Flashcards About Epistemology

:

know Bill
know where the mall is

know French
An accomplishment

I know Kennedy was president in 1962
Always in form of proposition that is true or false
Epistemology is concerned with this type of knowledge

a justified true belief

Must believe something to be true
Must be true
Must have good reason for believing it to be true

Challenge to tripartite definition of knowledge

something that corresponds with the facts

having a good and valid reason, right, reasonable

Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction

an attitude of doubt or a disposition (leaning toward) to incredulity (disbelief) either in general or toward a particular object
Common sense, Philosophical, Unmitigated,
Mitigated, Metaphysical

healthy kind involved in claims out of the ordinary

surrounds skeptical thesis, “no one knows anything . 2 types mitigated and unmitigated

the theory that no one is capable of really knowing anything, there is no knowledge

(global, absolute, Pyrrhonic) the skeptical thesis that no one knows anything is true and I know it is true. Problem, if no one knows anything how do you know it isn’t true

the skeptical thesis is true that no one knows anything and I believe it is true (don’t know but believe)

(also Unmitigated skepticism) the skeptical thesis that no one knows anything is true and I know it is true. Problem, if no one knows anything how do you know it isn’t true

an argument against skepticism in that most of their argument defeat themselves. For example, if no one knows anything then how do you know that something isn’t true

a fallacy in which the argument proposes an explanation, but the mechanism proposed stands just as much in need of explanation as the original fact to be explained — and indeed it stands in need of the same kind of explanation

(moral) quality considered morally good or desirable in a person. For example generosity, compassion, courage, temperance and patience

(intellectual) qualities considered good and desirable in a person. For example wisdom, prudence, foresight, understanding and discernment

is the study of knowledge

put forth by Plato

you must believe proposition is true
proposition must be true
you must have good reason (justification) to believe

definition put forward 2000 years ago
now challenged by Gettier called Gettier problem
he asks is knowledge only a JTB

says we have no knowledge, they want us to suspend judgement concerning knowledge claims as we have no knowledge

healthy kind. That arises when we hear claims out of the ordinary

surround the skeptical thesis that says “no one know anything”

(global, universal, Pyrrhonic): the skeptical thesis is true and I know it is true. Problem If no one knows anything how do we know it isn’t true

skeptical thesis true and I believe it is true (not as sure as unmitigated). Tries to deflect the if no one knows how do you argument

I know something’s exist (analytical truths and empirical truths) but cannot know other things (metaphysical truths) known as local skeptics

an example of global skeptic

is local skeptic

if you have to constantly question the truth of everything how will you be sure light is green to pass thru intersection

if no one knows anything how do we know it isn’t true

where one builds on another but no proposition takes responsibility of being true or not, no ultimate

It is not necessary but defeasibility is. In the absence of defeaters or the unlikelihood of defeaters I am justified in saying I know that proposition to be true/

to say I am possible wrong before I believe I am wrong

need to recognize the limitations of my cognitive abilities

a belief that knowledge of reality can be acquired through reasoning independent of the senses, but not all knowledge

a belief that all knowledge is ultimately derived from sense experiences

means blank slate, Argument of empiricist Locke that we are born knowing nothing, everything must be learned through experience

a. A priori (literal meaning prior to): knowledge gained not from senses, knowledge
or justification is independent of experience
b. A posteriori (posterior to): knowledge gained through experience or the senses, knowledge that proceeds from observations or experiences to the deduction of probable causes.
c. A priori/a posteriori: (put forth by Kant) The terms a priori (“prior to”) and a posteriori (“posterior to”) are used in philosophy (epistemology) to distinguish two types of knowledge, justifications or arguments

a. Analytic knowledge: knowledge of definitions and mathematics, unrelated to knowledge of the “real” world. Kant said if a statement is analytic, then it is true by definition.
b. Synthetic knowledge: Knowledge about the real world. Kant said, knowledge determined by relying upon observation and experience; not upon logic and analysis

Knowledge about the real world truths gained without the need of experience. Used the
analogy of a computer where the data that is inputted is then put together in new ways to yield new information

A theory of truth that says a proposition is true if it corresponds to the facts of reality

a proposition is true if it coheres with other true propositions, if it doesn’t fit together with what
we “know” already

a proposition is true if it is successful in explaining phenomena or in achieving desired consequences

virtues needed to acquire knowledge.
a. Motivational virtues
i. Interest
ii. Commitment
b. Inquisitiveness
c. Teachableness
d. Intellectual honesty
e. Tenacity of belief

virtues needed to maintain truth
a. improving upon initial deposits
b. defend it when beliefs under attack
c. this virtue is counterpart in the intellectual realm to loyalty in the moral realm

(pedagogical virtues) those virtues needed to communicate our beliefs
a. Those virtues that let us share info about
our beliefs
b. Knowledge of something does not make
up good communicators or teachers
c. Include emotion, style, maturity

traits that allow us to apply our beliefs or knowledge in order to secure specific goods
and purposes
a. Organization
b. Problem solving
c. Foresight

we have a disposition to something, the propensity to act a certain way based on deeply embedded parts of character dependent on what changing circumstance require

the basic abilities that which we are born with that allow us to excel in a particular area, like perfect pitch in a musician

this is an acquired ability rather than a natural ability, a learned skill

(intellectual) qualities considered good and desirable in a person. For example wisdom, prudence, foresight, understanding and discernment

mischievous intelligence or wicked intelligence, using knowledge for purposes other than virtuous gain. Must look at motives and ends.

(one of 3 parts of Christian wisdom) Deals with exploring the ultimate causes at work in the world through reasoning on the basis of objects. Fails to disclose God. Not wrong but incomplete.

(one of 3 parts of Christian wisdom) Knowledge revealed directly by God through the scriptures, and church.

(one of 3 parts of Christian wisdom) Knowledge we will have of God when we meet him face to face. Knowledge by sight not by faith.

Wisdom that expresses itself in our day-to-day thinking and acting. This is practical wisdom as opposed to contemplative wisdom. An intellectual virtue from which we receive counsel regarding what is good for us.

…

…

…

knowledge of reality gained through reason independent of sense experience

all knowledge ultimately derived from sense experience

a. World of being-
i. Not physical
ii. Composed of perfect forms
iii. Intellectually only
iv. We all pre-existed here first
v. We all had knowledge of all these perfect
forms
vi. At birth trauma pushes knowledge into our subconscious
vii.Learning is recollection of previously known truths

b. World of becoming
i. Physical world of our existencemetaphysical belief

a How can we be certain, the question of skeptics
b.Geometric method of knowledge: can know something through intuition and deduction
i.Geometry uses theorems and proofs
ii.He uses intuition and deduction
iii. What can man know with 100 % certainty then deduce all from that

1. I think therefore I am
2.Only your existence can not be doubted
3.From existence can deduce
a. God (ontological argument)
b. Matter
c. Mind

1. John Locke: rejects innate knowledge
a. Man born tabular rasa: blank slate
b. Knowledge gained from

1. Passive
2. Sense based
3. Simple ideas

1. Combine, compare, contrast simple ideas
2. Develop complex understandings

Radical empiricist, takes it to extreme
a. Sense knowledge and only sense
knowledge exist
b. Rejects all metaphysical claims not gained
solely on senses
i. Causality
ii. Mind
iii. Time/space

strives to reconcile rationalism and empiricism
a. We are born with innate categories of understanding that allow us to sort and use sense experience
b. Not truly innate knowledge but basic cognitive abilities to understand things like
i. Causality
ii.Time/space
c. Reality provides raw data (noumena) through our senses which our mind manipulates and organizes into knowledge (phenomena)
d. Synthetic: knowledge of real world
experienced
e. Analytical: knowledge by definition or
mathematics, not experienced
f. A priori: meaning prior to, knowledge gained prior to the functioning of our senses

g. A posteriori: meaning posterior to, knowledge gained from our senses
h. Kant’s famous conclusion: causality, time and space are not prosperities of reality but programmed fixes of our mind in understanding the world. Our mind doesn’t conform to reality, reality is conformed by our mind in a way we can understand it.

1. Correspondence theory: a proposition is true if it corresponds to the facts of reality
a. Oldest theory put forth by Plato and Aristotle
b Strengths
i Fit with our most basic intuition of what truth
means
ii. Links truth with reality
iii. Provides a reliable way to check
truthfulness of propositions
c. Weaknesses
i. All may not see reality the same or accurately
ii. Difference between something being true and knowing its true

iii. Only applies to factual claims, does nothing for opinions put forward as truths
iv. Word correspondence is vague, restated
propositions are truth bearers, they represent truth in context
v. Doesn’t deal with paradox
1 Liars paradox: “I lie all the time”

a. Reject as false all propositions that do not cohere with established truth systems
b. Strengths:
i.Helps establish truths in areas where we do no have all truths
ii. Many systems and nonfactual areas work this way already (moral)
c Criticism:
i. Coherence is necessary but not sufficient
ii. How do you judge truthfulness of a system
iii. How do you start a new system
iv. Not linked to reality
v. * simply not adequate

a proposition is true if it is successful in explaining phenomena or in achieving desired consequences
William James, “truth is expedience”
Used in explaining scientific theories
Strengths
Appeals to areas of religion and moral
If religion gives my life meaning then it is true for me
Recognizes relativity of truth claims

No logical connection between what works and what is true (slavery)
No criteria to determine success
Makes truth changeable
What was true yesterday is not true today

structure of ones systems of beliefs. Focuses on how are beliefs related and how do they support one another. 2 types: foundationalism and coherentism

in Noetic structure most beliefs are related together in a system so that they support one another; 2 theories Foundationalism and Coherentism. Foundationalism state 2 belief categories: basic and non-basic

also known as foundational beliefs are more foundational beliefs from which more complex ones are determined.

these are the most basic most foundational beliefs and are called self justifying and first principals of knowledge

a higher order, less foundational belief

also called classical foundationalism says that for a belief to be known it must meet 1 of the following criteria

obvious, immediately evident

impossible for you to believe contrary (feel pain)

(like seeing color)

known as weak foundationalism says a belief must meet 1 of the following to be a true belief

…

in the absence of something that can defeat or contradict my belief I am justified in believing it

justified, self presenting, face value, given no reason to doubt

something we immediately see as true, a belief that needs nothing else to provide justification

Not able to be corrected, improved, or reformed. A belief that you can not be persuaded to disbelieve

a belief that cannot be proved wrong. A criteria of modest foundationalism that says we are justified to believe in something in the absence of a claim that can defeat our belief

the opposing view of foundationalism. There is only 1 category of belief. There are none that are foundational but some more central. Relies of Doxastic assumption that a belief is justified if it coheres with other beliefs

what is the nature of the relationship between basic and higher order

Epistemic obligation says we have a duty in being responsible for what we believe. Internalism say that we have to have introspective access to the reason for my belief to which I must appeal to for justificationEvidentualism: most common form of Internalism. I appeal to evidences for reasons why I believe something to be true

In response to epistemic obligations externalism says that I can believe what I want as long as I came to the belief through the proper cognitive process (warranted rather than justified is the chosen word)Regress argument: an attempt to conclude an argument with another conclusion which itself need justification

refers to developing a hypothesis that would, if true, best explain a particular set of observations. Similar to inductive reasoning

acting together as of agents or circumstances or events, agreement of results or opinions, competition, the temporal property of two things happening at the same time

Based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.

In philosophy, a first principle is a basic, foundational proposition, so it follows this is the needed principle on which to base conclusion. In philosophy, a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption

(not able to locate decent def need to look toward reading materials) dependent on or upon some preceding occurrence or condition

critical reflection of religious questions and beliefs engaged in by thinkers who are not at all religious. Not so much religious thinking as it is thinking about religion

(philosophical theology) theologian attempts to say what can be

…

philosophical thinking which is religious in inspiration or direction. Not identical to philosophy of religion.

claims that faith is the precondition for any correct thinking about religion

claims that our critical thinking will be likely to help us toward the truth only if completely impartial and unbiased (no precondition of belief)

genuine knowledge must consist of truths which are known with

(Classical foundationalism) says all knowledge from conclusive truths

some knowledge is properly basic or foundational but it isnot claimed to be known with absolute certainty

this is a process whereby an individual attempts to think through the alternatives and objections to his own view and the alternatives put forward.