The Definition Of Knowldge Flashcards
What does JTB + no false lemmas mean? How does it avoid Gettier cases?
It adds an extra condition to JTB which says that JTB is not inferred from something else (a false lemma)
The man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket is INFERRED from the FALSE LEMMA “Jones will get the job” — No false lemmas response says that therefore it isn’t knowledge, which is true
What is the problem of no false lemmas?
Fake barn county. The locals create a fake barn county. Henry is driving through it and he doesn’t know these are fake. Henry often thinks “there is a barn” when he looks at the fake ones. These beliefs are not knowledge because they aren’t true.
However, on one occasion he looks at a real barn and thinks “there is a barn”. This time belief is true, justified by visual perception and not inferred from false lemmas.
According to no false lemmas theory — it is knowledge, but it clearly isn’t, because this “knowledge” is just a lucky instance.
What is reliabilism?
- P is true
- James believes that P
- Jame’s belief that P is caused by a RELIABLE method
A reliable method is one that produces a high percentage of true beliefs
E.g having a good eyesight would constitute a reliable method of forming true beliefs
What is an advantage of RTB?
Children and animals have knowledge
E.g a child knows when it’s raining as he sees rain drops on the window, then vision is a reliable process that doesn’t require reasoning (justification)
Or a bird knowing where to find food based on its navigational instincts (reliable cognitive mechanism)
Issue with RTB?
Fake barn county. Henry’s belief that there is a barn is caused by a reliable process — his vision. However, it would be a mistake to say he knows ‘there is a barn’ because his belied is only true as a result of luck
What is virtue epistemology? VTB according to Zagzebski
- P is true
- You believe that P, and
- Your belief that P arises from an act of intelectual virtue
Intelectual virtue: you must have both the correct motivation (you want to find the truth) and succeed as a result of that virtue (your belief turns out to be true because you acted virtuously).
A virtue motivates us to pursue what is good (we are motivated to discover the truth). Virtues enable us to achieve our goals, so intelectual virtues would enable us to reliably form beliefs.
So when a person is motivated to find the truth and does what a virtuous person would do (e.g carefully considering a view that conflicts with their own) and then succeeds in forming a true belief as a result, then the person performs an act of INTELECTUAL VIRTUE
What is VTB according to Ernest Sosa?
Sosa has three properties to define knowledge: accuracy, adroitness (skill), aptness (appropriately exercising intelectual virtues)
Sosa argues that for something to qualify as knowledge, the belief MUST be a direct consequence of the believer exercising their intelectual virtues — it must be APT.
Referring to fake barn county example, Henry’s belief is accurate (true), its adroit (Henry has a good eyesight - ‘skill’), but he only formed the true belief as a result of luck, not because he used his intelectual virtues.
What is the issue with VTB?
A potential criticism of virtue epistemology is that it appears to rule out the possibility of children possessing knowledge due to their lack of mature intellectual virtues, despite the fact that they arguably can know many things.
What is infallibilism?
Infallibilism argues a that for a belief to be knowledges it must be true and justified in a way as to make it absolutely certain, it must be impossible to doubt
Even though Smith has good reasons for his beliefs in the Gettier case, they are not good enough to provide certainty. Smith might have misheard the interviewer. Or extreme, Smith might be a brain in a vat and Jones may not exist. Either of these scenarios — however unlikely — raise the POSSIBILITY of doubt.
What is the issue with infallibilism?
It is too strict. Infallibilism correctly days that in the Gettier cases it is not knowledge, but it also says pretty much everything fails to qualify as knowledge.
“I know that water boils at 100 degrees” — this can be doubted. Your teacher might have been lying to you or you might have misread the thermometer or you might have an illusion that you’ve been told otherwise it other.
Infallibilism sets a bar for knowledge to high — barely anything can be known. We could argue that absolute certainty is not a necessary condition for knowledge
