jtb 3 and 5 markers Flashcards
define acquaintance, ability and propositional knowledge (3)
acquaintance: knowing ‘of’ something or someone.
doesn’t involve facts.
e.g i know bob
ability: having a skill, being able to do something.
doesn’t involve facts.
e.g i know how to change gears in a a car
propositional: a factual claim about the nature of the world. e.g a triangle has three sides
explain why truth is not necessary for knowledge (5)
what we claim to know, what we think is true, might actually be disproved at a later time by science and turn out to be false.
e.g status of pluto: it was once considered a planet until 2006 when scientists decided its size was to small to be considered a planet. it is now currently called a dwarf planet.
explain why belief is not necessary for knowledge (5 marks)
radford’s albert example: albert is asked ‘when did queen elizabeth die?’. albert doesn’t think he knows, but answers this and other similar questions correctly.
a. albert does not believe. he thinks he doesn’t know the answer; he doesn’t trust his answer because he takes it to be a mere guess.
b. albert knows. his answer is not at all just a lucky guess. the fact that he answers most of the questions correctly indicate that he has actually learned, and never forgot.
explain why justification is not necessary for knowledge (5)
never amounting ends of justification needed… leads to infinite regress
can be replaced with reliable cognitive process or intellectual virtues but it’s not a strong enough condition
explain how propositional knowledge may be analysed according to Zagzebski (5)
Propositional knowledge is expressed in the form of a true proposition. >Zagzebski argues that propositional knowledge involved ‘cognitive contact with reality’ as it can be analysed as a relationship between a knower and the object that is being known. >propositional knowledge should have a theoretical purpose rather than just a practical purpose- in defining it, it gives an understanding of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to concepts such as truth or evidence.>for Zagzebski, this is a ‘real definition’ because knowledge has a ‘nature’
>a real definition would involve both the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge
This definition defines what makes it what it is independently of how we think about it
define the tripartite definition of knowledge (3)
I know proposition (P) iff:
P is true
I believe that P
I have justification for P
outline the tripartite definition of knowledge (5)
> The tripartite definition of knowledge states that to have knowledge, truth, belief and justification are required.
Each condition is individually necessary as without each you cannot have knowledge
truth is necessary because knowledge must correspond to reality
belief is necessary because it is a contradiction to have knowledge of something you do not believe in
justification is necessary, as Plato argues, it tethers true belief to knowledge because it rules out lucky guesses
the three conditions are jointly sufficient because no other condition is required for knowledge
explain why the three conditions of the tripartite definition of knowledge aren’t sufficient (5)
tripartite definition of knowledge:
I know P iff:
P is true
I believe that P
I have justification for P
>Plato argues that they are jointly sufficient because no other condition is needed of knowledge
>however, as the Gettier case shows, one can have all three conditions and still not have knowledge
>Smith and Jones both are applying for a job. Smith has picked up on the fact that jones is going to get the job and also saw him count 10 coins from his pocket. He therefore makes the judgement “the man with 10 coins will get the job”
>it turns out that Smith gets the job but also had 10 coins in his pocket
>therefore, he had truth, belief and justification even though the justification wasn’t linked to the belief because one was about Jones the other one was about Smith
>this illustrates that even with the three conditions of knowledge, it can still lead to epistemic luck and the they therefore cannot be jointly sufficient to give knowledge
outline the no false lemma definition of knowledge (5)
a lemma refers to a supporting statement, and no false lemmas offer an explanation as to why the gettier cases are not knowledge claims. this is because one of the premises rely on a false belief, and then NFL’s solution is to add a fourth condition
– it then becomes i know P iff:
- P is true
- i believe P
- i have justification for P
- P is not inferred ftom anything false. my belief that P should not be derived from a false belief. there are no false lemmas.
in an example of looking at a clock and making the knowledge claim that it’s 12;45pm (because the clock says) when it is infact 1:30pm, the false lemma is making the assumption that the clock is working. you could check a clock in another room or someone’s watch to ensure that your knowledge claim is inferred from anything false
outline infallibilism (5)
> infallibilsim states that I know P iff:
P is true
I believe that P
I have justification for P and my justification guarantees that my belief is true
the condition aims to add certainty and avoid epistemic luck
certainty is the indubitable starting point for knowledge
this strengthens the tie between justification and belief
this solves the Gettier case because for Smith’s justification to be certain, he would’ve had to count the coins in his own pocket and ensure that Jones was going to get the job
therefore, by strengthening justification, infallibilsm avoids epistemic luck
outline reliabilism (5)
> Reliabilism aims to solve epistemic luck by replacing justification with a “reliable cognitive process”
this refers to the way in which we acquire knowledge
A reliable cognitive process is one that achieves the highest percentage of true beliefs that are not epistemic luck
I know P iff:
P is true
I believe that p
my belief that P has been acquired through a reliable cognitive process
This allows children and even animals to have knowledge
reliable cognitive processes include memory, perception and testimony
therefore, Smith wouldn’t have had knowledge because counting the coins in someone’s pocket is not a reliable cognitive process and lacks the perception that he could have 10 coins or get the job himself
therefore, through replacing justification, it avoids epistemic luck
outline virtue epistemology (5)
> Virtue epistemology replaces justification with the condition of acquiring knowledge through intellectual virtues:
I know P iff:
p is true
I believe that p
my belief that p is a result of exercising my intellectual virtues
intellectual virtues are an intellectual skill, ability or trait that contributes to getting to the truth
Zagzebski, a virtue epistemologist puts the search for knowledge on par with the search for moral truth
just as virtue ethicists argues that we should habituate virtues and exercise them in order to be morally good, Zagzebski argues that we should practise and habituate exercising intellectual virtues in order to acquire knowledge, such as open-mindedness, attentiveness, flexibility
in the Gettier case, Smith’s way of acquiring knowledge was to count the coins and he ignored the possibility of him having 10 coins or getting the job thus lacking crucial intellectual virtues
similarly, in the Goodman barn case, Henry lacked intellectual virtues of being able to distinguish between real and fake barns
thus through exercising intellectual virtues, through their nature, we can have knowledge that doesn’t appear as epistemic luck
