Epistemology III/IV - Sources, domains and dimensions of knowledge

Question 1

A priori knowledge

Answer 1

Knowledge that is not acquired through research of the world

Question 2

Abduction

Answer 2

A type of reasoning where a possible explanation is derived, ideally the best possible explanation

Question 3

Aesthetic knowledge

Answer 3

Examples or aspects of beauty that can be rationally decided

Question 4

Analogy argument

Answer 4

According to John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell, the problem of other minds can be solved based on the analogy between, on the one hand, our own behaviour and associated mental states, and on the other hand, behaviours of others

Question 5

Deduction

Answer 5

A type of reasoning where, if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true

Question 6

Direct realism

Answer 6

Reid’s approach that we do not perceive images of the outside world, but the outside world itself

Question 7

Empirical knowledge

Answer 7

A posteriori knowledge acquired through research of the word through experience

Question 8

Folk psychology

Answer 8

Fallible attribution of mental states to others through abduction

Question 9

Hume’s reductionism

Answer 9

Requries that testimony ultimately be reducible to observations

Question 10

Idealism

Answer 10

An approach that our sensory experiences form an endpoint; we can never get beyond them

Question 11

Indirect realism

Answer 11

John Locke’s approach that we have good reasons to assume that the outside world exists because the assumption provides the best explanation for the stability of experiences

Question 12

Induction

Answer 12

A type of reasoning where the probability of the conclusion is increased

Question 13

Introspective knowledge

Answer 13

Knowledge that arises from an examination of one’s own mental states

Question 14

Logical and mathematical knowledge

Answer 14

The logical and mathematical principles that, according to the monist, provide the correct description or, according to the pluralist, are suitable for different purposes

Question 15

Moral knowledge

Answer 15

Examples or aspects concerning the good that can be rationally dediced

Question 16

Phenomenalism

Answer 16

An approach that the inner world, in the sense of our sensory experiences, truly exists

Question 17

Problem of other minds

Answer 17

The question whether we can (certainly) know if others have consciousness and what mental states they have

Question 18

Reid’s credulism

Answer 18

We can, in principle, rely on testimonies, unless we have good reasons to distrust a particular witness or testimony

Question 19

Religious knowledge

Answer 19

Examples or aspects concerning God or gods that can be rationally decided

Question 20

Scientific knowledge

Answer 20

Empirical knowledge

Question 21

Testimonial knowledge

Answer 21

Knowledge by hearsay (wide conception of testimony)

Question 22

Transcendental idealism

Answer 22

Kant’s approach that, at the basis of our experiences, there must be an outside world, but we can never know whether, to what extent, and in what respects the outside world corresponds with our experiences

Question 23

Analytic epistemology

Answer 23

Largely normative perspective on knowledge, justification, reliability, etc.

Question 24

Evolutionary epistemology

Answer 24

The evolutionary development of the biological basis of knowledge in general and modern science in particular can be explained in terms of processes of ‘blind variation and selective retention’

Question 25

Experimental epistemology

Answer 25

In line with social psychology, identifying and explaining differences between groups in terms of attributing knowledge, justification, reliability, etc.

Question 26

Feminist epistemology

Answer 26

Instead of the 'gender biases' that have crept into traditional epistemology, feminist values - such as empirical adequacy, ontological heterogeneity, applicability to current needs and distribution of power, should be incorporated into further research

Question 27

Naturalistic epistemology

Answer 27

As argued by Quine, epistemology is absorbed into psychology, where traditional, normative, analytic epistemology can still contribute to the 'technology of truth-finding' through a kind of 'engineering'

Question 28

Social epistemology

Answer 28

Broadens the scope of traditional, analytic epistemology by recognizing the importance of vital information from others, whether through testimony or disagreement, and also tackling new subjects such as the assessment of experts based on their track record

Question 29

What are two common ways to contrast sources of knowledge? (2)

Answer 29

1. A priori vs. a posteriori 2. Perceptual vs. testimonial

Question 30

What is a posteriori knowledge?

Answer 30

Knowledge that is dependent on facts of the external world

Question 31

Which distinction does Hume make between a priori and a posteriori?

Answer 31

1. A priori = relations between ideas = analytic truths -> cannot be denied without ending up in a contradiction 2. A posteriori = matters of fact = state of the world = synthetic truths -> can be denied, for instance through counterfactuals

Question 32

What is Reid's stance on the reliability of the senses? How can this be seen as a parallel to his view on testimony?

Answer 32

The senses are dependable in principle, and if they are not, we get indications that something is wrong' Parallel to his credulism = view on testimony: testimony is dependable in principle, unless we have special reasons to doubt/reject it

Question 33

What is the main criticism on Reid's credulism?

Answer 33

Plea for gullibility -> the bar for knowledge must be higher

Question 34

What is Hume's stance on reliability of the senses? How can this be seen a parallel to his view on testimony?

Answer 34

Only if you can track back an idea to a single direct sense impression, you can be certain about it; everyting else may be confabulated through fallible interpretations Testimony requires a lot of interpretation and is therefore error-prone and not trustworthy; it can only be trused when you can trace it back to your own sensory experiences

Question 35

What are the three kinds of inferential reasoning?

Answer 35

1. Deduction 2. Induction 3. Abduction

Question 36

What is the downside of deduction?

Answer 36

It can never produce anything new, just combine and/or explicate information from existing premises

Question 37

What does induction allow us to do?

Answer 37

Make reasonable statements about unseen/future cases based on a limited amount of experiences = inductive generalizations

Question 38

In which domain does induction play a large role?

Answer 38

Science

Question 39

What is the disadvantage of induction?

Answer 39

It is a prediction & generalization -> not certain

Question 40

What is Hume's criticism on induction?

Answer 40

Induction assumes induction -> based on the inductive generalization that in previous experiences, induction has been a truth-conducive way of reasoning, it is accepted as a valid way of producing knowledge -> circular

Question 41

What is Goodman's criticism on induction?

Answer 41

That our concepts could be describing something green, that is not in fact green, but Gru > our concepts could be describing something wrongly based on previous experience

Question 42

What is the difference between induction and abduction?

Answer 42

Induction makes use of probability, whereas abduction tries to generate the best possible explanation

Question 43

What are the philosophical downsides of abduction?

Answer 43

1. Theory-ladenness of observation 2. Falliblism 3. Underdetermination

Question 44

What is theory-ladenness of observation, and why is it a problem for abduction?

Answer 44

We interpret sensory experiences from a certain perspective/background/theories, influencing the abductive reasoning that follows it

Question 45

What is fallibilism and why is it a problem for abuction?

Answer 45

One can only tentatively interpret their experience in a certain way, but this does not lead to certainty -> epistemic downside of abduction

Question 46

What is underdetermination, and why is it a problem for abduction?

Answer 46

Sensory experience can be interpreted in infinitely many ways -> metaphysical downside of abduction

Question 47

Which factor plays a major role in the way in which we rank the certainty of the domains of knowledge?

Answer 47

Fallibility

Question 48

What are the metaphysical, conceptual and epistemic sides of the problem of other minds?

Answer 48

Metaphysical: do other people/animals have minds in the first place? Conceptual: are the concepts we use in daily life similar enough to be able to meaningfully exchange information? Do we mean the same by these concepts? Epistemic: what is our epistemic access to other minds?

Question 49

What is our epistemic access to other minds according to Miller & Russell? What are criticisms of this theory? (2)

Answer 49

Miller & Russell: we can infer others to have minds because we see/experience that they exhibit similar behaviour as we have in certain mental states Criticisms: 1. This is a very special case of induction: induction based on a sample of one (note: it is more likely to say that this is abduction/folk psychology!) 2. You make an induction based on your interpretation of your behaviour when in a certain mental state, but you don't have access to your behaviour, even if you do hav acccess to your mental state