Reliabilism Flashcards
What is the basic idea of reliabilism
To link knowledge with the reliability of the process that led up to it
What can reliability be defined in terms of
Truth giving
Example: the trust we place in the quality and reliability of newspapers and gossip columns. We trust newspapers more as we view them as a more reliable source of information and produces the truth more often.
What is a reliable cognitive process
Processes that are highly likely to result in true belief
What should do our beliefs need to formed by for it to be counted as knowledge
A reliable cognitive process
What are examples of things formed by a reliable cognitive process
Seeing things up close, simple arithmetic and reading from a trustworthy source
What are examples of things formed by a unreliable cognitive process
Wishful thinking, complex mental arithmetic and guessing as they don’t regularly produce a true belief and the beliefs they generate wouldn’t be classified as knowledge
What does reliablism suggest knowledge is
A true belief formed by a reliable process ( replaces justification)
Does reliablism suggest that John the Calendar man had knowledge
Yes as he does know what day it would be as his accuracy means that the process is reliable. The JTB suggest that he doesn’t know as he he doesn’t have a conscious justification for his belief as the JTB says that justifications are internal to the believer and they involve conscious thoughts. However a reliable cognitive process doesn’t necessarily involve conscious thoughts
Does the JTB suggest animals have knowledge
No as they cannot justify their beliefs
Does reliablism suggest animals have knowledge
Yes as they have evolved to have the reliable processes of vision, cognition and memory so they can interact successfully with the world so therefore have knowledge about it
What does using cognitive science mean when defining knowledge using reliable processes
Moves it away from philosophers giving an ‘internal’ account of which justification is one, to cognitive scientists giving external accounts of the neurological processes that lead to a true belief
What is a criticism of reliabilism
How it accounts for brain in vat scenarios (BIV)
What is a BIV scenario
Example: if you are holding a pen, do you believe that it is there. The JTB suggests that your belief in the pen is justified in both the normal world and the BIV as the evidence is the same. However In the BIV it’s not true. This seems right and the experience is the exact same then the belief is justified
What does reliablism say about BIV scenarios
In the normal world the belief in the pen is made my a reliable process but in the BIV world it is not even though the experience and the cognitive processes were the same. When replacing the concept of justification with reliably produced, reliablism doesn’t give an adequate account of the relationship between our beliefs and justifications
Does reliablism work with gettier examples
Gettier examples are based on the initial belief being caused by a reliable process( seeing a barn). However even though it is justified or reliably produced the belief still is luckily true. So the RTB doesn’t work any better than the JTB in these scenarios
How have people tried to patch up reliablism
Redefining the process
No relevant alternatives
What are concerns about redefining the process of reliabilism
How general or specific should we be when describing a belief forming process
How could the second gettier case be refined with redefining the process of reliabilism
It’s an example of inferring from a false belief (jones owns a ford) to a new belief. Inferring from a false belief is not a reliable process
How could the fake barns cases be redefined as
Seeing an object close up is a reliable process in forming true beliefs. The process could be redefined as a case of visual identification in highly deceptive circumstances
What does no relevant alternatives mean
We should only count a process as reliable if it can distinguish between the truth and other relevant possibilities
Goldman
What is an example relating to no relevant alternatives
You have a set of identical twins Judy and Trudy. you bump into one and believe it is judy.It is but would you be able to tell if it was Trudy. If not then the process you used to identify Judy was not reliable enough as you couldn’t distinguish between the truth and other relevant alternatives. Therefore you didn’t know that it was Judy. However if you can reliably tell them apart you would know it was judy
How does no relevant alternatives work with the fake barns case
Barney most likely isn’t able to distinguish between seeing a real barn and a relevant alternative, the fake barn. So therefore the belief was not formed by a reliable process so Barney didn’t know a barn was there
