responses of issues

Question 1

Alternative definitions of knowledge

Answer 1

philosophers have tried to come up with new definitions of knowledge that avoid Gettier cases.

Generally, these new definitions seek to refine the justification condition of the tripartite definition. True and belief remain unchanged.

JBT + no false lemmas
reliabilism
virtue epistemology
infallibilism

Question 2

JTB + NO FALSE LEMMAS

Answer 2

It says that James has knowledge of P if:

P is true
James believes that P
James’s belief is justified
James did not infer that P from anything false

Question 3

explanation of no false lemmas

Answer 3

it adds an extra condition to the tripartite definition. It says knowledge is justified true belief + that is not inferred from anything false (a false lemma).

Question 4

example of no false lemmas:

Answer 4

For example, imagine you were checking the football results in the back of a Sunday newspaper, but without realising it was a paper that was a year old.
doing this, you have made a false assumption.
As a result, most of the beliefs you form as to Saturday’s football scores will simply be false in the real world.
However, if one of them happens to be true by coincidence, then we would not want to count this as knowledge either, as we do not want knowledge to be based on false beliefs that luckily turn out to be true.

Question 5

does it solve gettier problem?

Answer 5

avoids the problems of Gettier cases because Smith’s belief “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket” is inferred from the false lemma “Jones will get the job”

The tripartite definition says Smith’s belief is knowledge, even though it isn’t.

The no false lemmas response says Smith’s belief is not knowledge, which is correct.

Question 6

problem for no false lemmas: fake barns county

The belief is about the correct subject, but the believer does not know that she is in an unusual context which makes him belief seem luckily true.

Answer 6

In ‘fake barn county’, the locals create fake barns that look identical to real barns
Henry is driving through fake barn county, but he doesn’t know the locals do this
Henry often thinks “there’s a barn” when he looks at the fake barns
These beliefs are not knowledge, because they are not true – the barns are fake
However, on one occasion Henry looks at the one real barn and thinks “there’s a barn”
This time the belief is true
It’s also justified by his visual perception of the barn
And it’s not inferred from anything false.
According to the no false lemmas definition, Henry’s belief is knowledge.

But this shows that the no false lemmas definition must be false. Henry’s belief is clearly not knowledge – he’s just lucky in this instance.

Question 7

unfinished lol need to ask andy !!

Question 8

reliabilism

Answer 8

Reliabilism says James knows that P if:

P is true
James believes that P
James’s belief that P is caused by a reliable method
A reliable method is one that produces a high percentage of true beliefs.

Question 9

explanation of reliabilism

Answer 9

if you have good eyesight, it’s likely that your eyesight would constitute a reliable method of forming true beliefs.
If you have an accurate memory, it’s likely your memory would also be a reliable method for forming true beliefs.

But if you form a belief through an unreliable method – ie guessing – then it would not count as knowledge even if the resulting belief is true.

Question 10

advantage- children and animals

Answer 10

allows young children and animals to have knowledge
ie- a seagull knows where to find food
ie- a child knows when their mother is speaking

whereas other definitions imply that children and animals dont have knowledge.
ie JBT- they cant justify their belief
ie virtue- its difficult to see an animal or child possess intellectual virtues of care

however, both are capable of forming beliefs via reliable processes ie senses and so are capable of possessing knowledge.

Question 11

problem- fake barn county

Answer 11

using reliabilism, henry’s true belief that theres a barn is caused by a reliable cognitive process- sight, thus reliabilism would say incorrectly that henry knows theres a barn even though his belief is lucky to be true.

Question 12

virtue epistemology

link between a belief and intellectual virtues

intellectual virtues are about epistemic good. For example, an intellectually virtuous person would have traits such as being rational, caring about what’s true, and a good memory.

Answer 12

Zagzebski argues that definitions of knowledge of the kind we have looked at so far (i.e. ‘true belief + some third condition’) will always fall victim to Gettier-style cases.

situation where there is a true belief + some third condition but is false due to bad luck

Then change the situation to one where true belief + some third condition but is true due to good luck

second case won’t be knowledge, because it’s only true due to luck

reason for this is that truth and the third condition are simply added together, but not linked leaving room for the lucky cases to incorrectly fit the definition

Question 13

Zagzebski’s definition of knowledge

Answer 13

James believes that P
James’s belief that P arises from an act of intellectual virtue

This can be shown by drawing a comparison with moral virtue:
An act of moral virtue is one where the actor both intends to do good and achieves that goal.

Intellectual virtue is similar: You must both have the correct motivation (e.g. you want to find the truth) and succeed as a result of that virtue (i.e. your belief turns out to be true because you acted virtuously).

Question 14

SOSA’S VIRTUE EPISTEMOLOGY

Answer 14

P is true
James believes that P
James’s true belief that P is a result of James exercising his intellectual virtues

archery analogy- virtuous shot in archery has the following three properties:

Accurate, i.e. it hits the target
Adroit, i.e. the archer is skilful and shoots the arrow well
Apt, i.e. the arrow hit the target because it was shot well

Aptness provides a link between truth and the third condition that rules out Gettier-style situations where the belief is only true as a result of luck.

Question 15

fake barn county: sosa’s virtue epsitemology

Answer 15

correctly say Henry’s belief “there’s a barn” in fake barn county would not qualify as knowledge – despite being true and formed by a reliable method – because it is not apt.

Yes, Henry’s belief is accurate (i.e. true) and adroit (i.e. Henry has good eyesight etc.), but he only formed the true belief as a result of luck, not because he used his intellectual virtues.

Question 16

problem- children and animals

Answer 16

rule out the possibility of young children or babies possessing knowledge, despite the fact that they arguably can know many things.

because they don’t complete the three necessary conditions to have knowledge

accurate- true
adroit- drawn from a reliable method
aptness- withdrawn from intellectual virtues

Question 17

infallibilism

Answer 17

for a belief to count as knowledge, it must be true and justified in such a way as to make it certain.

Question 18

gettier- smith and jones in job hunt

Answer 18

Smith has good reasons for his beliefs in the Gettier case, they’re not good enough to provide certainty ie impossibility of doubt

Smith might have misheard the interviewer say he was going to give Jones the job

or even smith might be a brain in a vat and jones may not exist

these however unlikely raise the possibility of doubt

Question 19

problem- too strict

Answer 19

infallibilism correctly says Smith’s belief in the Gettier case does not count as knowledge

however everything else fails to qualify as knowledge as well

ie- water boils at 100 'c 
this can be doubted:
your teacher could be lying to you 
misread the thermometer 
brain in vat so there is no water 
etc 

anything can be doubted ie descartes three waves of doubt

gettier shows that JBT sets the bar too low and infallibilism sets it too high to where barely anything is known.