Epistemology, what is knowledge. Flashcards
What is the distinction between acquaintance, ability and propositional knowledge ?
Acquiantance - Knowing ‘of’
Ability - Knowing ‘how’
Propositional- Knowing ‘that’
Explain what Zagzebski thinks the different types of definition are and what definition depends on
Definitions depend on the different natures of the concepts or objects involved.
- Some objects have a ‘real definition /essence’ eg ‘water is H20’. The thing we are defining has a real underlying cause that makes the thing the way it is.
- In contrast consider ‘weeds’. No underlying cause/essence that makes weeds weeds. The classification is culturally specific.
(note: Zagzebski thinks knowledge probs doesn’t have a real essence but we should treat asif it does )
What is the role of Cause in definition ?
Some definitions emphasise causes. Eg definition of sunburn would outline sunburn but also what caused the sunburn (UV). In contrast definition of a bicycle there would not mention how it was made/caused.
What are the four pitfalls Zagzebski outlines when giving a definition ?
- Ad hoc- coming up with a definition specific to meeting a particular problem.
- Circular - include term being defined. Eg justice is what happens when just acts occur.
3.Obscure - Negative- defining by what it is not
(note: ACON)
What is the tripartite definition of knowledge ?
S knows that P, if and only if:
- S beleives that P,
- P is true,
- S is justified in beleving that P.
These conditions are individually neccessary and jointly sufficient for knowledge .
Explain the objection to JTB that belief is not a neccessary condition.
A neccessary condition is one which one be met in order for x to be the case.
- Counter example: student hesitantly answering a question and getting it right.
OR 2. Belief and knowledge are mutually exclusive mental states (Plato). Knowledge= infallible but beleif= fallible, so they must be fundamentally different ways of grapsing the world.
Explain the correspondence and coherence theory of truth ?
Correspondence : the truth consistents in a correspondence between a claim and the relevant fact.
Coherence: A beleif is true if it is one of the beleifs held by a society to be true.
Explain Gettier case 1
-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
-And, by coincidence, Smith 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
gettier case venn diagramBut 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.
How do Gettier cases attack the tripartite definition
Attacks the sufficiency of the condidtions.
Explain Gettier case 2
Disjunction introduction says that if you have a true statement and add “or some other statement” then the full statement (i.e. “true statement or some other statement”) is also true.
-Smith has a justified belief that “Jones owns a Ford”
-So, using the principle of disjunctive introduction above, Smith can form 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/ accidently true that led to him being correct.
Explain what knowledge is according to reliabilism.
Do answer
Explain what knowledge is according to no false lemmas.
A lemma is a premise accepted as true in an argument.
Propositional knowledge according to no false lemmas is defined as s knows that P if and only if:
- P is true
- S believes that p
- S is justified in believing that p.
- S did not infer that P from a flase belief.
These are individually neccessary and jointly sufficient for S to know that P.
(Note: response to gettier)
What aspect of gettier cases does the no false lemmas criticise ?
Attacks sufficiency
Gettier 1: The beleif Jones will get the job.
Gettier 2: the beleif that Jones owns the car.
These are false beleifs; false lemmas. Because Gettier cases use false lemmas they should not be considered as knowledge.
Explain Linda zagebskis virus x and y case (Ps and Cs)
P1 Patient has a virus and goes to the doctor.
P2. Patient is tested and has virus x.
P3Doctor believes patient has virus x.
P4 The doctor does not know about virus y.
P5 The patient has virus y.
P6 When the results are given the patient has virus x, which did not show symptoms earlier on.
C1 So the belief in justified, the premise is true and the doctor believes it.
C2 Therefore no false lemma does not account for getteir style counter examples.
Counter to virus x and Y?
There is still an underlying/ hidden false assumption. That being ‘only virus y causes the symptoms’
