What is knowledge? Flashcards
What is acquaintance knowledge?
Acquaintance knowledge is direct knowledge of something through experience, including knowledge of people and places. An example of acquaintance knowledge would be saying ‘I know London well’.
What is ability knowledge?
Ability knowledge is knowing how to do something, usually referring to some sort of skill. An example of ability knowledge would be saying ‘I know how to ride a bike’. This differs from propositional knowledge as you cannot explain to someone how to ride a bike, they have to develop ability knowledge themselves.
What is propositional knowledge?
Propositional knowledge (knowing ‘that’) if factual knowledge, known by a true proposition about the world. An example of this would be saying ‘I know that WW2 ended in 1945’.
What are Zagzebski’s pitfalls in defining knowledge?
Zagzebski argues that in our attempt to define knowledge, our definition must not be circular (a definition containing the term being defined, such as defining ‘justice’ as when just acts occur), obscure (giving a definition more complex than what we seek to define), negative (defining something as what it is not, such as defining ‘good’ as not bad) or ad hoc (giving a definition which is only applicable to a certain situation, such as defining knowledge as’ J+T+B that is not a Gettier example’).
Explain the tripartite definition of knowledge?
The tripartite definition, proposed by Plato in ‘Theaetetus’, defines propositional knowledge as a justified true belief. It claims you know some proposition, p, if and only if:
The proposition p is true
You believe that p, and
Your belief that p is justified
The definition states that the conditions J+T+B are jointly sufficient (meaning that every time we have a justified true belief, we have knowledge) and individually necessary (you cannot have knowledge if one of these conditions is missing).
Explain the issue with the tripartite issue that the conditions aren’t individually necessary?
The tripartite definition states that the conditions J+T+B are individually necessary, meaning that we cannot have knowledge if one of these conditions is missing. However, this claim can be disputed. Some argue that the belief condition isn’t necessary for knowledge, equating knowledge more with successful action. For example, you hesitantly get the answer correct on a quiz, not believing that you were right. Furthermore, the truth condition can be attacked depending on how you define truth. If we take the coherence theory of truth, we could argue that a caveman did ‘know’ that the earth was flat because that proposition was internally coherent with the beliefs of the day. Finally, we can also question whether rational justification is necessary to have knowledge. For example, a man has a rare gift; if you give him any date in the future, he will be able to tell you what day of the week it will be. He says (correctly) that the 15th of March 2123 will be a Monday. He has no justification for this, yet we could still say that he knows this to be true. Taken cumulatively, these issues attack the tripartite definition’s claim that the conditions J+T+B are individually necessary.
Explain the issue with the tripartite definition that the conditions aren’t jointly sufficient
This issue attacks the tripartite definition’s claim that the conditions J+T+B are not jointly sufficient in defining knowledge. Posed by Edmund Gettier, Gettier cases seek to prove that we can have cases in which there is a justified true belief, but not knowledge. An example of a Gettier case to prove this issue is the Smith and Jones job interview scenario: Smith is told by the CEO of a company that Jones will get the job. He also sees Jones count 10 points in his pocket. From this, Smith then forms the belief ‘the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket’. Smith then gets the job and, by chance, also has 10 coins in his pocket. Therefore, Smith had a justified true belief, but in this case, it does not seem right to say that he had knowledge.
Explain how infallibilism defines knowledge
Infallibilism responds to Gettier cases by removing the element of luck from the process of gaining knowledge, linking justification and truth so closely that there is no room for lucky coincidences. It does so by claiming that we should only count as knowledge those things which we cannot rationally doubt. For example, we cannot rationally doubt that we exist or that 2+2=4. Infallibilism also takes a much stronger understanding of the ‘justification’ condition. Many of the things we would consider as justifications are not: for example, we may think that looking at maps or researching on the internet would justify our belief that ‘Paris is the capital of France’ but infallibilism would disagree as there is still room for doubt.
Explain how ‘no false lemmas’ defines knowledge
The ‘no false lemmas’ approach to knowledge adds one extra condition to the tripartite definition to strengthen it. You know that p (proposition) if and only if
p is true
You believe that p
Your belief that p is justified
You did not infer that p from a false lemma (a false proposition that forms part of your overall argument)
Explain how reliabilism defines knowledge
Reliabilism rejects the need for justification, instead requiring a true belief to be reliably formed. This defines knowledge as such: you know p (proposition) if and only if
p is true
You believe that p, and
Your belief is produced by a reliable cognitive process (one that produces a high percentage of true beliefs, such as memory, perception and testimony)
Explain how virtue epistemology defines knowledge
Virtue epistemology defines knowledge as V+T+B – a true belief formed by exercising intellectual virtues, such as reasoning well and playing close attention to evidence. To illustrate this, Ernest Sosa presents an analogy of an archer, identifying 3 key elements of virtuous knowledge:
Accuracy – did the arrow hit the target? (Did the proposition reach the truth?)
Adroitness – was the shot skilful? (Did the thinker display epistemic virtue?)
Aptness – did the shot hit the target because it was skilful? (Did the proposition reach the truth because of the thinker’s epistemic virtue?)
Therefore, virtue epistemology requires knowledge to be a true belief formed virtuously, following the model of the archer example.
Essay plan - ‘how can we best define propositional knowledge?’
- J+T+B
issue - Gettier cases
judgement - crucial arg, Gettier proves JTB does not work - No false lemmas
strength - copes well w/ Gettier
issue - fake barns
judgement - more effective than JTB but FBC is a damning issue - Sosa’s virtue epistemology
strengths - copes well w/ Gettier and fake barns (animal vs reflective knowledge)
judgement - effective, holds up well against both issues
