Paper 1: Epistemology Flashcards
What are the three types of knowledge?
Practical / ability knowledge (Knowing HOW). Acquaintance knowledge (Knowing OF). Propositional knowledge (Knowing THAT).
What is the difference between real essence and nominal essence?
Real essence can be defined by its properties, such as water is H2O, and can have a fixed definition. Nominal essence cannot be defined by its properties as its meaning is not within it but outside of it, such as weeds, and cannot have a fixed definition.
What is the difference between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions?
Necessary conditions are elements something cannot do without, such as John being unmarried in order to be a bachelor. Sufficient conditions are whether you have all the necessary conditions to have a complete definition of that thing, such as John being a male and unmarried in order to be a bachelor.
What are the things Zagzebski concludes we must not do while trying to define knowledge?
Don’t be circular, don’t be adhoc, don’t be negative and don’t be too obscure.
What is the tripartite view?
Knowledge is justified true belief. To know p then, P is true, you believe P and your belief in p is justified. For example, to know that there is a llama in my garden, then it must be true, I must believe it is there and I believe this because I can see it.
What is one problem with the tripartite view?
The conditions of the tripartite view are not individually necessary. We think that we need justification rather than our beliefs being lucky based on a hunch. You cannot know something is false as if you believed something false then you didn’t know it. It doesn’t make intuitive sense to make a propositional claim if you don’t believe it.
Outline how Gettier’s first counter example undermines JTB as a sufficient definition of knowledge.
Edmund Gettier explained that although you might have justification, truth and belief, you still might not have what we could agree to as knowledge. His first counter is known as ‘Smith and Jones’.
- Smith and Jones go for an interview.
- The boss tells Smith that Jones will get the job.
- Smith notices that Jones has ten coins in his pocket.
- Smith makes the proposition that the person with ten coins in their pocket will get the job.
- The boss tells Smith that he has the job.
- Smith notices he has ten coins in his pocket.
Smith had justified true belief but not knowledge. This shows that JTB is not sufficient for knowledge.
Outline how Gettier’s second counter example undermines JTB as a sufficient definition of knowledge.
Gettier’s second counter example is known as ‘Brown in Barcelona.’
- Smith has strong evidence for the proposition that Jones owns a Ford car in the form of having seen Jones in Ford vehicles and having to spoke to Jones about them.
- Smith also has a friend called Brown and has no clue as to his location.
- Smith chooses three place names and constructs three propositions.
- Either Jones owns a Ford car, or brown is in Boston.
- Either Jones owns a Ford car or Brown is in Barcelona.
- Smith is certain of the first part of the proposition because he has justification for it and is uncertain of the second part because it is a guess.
- Jones is also renting a car and that Brown is in Barcelona.
Therefore, the second proposition is true and is a justified true belief, yet Smith didn’t know that Brown was in Barcelona. This shows that JTB is not sufficient for knowledge.
What is JTBN and how does it respond to Gettier?
JTBN is justified true belief with no false lemmas. A lemma is a premise or step in an argument that leads to a conclusion. Someone has knowledge of P if P is true, they believe that P, their belief is justified and they did not infer that P from anything false. This avoids the problems of Gettier’s example as Smith’s belief that the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket is inferred from the false lemma that Jones will get the job.
How does reliabilism respond to Gettier?
Reliabilism replaces justified with reliably formed. Someone knows that P if P is true, they believe that P and their belief is caused by a reliable method. A reliable method is one that produces a high percentage of true beliefs. For example, having an accurate memory means your memory is likely a reliable method for forming true beliefs.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of reliabilism?
Reliabilism extends knowledge to young children and animals. Often, these beings cannot justify their knowledge by giving reasons yet it is clear that they do have knowledge. However, while reliabilism would deal with Gettier in a way as we would all recognise that the boss was an untrustworthy source, we generally think of a boss that in this particular situation would be a reliable source. Also, there are times when reliable sources are unreliable, such as when BBC Panorama tricked people into thinking that spaghetti grew on trees.
How does infallibilism respond to Gettier?
Infallibilism looks closely at exactly how we can JUSTIFY our beliefs with certainty. Descartes looked at what we can be certain of in terms of our beliefs and claimed that we can trust two types of belief. These two types are certain truths that are analytically true, such as a triangle having three sides, and our own minds as we know what we are thinking but we cannot be certain of anything beyond our minds.
What are the strengths and weakness of infallibilism?
Infallibilism is great at dealing with Gettier cases as we would never have accepted that Smith has JTB because the boss’s testimony is not known through introspection. However, infallibilism is far too narrow and strict. We need to have a broader range of knowledge open to us, therefore this is not a useful adaptation of JTB or a workable definition of knowledge.
How does virtue epistemology respond to Gettier?
Virtue epistemology is promoted by Sosa and Linda Zagzebski and is inspired by the work of Aristotle. The J in JTB is replaced with a V. The idea is that knowledge is only knowledge if it is achieved because of your skill, with Sosa explaining that having knowledge is like hitting the target and involves three elements. These elements are accuracy, which asks if the belief is true, adroitness, which asks if you discovered the truth using intellectual skill or virtues, and aptness, which asks if it is because of the skills you used that you know the belief is true.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of virtue epistemology?
Virtue epistemology takes away the possibility of a lucky True Belief that we encountered with Gettier. However, it can be questioned if this makes knowledge exclusive.
What is the theory of perception?
The theory of perception is the theory that the immediate objects of perception are mind-independent objects and their properties
What is direct realism?
Direct realism is a theory of perception. It claims that objects exist mind independently and that we perceive them without mediation. These objects have properties. For example, a table has the property to appear yellow.
What is the counter argument from illusion?
The counter argument from illusion argues that sometimes we assign a property to an object that it does not possess. For example, a stick in the water appears bent but in reality it is not. Therefore, what we perceive immediately is not what is in the world meaning direct realism is false.
What is the direct realist response to the counter argument from illusion?
Direct realists would argue that we do not perceive a bent stick, instead we directly perceive a stick half-submerged in water that appears to be bent. The optic properties of water are different to the optic properties of air. Therefore, we can still directly perceive objects by taking into account the relational properties involved in our perception.
What is the counter argument from perceptual variation?
The counter argument from perceptual variation involves Russell’s table. The argument states that our perception of an object changes and an object cannot change its colour continually. For example, a table cannot be brown and yellow simultaneously. Objects cannot be as we directly perceive them and we do not directly perceive the object but its appearance in our minds. Therefore, direct realism is false.
