The tripartite view Flashcards
what is the tripartite definition of knowledge
true belief accompanied by a rational account
1. justification 2. truth 3. belief
necessary and sufficient conditions
JTB
- we argue that ‘justification, truth and belief’ are all necessary for knowledge
- and all together the three conditions for knowledge are sufficient for knowledge
defining ‘knowledge’ is to provide necessary and sufficient conditions.
show how truth is necessary for knowledge
JTB
If someone said, “I know that the moon is made of green cheese” you wouldn’t consider that knowledge because it isn’t true.
show how belief is necessary for knowledge
JTB
It just wouldn’t make sense, for example, to say “I know today is Monday but I don’t believe today is Monday.”
show how justification is necessary for knowledge
JTB
Suppose someone asks you if you know how many moons Pluto has. You have no interest in astronomy but just have a strong feeling about the number 5 because it’s your lucky number or whatever. You’d be right – Pluto does indeed have 5 moons – but it seems a bit of a stretch to say you knew Pluto has 5 moons. Your true belief “Pluto has 5 moons” is not properly justified and so would not count as knowledge.
what do Gettier’s scenarios aim to achive in relation to JTB
an individual has a justified true belief that is not knowledge. Both scenarios describe a belief that fails to count as knowledge because the justified belief is only true as a result of luck.
What is Gettier case 1
- Smith and Jones are interviewing for the same job
- Smith hears the interviewer say “I’m going to give Jones the job”
- Smith also sees Jones count 10 coins from his pocket
- Smith thus forms the belief that “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket”
- But Smith gets the job, not Jones
- Then Smith looks in his pocket and, by coincidence, he also has 10 coins in his pocket
does smith have a JTB in case 1
belief- ‘the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket’
justified - he hears the boss say jones will get the job and he sees that jones has 10 coins in his pocket
true- the man who gets the job (Smith) does have 10 coins in his pocket
why would we say smith doesn’t have knowledge in gettier case 1
espite being a justified true belief, we do not want to say that Smith’s belief counts as knowledge because it’s just luck that led to him being correct.
what does gettier case 1 prove
shows that the tripartite definition of knowledge is not suffiecient: you can have JTB that is NOT knowledge
what does gettier case 2 rely on
on the logical principle of disjunction introduction
what is the disjunction introduction
that if you have a true statement and add ‘some other statement’, then the full statement is also true
e.g “London is the capital of England” is true. And so the statement “either London is the capital of England or the moon is made of green cheese” is also true, because London is the capital of England. Even though the second part (“the moon is made of green cheese”) is false, the overall statement is true because the or means only one part has to be true (in this case “London is the capital of England”).
explain gettier’s second case
- Smith has a justified belief that “Jones owns a Ford”
- So, using the principle of disjunctive introduction above, Smith can form the further justified belief that “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona”
- Smith thinks his belief that “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” is true because the first condition is true (i.e. that Jones owns a Ford)
- But it turns out that Jones does not own a Ford
- However, by sheer coincidence, Brown is in Barcelona
does smith have JTB in gettiers second case
belief- either jones owns a ford or brown is in barcelona
truth - either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” turns out to be true. But Smith thought it was true because of the first condition (Jones owns a Ford) whereas it turns out it is true because of the second condition (Brown is in Barcelona)
justified- The original belief “Jones owns a Ford” is justified, and so disjunction introduction means that the second belief “Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona” is also justified.
what does gettier’s second case prove
despite being a justified true belief, it is wrong to say that Smith’s belief counts as knowledge, because it was just luck that led to him being correct.
This again shows that the tripartite definition of knowledge is not sufficient.
how do philosophers respond to the gettier cases to the tripartite definition
make new definitions
e.g 1. JTB+no false lemmas, reliablism, virtue epistemology, infallibilism,
what does no false lemmas say
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
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).
how does no false lemmas defeat gettier case 1
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”.
Remember:
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.
So, in this instance, the no false lemmas definition appears to be a more accurate account of knowledge than the tripartite view: it avoids saying Gettier cases count as knowledge.
what is the problem facing no false lemmas
fake barn county
what is fake barn county
- 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.
why is fake barn country an issue for no false lemmas
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.
what is reliabilism
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
what is a reliable method
one that produces a high percentage of true beliefs.
eg. 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.
what is an advantage of relaibilism
- it allows for young children and animals to have knowledge. Typically, we attribute knowledge to young children and animals. For example, that a baby knows when its mother is speaking.
- However, pretty much all the other definitions of knowledge considered imply that animals and young children can not have knowledge. For example a baby can’t justify its beliefs and so justified true belief rules out seagulls and young babies from having knowledge.
- Similarly, if virtue epistemology is the correct definition, it is hard to see how a seagull or a newly born baby could possess intellectual virtues of care about forming true beliefs and thus possess knowledge.
- but they can form beliefs through a relaible process
what is the problem facing reliablism
fake barn county
how is fake barn county a problem for relaiblism
Henry’s true belief that “there’s a barn” is caused by a reliable cognitive process – his visual perception. Reliabilism would thus (incorrectly) say that Henry knows “there’s a barn” even though his belief is only true as a result of luck.
response to fake barn county
reliablism
doesn’t disprove reliablims because visual perception is STILL a reliable method as it is LIKELY to lead to the right result
what are the two type of virtue epistomology
- LINDA ZAGZEBSKI: WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?
- SOSA’S VIRTUE EPISTEMOLOGY
what is common in both types of virtue epistomology
common to all virtue epistemology definitions of knowledge is a link between a belief and intellectual virtues. Intellectual virtues are similair to Aristotle’s virtue theory in moral philosophy. However, instead of being concerned with moral good, intellectual virtues are about epistemic good.
examples of intellectual virtues
For example, an intellectually virtuous person would have traits such as being rational, caring about what’s true, and a good memory.
how does ZAGZEBSKI try to defaet the gettier cases
virtue epistomology
- start with a situation where there is a belief that fits the definition (‘true belief + some third condition’) but is false due to bad luck
- E.g. Henry’s belief “there’s a barn” when he is looking at the fake barns
- Then change the situation to one where the belief fits that definition (‘true belief + some third condition’) but is true due to good luck
- E.g. Henry’s belief “there’s a barn” when he is looking at the one real barn
- In the second case, the belief will still fit the definition (‘true belief + some third condition’) because it’s basically the same as the first case
- But the second case won’t be knowledge, because it’s only true due to luck
why does Zagzebski argue that this formula will always provide a means to defeat any definition of knowledge that takes the form ‘true belief + some third condition’
reason for this is that truth and the third condition are simply added together, but not linked
The fact that truth and the third condition are not linked leaves a gap where lucky cases can incorrectly fit the definition.
what is Zagzebski’s definition of knowledge?
James believes that P
James’s belief that P arises from an act of intellectual virtue
how does intellectual virtue work in Zagzebski’s definition of knowledge?
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).
Virtues motivate us to pursue what is good. In the case of knowledge, good knowledge is also true. Secondly, virtues enable us to achieve our goals (in the same way a virtuous i.e. good knife enables you to cut) and so intellectual virtues would enable you to reliably form true beliefs.
what is sosa’s virtue epistemology
P is true
James believes that P
James’s true belief that P is a result of James exercising his intellectual virtues
what analogy does sosa use to expalin the last condition of his virtue epistomology
He says that a 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
how does sosa’s definition of knowldge diffrentiate from those criticised by Zagzebski?????
According to Sosa, for something to qualify as knowledge the belief must be true as a direct consequence of the believer exercising their intellectual virtues – it must be apt. 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.
how does sosa’s virtue epistomology deal with fake barn county
Sosa’s virtue epistemology could (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.
problem for sosa’s virtue epistomolgy
it appears to rule out the possibility of young children or babies possessing knowledge, despite the fact that they arguably can know many things.
what is infallibilism
argues that for a belief to count as knowledge, it must be true and justified in such a way as to make it certain.
how does infallibilism deal with gettier case 1
even though Smith has good reasons for his beliefs in the Gettier case, they’re not good enough to provide certainty. Certainty, to philosophers like Descartes, means the impossibility of doubt.
In the Gettier case, Smith might have misheard the interviewer say he was going to give Jones the job. Or, even more extreme, Smith might be a brain in a vat and Jones may not even exist! Either of these scenarios – however unlikely – raise the possibility of doubt.
what is the problem with infallibilims
its too strict
explain how strictness is a critiicism of infallibilism
So, infallibilism correctly says Smith’s belief in the Gettier case does not count as knowledge.
But it also says pretty much everything fails to qualify as knowledge!
“I know that water boils at 100°c” – can this be doubted? Of course it can! Your science teachers might have been lying to you, you might have misread your thermometer, you might be a brain in a vat and there’s no such thing as water!
Pretty much any belief can be doubted, as Descartes demonstrates in his three waves of doubt.
So, whereas Gettier cases show the tripartite definition to set the bar too low for knowledge, infallibilism sets the bar way too high – barely anything can be known! In other words, we can argue that certainty is not a necessary condition of knowledge.
Explain the view that belief is not a necessary condition for knowledge.
5 marker
- The best answers will demonstrate understanding of what is meant by a ‘necessary condition’ for X. Namely, a condition which must be met in order for X to be the case.
- showing that there is at least one case (a counter-example) where someone does not believe that p, but nonetheless knows that p. One needs to argue that one can have knowledge of a proposition without accepting it as true (or at least without being disposed to assent to that proposition).
Radford-style examples like the following should be expected: Imagine a person once learnt some information and now has forgotten that they did so. They then give a large number of correct answers in a quiz on that topic but feel like they are merely guessing the answers. We might say of such a person that** they know the answers even though they do not believe (to be true) any of the things they said**. They may even, later on, say this of themselves, having realised their level of accuracy
