Epistemology I - Analysis and possibility of knowledge

Question 1

Belief condition

Answer 1

S knows that p only if S believes that p

So: belief is a necessary belief for knowledge

Question 2

Brain In a Vat

Answer 2

Skeptical alternative that you do not know you have hands because it is possible that all you are is not a person of flesh and bones, but rather a Brain In Vat stimulated in such a way as to have all your experiences

Question 3

Cartesian skepticism

Answer 3

Defining skeptical problems in terms of skeptical alternatives

Question 4

Causal analysis

Answer 4

S knows that p if and only if:
(1) S believes that p
(2) p is true
(3) the fact that p is causally connected in an appropriate way in S’s belief that p

Question 5

Closure

Answer 5

If S knows that p, and p rules out q, then S knows that q is ruled out

Question 6

Contextualism

Answer 6

View that if a skeptical alternative q is contextually salient, S doesn’t know that p

Question 7

Defeater

Answer 7

True proposition q, such that if S were justified in believing that q, S would not be justified in believing that p

Question 8

Epistemic luck

Answer 8

It is accidental/coincidental/fortuitous that S has a true belief that p

Question 9

Epistemic subject

Answer 9

Person or group that believes or knows that p

Traditionally represented with S

Question 10

Epistemology

Answer 10

Domain of theoretical philosophy that deals with the kinds, analysis, possbility, structure, value, sources and dimensions of knowledge

Question 11

Gettier problem

Answer 11

The traditional analysis of knowledge in terms of justified true belief is lacking because there are cases in which justified belief can stem from epistemic luck

Question 12

Justification condition

Answer 12

S knows that p only if S’s belief that p is justified

So: justification is a necessary condition of knowledge

Question 13

No defeaters analysis

Answer 13

S knows that p if and only if
(1) S believes that p
(2) p is true
(3) p is justified for S
(4) There is no true proposition q such that, if S were justified in believing that q, S would not be justified in believing that p

Question 14

No false lemmas analysis

Answer 14

S knows that p if and only if
(1) S believes that p
(2) p is true
(3) p is justified for S
(4) S’s ground for believing p does not include any false proposition q

Question 15

Relativism about truth

Answer 15

View that there are no absolute truths -> truth is always relative to a believer or group of believers

Question 16

Relevant alternatives approach

Answer 16

View that S can only know that p only f S can rule out any alternative explanation q that is relevant in the context

Note: skeptical alternatives are never considered to be a relevant alternative

Question 17

Sensitivity condition

Answer 17

S knows that p only if it is true -> if p were not true, S wouldn’t believe that p

Question 18

Skeptical alternative

Answer 18

q is a conceivable and thereby logically possible alternative explanation to p, which is incompatible with p, and cannot be ruled out

Question 19

Traditional analysis

Answer 19

Tripartite analysis/JTB-analysis:
S knows that p if and only if
(1) S believes that p
(2) p is true
(3) p is justified for S

Belief, truth and justification are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for knowledge

Question 20

Truth condition

Answer 20

S knows that p only if p is true

So: truth is a necessary condition of knowledge

Question 21

Plato does not agree with truth relativism, but employs another system to attain truth. What is this method?

Answer 21

Correspondence theory of truth -> something is true when it corresponds with reality

Question 22

What can be seen as a weakness of truth relativism?

Answer 22

It does not distinguish between holding something true and something being true

Question 23

How does Plato do away with truth relativism?

Answer 23

He points out the weakness of truth relativism:
-Either truth relativism is relatively true -> argument lacks for and is not convincing to those who were not already convinced in the first place
-Or truth relativism is absolutely true, in which case there is at least one truth that is not relatively but absolutely true, and the system of truth relativism breaks down

Question 24

What is the function of the justification condition in JTB analysis?

Answer 24

To rule out epistemic luck

Question 25

What is the relevance of the Gettier problem to JTB analysis?

Answer 25

It shows that it is lacking

Question 26

Which two strategies and four substrategies have been devised to deal with Gettier problems?

Answer 26

1. Adding extra conditions -No false lemma's -No defeaters 2. Replacing the justification condition -Causal analysis -Sensitivity condition

Question 27

What is the problem of the no false lemma's analysis?

Answer 27

It can be both too loose and too strict: -To loose: think Nogot and his non-existing Ford -Too strict: think 99 true premises & one false lemma

Question 28

What is the problem of the no defeaters analysis?

Answer 28

It is too strict -> there is always further (hypothetical) information that may undermine what is rational to believe -> there is no end to this condition Example: Mrs. Grabit

Question 29

Who proposed causal analysis?

Answer 29

Goldman

Question 30

What is the problem with causal analysis?

Answer 30

It still does not rule out certain cases of epistemic luck Example: Fake Barn Country

Question 31

What is the problem with the sensitivity condition?

Answer 31

It raises the bar for knowledge very high -> if we take into account the existence of skeptical paradoxes that we cannot rule out, then we can never satisfy this condition

Question 32

What is a standard form of a skeptical paradox?

Answer 32

(1) S knows that p (2) S doesn't know that not-q (3) If S knows p, then S knows that not-q We can neither know which of the premises is true -> we can never satisfy the truth condition of JTB analysis

Question 33

What is the name for the last premise of a skeptical paradox?

Answer 33

Closure = if S knows that p, then S knows that not-q

Question 34

What are the four strategies to solve skeptical paradoxes?

Answer 34

1. Skeptical approach: apply modus tollens and remove the first premise = S knows that p -> rejection of knowledge 2. G.E. Moore's modus ponens: remove the second premise = S doesn't know that not-q -> rejection of the skeptical alternative 3. Contextualism: based on the context and the salience of the skeptical alternative within that context, it is/isn't taken into account. Cannot deny closure. 4. Relevant alternatives approach: similar to contextualism, but can deny closure in such instances as the skeptical alternative q is not deemed relevant

Question 35

Which modifications can and can't contextualism make to a skeptical paradox?

Answer 35

Modification: removing the first or second premise Can never be modified: third premise = closure

Question 36

What determines whether the first or second premise is removed in contextualism?

Answer 36

Salience of the skeptical alternative in the given context

Question 37

What is the difference between contextualism and the relevant alternatives approach?

Answer 37

Contextualism can never deny closure, while the relevant alternatives approach can

Question 38

What is the general rule of the relevant alternatives approach?

Answer 38

Because it is not possible to exclude all alternatives in order to know something, we should only exclude relevant alternatives

Question 39

What is the status of skeptic alternatives in the relevant alternatives approach?

Answer 39

They are never regarded as relevant

Question 40

How does the relevant alternatives approach handle a relevant alternative q in the context?

Answer 40

S should know that not-q to know that p

Question 41

How does the relevant alternatives approach handle a non-relevant alternative q in the context?

Answer 41

If q is not relevant, then S can know p regardless of knowing not-q = denial of closure

Question 42

What is the main problem of the relevant alternatives approach? What could be a solution?

Answer 42

Who determines what is a relevant alternative? Solution: look at the objective probability of the alternative