consistent with all our other beliefs and yet have no independent supporting evidence.

Question 13

Consensus theory of truth

Answer 13

Basic statement: a belief is true if and only if it is consensus among people/ experts.

Two sub-types:

1. Consensus among people (in an ideal discourse) Jürgen Habermas
2. Consensus among experts: Charles s Peirce

Key problem: a belief can be consensus among people - but still wrong

Problem: sometimes unreasonable beliefs work. A Tribe might believe that human sacrifice brings their crops back each years the crops do come back after human sacrifice , but not because of human sacrifice.

Question 14

Other theories of truth

Answer 14

Redundancy theory of truth:
Asserting that a statement is true is completely equivalent to asserting the statement itself. Example: snow is white is true is completely equivalent to asserting the sentence snow is white. We do not need to use the word true. But: how can we distinguish between true and false, then? (Gottlob Frege)

Pragmatic theory of truth
A statement is true if it allows you to interact effectively and efficiently with the world. The less true a belief is, the less it facilitates such interaction.
Example: my belief that inanimate objects do not spontaneously get up and move about is true because it makes my world more predictable and this easier to live in. It works. (William James)

evidence theory of truth
A statement is true if it is self-evident!

Question 15

What does condition “justification of knowledge” mean? Why do we need it?

Short discussion: isn’t it enough to define knowledge as true belief?

Answer 15

Imagine S playing roulette.
S believes that he will win the next game (because I have lost the last 20 games and one has to win once..) and s actually wins the next game.

Did s know that he will win?

We need good reasons to believe that p. Otherwise it is not knowledge.
But unfortunately that is still it the end of the story

Question 16

The famous gettiers problem

Answer 16

Suppose that smith and jones have applied for a certain job
And suppose that smith has strong evidence for the following conjunctive proposition:
A) jones is the man who will get the job and jones has ten coins in his pocket.

Smiths evidence for a) might be that the president of the company assured him that jones would in the end be selected and that he, smith, had counted the coins in jones’ pocket ten minutes ago.

Proposition a) entails
B) the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.
Let us suppose that smith sees the entailment from a) to b) and accepts b) on the grounds of a) for which he has strong evidence.

But imagine, further that unknown to smith, he himself, not jones, will get the job. And also unknown to Smith, he himself has ten coins in his pocket.

So does smith know that b)?

Question 17

Solution: the famous “gettiers problem”

Answer 17

Proposition b) is then true, though proposition a) from which smith inferred b) is false

In our example,then, all the following statements are true
1. B) is true
2. Smith believes that b) is true and
3. Smith is justified in believing that b) is true
According to the standard definition of knowledge, smith knows that b)!
At the same time we do have the feeling that smith does not know that b) is true…

Question 18

Knowledge is impossible! A short introduction into the Agrippa’s trilemma

Answer 18

B really wants to know, whether a knows that p.
B is justified in asking for proof.
Which possibilities does a have to proof that she knows that p?

P
Do you really know that p is true?
I know that p 
Give me some proof, that p is true
Q
Do you really know that q is true?
I know that q
Give me some proof that q is true
R
.....

Question 19

Agrippa’s trilemma

Answer 19

Circular argument:
Q is given as proof for P
P is given as proof for q
A repeats himself at some point

Axiomatic argument
Q is given as proof for p
No more proof is given, because a states that q is an axiom / dogma
A refuses to give more proof

Regressive argument
Q is given as proof for p, r is given as proof for q etc. ad infinitum
A keeps giving proofs forever

Question 20

Only three options when providing proof for a statement

Answer 20

Circular argument
A repeats himself at some point.
But maybe both arguments are wrong? Neither a nor b will ever know whether p is true or false.

Axiomatic argument
A refuses to give more proof.
But maybe the axiom/ dogma is false? Neither a not b will ever know whether p is true or false!

Regressive argument
A keeps giving proof forever. But neither a not b will ever (in time) know whether p is true or false.

Knowledge is impossible!

Question 21

Two sources of knowledge

Answer 21

Empiricists hold that all of our knowledge is ultimately derived from our senses or our experiences. Empirism..

• Denies the existence of innate knowledge , I. E. Knowledge that we possess from birth
• Fits well with the scientific world-view that places an emphasis on experimentation and observation
• struggles, however to account for certain types of knowledge, e.g. Knowledge of pure mathematics, ethics.

Rationalists hold that at least some of our knowledge is derived from reason alone, and that reason plays an important role in the acquisition of all of our knowledge.

• there is clearly a limit to what we can learn through abstract thought
• but reason plays a role in observation, and so that the mind is more fundamental than the senses in the process of knowledge acquisition

Question 22

Empirism: knowledge through observation

Answer 22

Event/ fact in external world

Direct perception (qualia)
Ex.
Asymmetric red ring with fringes grey lines on white background
Blue object on green background

Context/ theories/ pre-existing knowledge
I am looking at a white table cloth where I was drinking red wine before
Map with symbols for postal offices
Urban construction plan with symbols for houses
Limited background knowledge about biology
Detailed knowledge about flora in Central Europe

Interpretation (event/ fact in our perception) 
Wine spot 
Symbol for postal office (letter) 
Symbol for house (rooftop)
blue flower, gentian

Question 23

So, even observation requires interpretation!

Answer 23

1. We do not only observe facts, but we interpret them
   2.Interpretation requires pre-existing knowledge
2. Any observation (with our senses) therefore includes two parts
   A passive part (eg sensation on our retina)
   An active part ( a comparison of this sensation with pre-existing sense-data, interpretation,Classification)

Question 24

Rationalism : knowledge through reasoning

Answer 24

Basic assumption: reason is the most important source of knowledge
Most important modern rationalist:!rene Descartes

His argument goes as followed
How can I be sure about something?
There are only two possible sources of knowledge: sense experience and reason!
But sense experience may be the result of illusions. We may even dream that we have sense experiences. Therefore sense experience itself can be doubtable
Truth should be gained without any sensory experience. By intuition and deduction!
But we need to be careful here as well, since it might be that an evil God may mislead our reasoning.
Still, there are some things, that cannot be doubted: cogito ergo sum ( I think, therefore I am”) doubting one’s own existence proves that an I exists that doubts this existence.
This is a conclusion reached a priori (prior to any sense experience)

Question 25

Two types of reasoning:

Deduction and induction

Answer 25

Deductive reasoning
A researcher works from the more general information to the more specific
Also called the top-down approach
Theory-hypothesis- observation
Deductive statements are perfectly logical statements
Basic structure: premises - conclusion
Example: all men must die- I will die
Different types of rules of inference
- modus ponens
- modus tollens
Argument can be valid or invalid statements( eg premises or conclusions) can be true or false
Truth: see above
Validity: conclusion is logically entailed by its premises and each step on the argument is logical

Inductive reasoning
A researcher works from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories lap called a bottom up approach
Observation- detection of patterns and regularities - theory
Observation 1, observation 2.. - conclusion
Example: today, I left for work at eight and I arrived on time. Therefore, every day that I leave the house at eight, I will arrive at work on time.
Commonly used in science, but logically not a valid argument
Most scientific statements are based on inductive reasoning!

Question 26

Aristotelian syllogism as examples for valid deductive reasoning

Answer 26

The structure of an argument 
Classical syllogisms consist of 3 statements ( "categorical propositions") 
1. Major premise
2. Minor premise
3. Conclusion 

Four types of categorical propositions

1. Universal affirmatives (all s are p)
2. Universal negatives ( no s is p)
3. Particular affirmatives (some s are p)
4. Particular negatives (some s are not p)

Example
Major premise: all men are mortal
Minor premise: all Greek are men
Conclusion: all Greek are mortal

Question 27

The square of opposition

Answer 27

All men are black 
All s are p 
-contrary 
No man is black 
No s is p 
- subaltern 
Some men are not black 
Some s are not p 

Some men are black
Some s are p

Question 28

Truth of a statement vs validity of an argument

Answer 28

Major premise: all men are immortal (all s are m)minor premise : all students of IR are men (all g are s)

Conclusion : all students of IR are immortal - valid !

Validity
An argument is valid, if (and only if) it does not entail a logical contradiction (a is true and a is not true). Such a logical contradiction follows from a situation, where the premises are true and the conclusion is false.