What is Knowledge? Flashcards
what is propositional knowledge
Propositional knowledge is categorised as knowing ‘that’. For instance, I may know that Paris is the capital of France.
what is acquaintance knowledge
Acquaintance knowledge is knowing ‘of’. this usually involves knowing of some place or person. e.g. I know the manager of the restaurant.
what is ability/practical knowledge
Ability knowledge is categorised as knowing ‘how’ to do something. e.g riding a bike
explain the nature of definition and how propositional knowledge may be analysed or defined (zagzebski)
explain the tripartite view
The tripartite view attempts to define propositional knowledge as a justified true belief. JTB is necessary and sufficient for an account for proportional knowledge. Therefore S knows that P if and only if S is justified in believing P, P is true, and S believes P.
What is a necessary condition
A necessary condition is something you must have in order to have the thing in question. For instance, water is a necessary condition for rain.
X is a necessary condition of Y if without X you cannot have Y
what is a sufficient condition
A sufficient condition when met guarantee that you will always have the thing in question. For instance, being an aunt is a sufficient condition for having relatives.
X is a sufficient condition of Y if having X guarantees the occurrence of Y
the issue of the belief condition not being necessary
This is the argument that the belief condition is not necessary for propositional knowledge. JTB states that you cannot have a case of knowledge without believing in the proposition. However, a counterexample of this may tell us otherwise. Picture James, who is of an unconfident nature, revises thoroughly and aces the test but not at one point entirely believed in the correctness of the answers he put down.
A JTB model of knowledge would say that James does not have knowledge as it is missing the belief condition while our common intuition would think he does have knowledge as he had thoroughly revised and aced the test. Therefore it seems that the belief condition is not necessary for proportional knowledge.
The issue of the truth condition not being necessary
While JTB states that the truth of a proposition is necessary for it to count as proportional knowledge, this may not be the case. Consider the example of Raquel the cavewoman who lived in prehistoric times and believes that the earth was flat. According to JTB, Raquel is justified in believing the earth was flat due to the knowledge people had at the time, and she believed it, but the proposition isn’t true and therefore it is not a case of knowledge.
However, many philosophers may argue that according to a coherence theory of truth, where something is true when the proposition aligns with a common web of true beliefs within a given society. Therefore Raquel does have a case of knowledge.
the issue of the justification condition not being necessary
While JTB states that the ability of being able to justify a true belief is necessary of propositional knowledge, there are counter examples that show it is perhaps not. Consider Tony how has a special gift. Given any date in the future, say march 21st 2049, Tony will be able to tell you the exact day it will be (e.g., Monday) but cannot explain how he can do this. Tony is also very accurate with his claims.
According to JTB this is not knowledge even though it is true and a belief as Tony cannot justify it. However, according to our normal intuition and other theories such as relaibalism, Tony does have a case of proportional knowledge. therefore it seems like the justification condition is not necessary for knowledge and therefor JTB fails.
The issue that gettier cases show that JTB conditions are not jointly sufficient
Although each condition of JTB may be jointly sufficient for knowledge, we can question whether they are jointly sufficient (i.e does J+T+B=K). Gettier cases seem to prove that they aren’t by demonstrating propositions that satisfy JTB but are not cases of knowledge.
Picture that smith and jones are applying for the same job. Smith has insider knowledge that Jones will get the job, smith has also counted that Jones has ten coins in his pocket. Therefore Smith forms the belief that ‘the man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job’. Turns out smith gets the job but he also has ten coins in his pocket. Therefore Smith’s belief turns into a JTB and therefore counts as knowledge.
However, it seems like we don’t want to admit Smith has knowledge in this case due to the luck involved. We seem to not want to award knowledge on the basis of luck. Therefore it seems like JTB is not jointly sufficient for knowledge
The issue of double luck gettier cases
fake barn
Explain how infallibalism can strengthen the tripartite view
Gettier style counter examples rely on cases where luck is involved. Infallabalism offers a way to remove the element of luck. Infallabalism seeks to strengthen the justification condition of JTB by stating that something is JTB only if we cannot rationally doubt it. For instance, I know that 2+2=4 because I cannot rationally doubt that it is.
However, with gettier cases there is always room for doubt. For instance, in the case of Jones and Smith applying for the Job, Jones could have definitely believed some evidence which could have been wrong. therefore Jones belief can be rational doubted and therefore is not a case of JTB.
explain how the ‘no false lemmas’ condition can strength the tripartite view
Gettier style counter examples have demonstrated how the conditions of JTB are not sufficient for producing an account for propositional knowledge. The no false lemmas sets out to add an additional condition to strengthen the tripartite view that can respond to the gettier cases. A false lemma is a false premise within an argument. Adding ‘no false lemmas’ is a way to respond to the gettier cases as they all include one. For instance, Jone’s belief that ‘the man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job’ is based on the false lemma that Smith was going to get the job. Therefore with the new condition, Jones would not be considered to have an account of knowledge.
Therefore, the tripartite view can be revised into the form J+T+B+N (no false lemmas)=Knowledge. Not only does this the new condition solve the issue with the Gettier problems, but it also strengthens the tripartite view as a whole in defining knowledge.
Explain how reliabalism strengthens the tripartite view
Reliabalism is the theory that knowledge must be linked to a reliable process that led to it. For instance, seeing something up close, or reading from a trustworthy source are both reliable means of gaining knowledge as they rarely will mislead us. On there other hand, processes such as wishful thinking are not as there is a large aspect of uncertainty involved.
Reliabalism strengthens the tripartite view by replacing the justification condition with the reliablaism condition discussed above. Therefore, something is only an account of knowledge if it is a true beliefe derived from a reliable process.
Reliabalism is capable of responding to issues such as Johns talent of naming whatever day it is based on a distant date. While JTB would say John doesn’t know it’s Monday on march 1st 2046 because he cannot justify how he got to the answer, reliablism would because John’s talent is often accurate and is therefore reliable. Therefore, by replacing the justification condition with reliabalims, the tripartite view becomes a more accurate definition for propositional knowledge
Explain how virtue epistemology strengthens the tripartite view
Virtue epistemology attempts to strengthen the tripartite view by replacing the jutification condition with the virtue of knowledge. Therefore someone only has knowledge if and only if there is an excersizing of intellectual virtue that helps you get to the true belief.
One Virtue epistemology theory is Sosa’s triple A rating. Sosa thinks that there is only a case of knowledge if there is accuracy (a belief is accurate if its true), adroitness (has some skill of intellectual virtue), and aptness (when something is accurate because it was formed by intellectual virtue).
Sosa’s from of virtue epistemology strengthens the tripartite view by creating a more accurate criteria for propositional knowledge which solves the gettier cases. in the case of Jones and smith, while the belief was accurate (someone with ten coins did indeed get the job), adroit (Jones skilfully counted ten coins in Smith’s pocket), but it is not apt because the true belief is not formed by some intellectual virtue as Jones was simply right by luck.
