Unit 8: Knowledge Chris Heathwood Office: Hellems 192

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Knowledge as JTB Someone S has knowledge of P IFF: 1. S believes P 2. S is justified in believing P 3. P is true.
Advertisements

Theories of Knowledge Knowledge is Justified-True-Belief Person, S, knows a proposition, y, iff: Y is true; S believes y; Y is justified for S. (Note:
Anselm On the Existence of God. “Nor do I seek to understand so that I can believe, but rather I believe so that I can understand. For I believe this.
The Cogito. The Story So Far! Descartes’ search for certainty has him using extreme sceptical arguments in order to finally arrive at knowledge. He has.
Theory of knowledge Lesson 2
Today’s Outline Hume’s Problem of Induction Two Kinds of Skepticism
“Be kind, because everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” – Plato.
Meditations on First Philosophy
NOTE: CORRECTION TO SYLLABUS FOR ‘HUME ON CAUSATION’ WEEK 6 Mon May 2: Hume on inductive reasoning --Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, section.
Hume’s Problem of Induction. Most of our beliefs about the world have been formed from inductive inference. (e.g., all of science, folk physics/psych)
Cognitive Biases 2 Incomplete and Unrepresentative Data.
Summer 2011 Thursday, 07/21. Appeals to Intuition Intuitively, it may not seem that the Chinese room has understanding or that the Blockhead or China-brain.
Gettier’s response to JTB. Gettier put forward many examples to show that JTB doesn’t always mean we have knowledge, that actually in fact sometimes it’s.
Deeper.. last week what is christianity? what is christianity? doctrines doctrines apologetics apologetics.
Kareem Khalifa Philosophy Department Middlebury College Epistemological Preliminaries.
Knowledge Gettier’s Argument. Review The Tripartite Analysis: S knows that p iff S has a justified, true belief that p. The Knowledge Thesis: In order.
1 Arguments in Philosophy Introduction to Philosophy.
Phil 1: An Introduction to Philosophy
Lecture 7: Ways of Knowing - Reason. Part 1: What is reasoning? And, how does it lead to knowledge?
Can Big Questions Be Begged?. Fallacies are mistakes in inference, BUT Begging the question is not a mistake in inference. Is it a fallacy at all? Robinson.
KNOWLEDGE What is it? How does it differ from belief? What is the relationship between knowledge and truth? These are the concerns of epistemology How.
Confirmation Bias. Critical Thinking Among our critical thinking questions were: Does the evidence really support the claim? Is there other evidence that.
Knowledge Belief and Truth By Prof.Dr Shadia Abd Elkader Prof.Dr Shadia Abd Elkader.
1 Lesson 11: Criteria of a good argument SOCI Thinking Critically about Social Issues Spring 2012.
MA 110: Finite Math Lecture 1/14/2009 Section 1.1 Homework: 5, 9-15, (56 BP)
Philosophy 1050: Introduction to Philosophy Week 10: Descartes and the Subject: The way of Ideas.
Epistemology Section 1 What is knowledge?
MIDTERM EXAMINATION THE MIDTERM EXAMINATION WILL BE ON FRIDAY, MAY 2, IN THIS CLASSROOM, STARTING AT 1:00 P.M. BRING A BLUE BOOK. THE EXAM WILL COVER:
The Problem of Knowledge 2 Pages Table of Contents Certainty p – Radical doubt p Radical doubt Relativism p Relativism What should.
How do I tackle a 15 mark equation?!. Identify the key words in the question Decide which of the central 3 themes/questions it is dealing with WRITE Write.
Lecture 3: The nature of epistemic justification.
Epistemology – Study of Knowledge
Varieties of Scepticism. Academic Scepticism Arcesilaus, 6 th scolarch of the Academy Arcesilaus, 6 th scolarch of the Academy A return to the Socratic.
Lesson 2: Common Misconceptions. Misconception 1 “Christianity must be proven scientifically; I’ll accept Christianity when you prove it with the scientific.
BBI 3420 Critical Reading and Thinking Critical Reading Strategies: Identifying Arguments.
What does this all have to do with critical thinking?!? Can you reflect on how these “exercises” (from yesterday) relate to the critical thinking processes?
Module 2.2.  Learn the importance of using probing questions during the tutoring session.
PHIL 2525 Contemporary Moral Issues Lec 2 Arguments are among us…
Sight Words.
Anselm’s “1st” ontological argument Something than which nothing greater can be thought of cannot exist only as an idea in the mind because, in addition.
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave Philosophy Philos – love, like, seeking Sophia - wisdom, knowledge, truth.
LECTURE 23 MANY COSMOI HYPOTHESIS & PURPOSIVE DESIGN (SUMMARY AND GLIMPSES BEYOND)
Presuppositionalism Truth Talks Apologetics Series: Week 6.
Critical Thinking Lecture 7a Gettier
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 8 Epistemology #1 By David Kelsey.
Philosophy and Logic The Process of Correct Reasoning.
Certainty and ErrorCertainty and Error One thing Russell seems right about is that we don’t need certainty in order to know something. In fact, even Descartes.
Plato on Knowledge. Plato BC BC Student of Socrates ( ) Student of Socrates ( ) Teacher of Aristotle ( ) Teacher of.
Epistemology (How do you know something?)  How do you know your science textbook is true?  How about your history textbook?  How about what your parents.
GREEK PHILOSOPHERS I can explain the importance of the Greek philosophers; Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
The Socratic Way. Beginnings Philosophy Philosophy What is it? What is it? It’s hard to say It’s hard to say I’ll approach this obliquely I’ll approach.
Knowledge LO: To understand the distinction between three different types of knowledge. To learn some basic epistemological distinctions. To understand.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 8 Epistemology #1
Péter Hartl & Dr. Tihamér Margitay Dept. of Philosophy and the History of Science 1111 Budapest, Egry J. st. 1. E 610.
What is Philosophy?.
Plato’s Forms.
Justified True Belief Understand JTB Know the key definitions
Aristotle’s Causes.
Inductive / Deductive reasoning
Descartes, Meditations 1 and 2
Remember these terms? Analytic/ synthetic A priori/ a posteriori
March, 26, 2010 EPISTEMOLOGY.
Recap So Far: Direct Realism
How can I be sure I know something?
The Socratic Way.
Problems with IDR Before the holidays we discussed two problems with the indirect realist view. If we can’t perceive the external world directly (because.
What can you remember? Why did we say Justification is necessary for knowledge? What did we say some of the issues with saying truth is necessary for.
March, 26, 2010 EPISTEMOLOGY.
Tonight.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 8 Epistemology #1
Presentation transcript:

Unit 8: Knowledge Chris Heathwood Office: Hellems 192

What We’ll Cover in Unit 8 I.The Nature of Knowledge A.What is a theory of knowledge? B.Plato on Knowledge 1.Theaetetus’ Theory of Knowledge 2.Socrates’ Refutation of Theaetetus 3.Plato’s Theory of Knowledge C.Gettier’s Refutation of Plato II.Hume’s Problem of Induction

The Three Fundamental Questions of Philosophy 1.What is there? 2.What should I do? 3.How can I know? (Metaphysics) (Ethics) (Epistemology)

Some Questions in Epistemology 1.What is knowledge? 2.What is epistemic justification? 3.What are the fundamental sources of knowledge? 4.What are the limits of human knowledge? 5.What is the status of skepticism?

The Nature of Knowledge

Our First Question: What Is Knowledge? Putting the question this way makes the question sound really hard. Here are two other ways to put it: –“What is it to know something?” –“Under what conditions is it true that a person qualifies as knowing that something is the case?” An answer to this question will be a theory of knowledge.

What is a theory of knowledge? A theory of knowledge is a statement of the conditions under which a person knows that something is the case. It is a statement of this form: S knows that p if and only if ____S____p____.

Theories are knowledge are supposed to reveal the nature of knowledge.

Further Clarification of the Question ‘What is Knowledge?’ Three Ways the Word ‘Knows’ Is Used: “Bob knows how to ride a bicycle.” “Bob knows the president of the U.S.” “Bob knows that the earth is round.”  The theories of knowledge we’re looking at are about the third kind of knowledge – called knowledge that, or propositional knowledge.

How Do We Go About Constructing (and Evaluating) a Theory of Knowledge? Analogy: Bachelorhood. What is bachelorhood? What is it to be a bachelor? What are the conditions under which a person qualifies as a bachelor? What a “theory of bachelorhood” looks like: x is a bachelor if and only if _____x_____.

The Socratic Method, or the Method of Counterexamples A generalization is proposed We try to come up with a “counterexample” to it – i.e., a concrete example that “counters”, or shows false, the generalization just proposed If we do, we have refuted the generalization (but we might use the counterexample to help us improve on the generalization just refuted) If we can’t, perhaps the generalization is true.

What We’ll Cover in Unit 3 I.The Nature of Knowledge A.What is a theory of knowledge? B.Plato on Knowledge 1.Theaetetus’ Theory of Knowledge 2.Socrates’ Refutation of Theaetetus 3.Plato’s Theory of Knowledge C.Gettier’s Refutation of Plato II.Hume’s Problem of Induction 

Plato on Knowledge

Plato ( BC) The best known ancient Greek philosopher Student of Socrates; teacher of Aristotle Wrote about 23 philosophical dialogues Famous doctrine: the Theory of the Forms Western philosophy “consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.” - A. N. Whitehead (1929)

Socrates:But the question you were asked, Theaetetus, was not, what are the objects of knowledge, nor yet now many sorts of knowledge there are. We did not want to count them, but to find out what the thing itself – knowledge – is. Is there nothing to that? Theaetetus:No, you are quite right. … Socrates:Then tell me, what definition can we give with the least risk of contradicting ourselves? Theaetetus:The one we tried before, Socrates. I have nothing else to suggest. Socrates:What was that? Theaetetus:That true belief is knowledge. Surely there can at least be no mistake in believing what is true and the consequences are always satisfactory.

Theaetetus’ Theory of Knowledge The True Belief Theory: S knows that p if and only if (i) S believes that p; and (ii) p is true.

Socrates’ Argument Against the True Belief Theory Soc: You will find a whole profession to prove that true belief is not knowledge. … The profession of those paragons of intellect known as orators and lawyers. There you have men who use their skill to produce conviction, not by instruction, but by making people believe whatever they want them to believe. You can hardly imagine teachers so clever as to be able, in the short time allowed by the clock, to instruct their hearers thoroughly in the true facts of a case of robbery or other violence which those hearers had not witnessed. … … when a jury is rightly convinced of facts which can be known only by an eyewitness, then, judging by hearsay and accepting a true belief, they are judging without knowledge, although, if they find the right verdict, their conviction is correct? … But if true belief and knowledge were the same thing, the best of jurymen could never have a correct belief without knowledge. It now appears that they must be different things.

Socrates’ Argument Against The True Belief Theory The Argument 1.If the True Belief Theory is true, then the jury knows that I committed the crime. 2.But they don’t know I committed the crime. 3.Therefore, the True Belief Theory is not true.

Further Counterexamples to the True Belief Theory of Knowledge: a. My belief that our football team will win their next game. b. Groundhog’s Day example. Each case shows that true belief is not sufficient for knowledge.

The Lesson: a belief that is true just because of luck does not qualify as knowledge.

Plato’s Theory of Knowledge Socrates:So when a man gets a hold of the true notion of something without an account, his mind does think truly of it, but he does not know it, for if one cannot give and receive an account of a thing, one has no knowledge of that thing. But when he also has got hold of an account, all this becomes possible to him and he is fully equipped with knowledge. … a true notion with the addition of an account is knowledge?

Plato’s Theory of Knowledge The JTB Theory S knows that p if and only if (i) S believes that p; (ii) p is true; and (iii) S is justified in believing that p.

Comments About the JTB Theory a.How it avoids the counterexamples to the True Belief Theory b.Theory of Justification still needed. c.Some possible ways to be justified in believing something: i.perception iv. testimony ii.introspection v. induction iii.memory vi. deduction d.Theory accepted for thousands of years. e.Theory no longer accepted today.

What We’ll Cover in Unit 3 I.The Nature of Knowledge A.What is a theory of knowledge? B.Plato on Knowledge 1.Theaetetus’ Theory of Knowledge 2.Socrates’ Refutation of Theaetetus 3.Plato’s Theory of Knowledge C.Gettier’s Refutation of Plato II.The Problem of Induction  

Gettier’s Refutation of Plato

Edmund Gettier (1927- ) Not the best known contemporary American philosopher, but pretty well know. Student of his teachers at Cornell; teacher of me at UMass. Wrote just one 3-page paper. Famous doctrine: Justified true belief ain’t knowledge. A. N. Whitehead (1929) probably didn’t say anything about Gettier. Really good at badminton.

A Gettier-style Counterexample STEP 1. Suppose I see your driver’s license, an Alaska driver’s license. This seems to justify me in believing (1) You are from Alaska. Note: this assumes that justification does not entail truth. (That is, that what justifies me in believing something need not absolutely guarantee that that thing is true.)

A Gettier-style Counterexample STEP 2. Now suppose that on the basis of my belief that (1) You are from Alaska I come to believe that (2) Someone in my class is from Alaska. It seems that I am justified in believing (2). This is due to the following principle: If S is justified in believing p, and p entails q, and S believes q on the basis of S’s belief that p, then S is justified in believing q.

A Gettier-style Counterexample STEP 3. Now suppose that the driver’s license I saw was in fact a fake ID, and that (1) You are from Alaska is in fact false. (Note: I have a false justified belief in (1).) (Note also: the JTB Theory thus far implies, correctly, that I do not know (1).)

A Gettier-style Counterexample STEP 4. Finally, suppose that, just by chance, someone else in the class really is from Alaska. In other words, my belief that (2) Someone in my class is from Alaska actually turns out to be true. It is true just by luck.

A Gettier-style Counterexample STEP 5. Let’s ask some questions about this proposition: (2) Someone in my class is from Alaska. FIRST QUESTION: Would you say that I know (2)? ANSWER: No. SECOND SET OF QUESTIONS: Is (2) true? YES Do I believe (2)? YES Am I justified in believing (2)? YES

A Gettier-style Counterexample STEP 6: Thus, bringing it all together: I have a justified true belief in (2), but I don’t know (2). In the form of a little argument … A Gettier-style Argument Against JTB: 1.If the JTB Theory is true, then I know that someone in our class is from Alaska. 2.But it’s not true that I know that someone in our class is from Alaska. 3.Therefore, the JTB Theory is not true.

Other Gettier-style Examples The Hallucination Russell’s Clock The Sheep in the Field

A Way to Save the JTB Theory Note that what all the examples have in common: the subject has highly reliable, but not infallible, evidence for the proposition believed. To say that e is infallible evidence for p is to say that e entails p. Recall that Gettier’s argument assumed that a person can be justified in believing something without having infallible evidence for it.

A Way to Save the JTB Theory But consider this thesis about justification: Infallibilism: S is justified in believing p only if S’s evidence for p entails p. If Infallibilism is true, then Gettier’s argument against JTB fails. But is Infallibilism true? …