reponses to the knowledge argument Flashcards
Response 1: Mary gains no new knowledge, only new acquaintance knowledge.
acquaintance knowledge: The knowing of something based on personal experience with it, for example, knowing where France is in relation to London because you have been there. In relation to the Mary / Knowledge argument, this means that while Mary understood all of the propositional knowledge surrounding colour vision, however had no personal experience of it herself. Therefore, while she gained no new propositional knowledge, her acquaintance with colour has developed, thus giving her acquaintance knowledge.
Response 2: Mary gains no new propositional knowledge, only new practical knowledge.
practical knowledge: The knowledge of how to do something.
Mary gains the ability to perceive colour. She udnerstands everything abhout colour, but simply not how to apply it. If we take the example of riding a bike. If we read a manual on how to ride a bike based on velocity, aerodynamics and gravity, we haven’t learnt how to ride a bike, we have simply understood the theoretical action of riding a bike. In the same way, Mary has uinderstood the theoretical action of perceiving colour.
Response 3: Mary gains new propositional knowledge form an old fact.
This argument appears to be the most destructive to the knowledge argument in my opinion. The counteresponse states that while Mary did gain new propositional knowledge, the fact of the world which she gained it from remained the same in her eyes. We can look at the example of water for this. Water is H2O. A child knows what water is. when a child learns that H2O is water, they are understanding the same fact, simply in a different way. water was always H2O, however the child simply couldn’t understand it that way.
