Lecture 2: The nature and value of knowledge

Two kinds of knowledge Both philosophy and common sense draw a distinction between knowing how, and knowing that. I know that bikes have two wheels. I know how to ride a bike. Can my knowing how to ride a bike be explained in term of my knowing that certain propositions/statements are true? What differences might there be between our grammatical knowledge of our native language and our grammatical knowledge of a second or third language?

Knowing-how versus knowing-that and the subject areas As mentioned in the last lecture, each academic discipline/subject area (e.g. mathematics) involves a body of knowledge and a methodology (a method of gaining knowledge). The body of knowledge is made up of propositional knowledge (knowledge-that). The methodology involves both know how (e.g. knowing how to use a microscope in biology), and knowing that (e.g. knowing that one must replicate the results of studies to be confident in their results).

Knowledge claims and knowledge issues In TOK, our primary interest in knowledge relates to what are called knowledge claims. A knowledge claim is a proposition/statement of which we claim to have knowledge. E.g.: “1 + 1 = 2” Single cell organisms reproduce through division. Picasso was one of the greatest artists of the 20 th century. Knowledge claims are candidates for the status of propositional knowledge (knowledge-that). In TOK, we ask whether our knowledge claims really count as genuine knowledge, and why: questions about the status of knowledge claims are called knowledge issues. To properly address knowledge issues, we must first know something about the nature of knowledge.

The conceptual question: what is knowledge? This question cannot be answered by drawing up a list of things we know. Rather, it asks us to list the conditions that need to be satisfied in order for a belief to count as knowledge. Another conceptual question: What is a bachelor? To answer this question we need to list the conditions for something to count as a bachelor.

The belief condition To know that X, you must believe that X. What is it to believe that X? To believe that “The cat is on the mat” is to accept the truth of the proposition/statement “The cat is on the mat.” You can’t believe that “The cat is on the mat” whilst also rejecting the truth of that same statement. An interesting paradox: Taken individually, I consider each of my beliefs to be true (That’s just the nature of belief). However, I am almost certain that many of my beliefs are false (I’m just not sure which ones!)

The truth condition What else is required for knowledge? I can’t know that “The Earth is flat”, or that “Mitt Romney won the last US presidential election”. Why not? Because these propositions are not true. What does this tell us about knowledge? That truth is required for knowledge.

A quick aside on the nature of truth Sometime people say thing like “That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” Is truth relative to the individual? Can something that is true for one person be false for another? If not, what do people really mean when they say things like “It’s true for you but not for me”? Does it just mean “You accept it as true (i.e. you believe it) but I don’t”?

What else is required for knowledge? Not all true beliefs count as knowledge. For example: I believe that stock market will crash tomorrow, but only because I has a bad dream in which the stock market crashed. I believe that I will father a total of three children but only because a tarot card reader told me so. What is it that disqualifies these beliefs as knowledge? In addition to true belief, we also need the right kind of grounding/evidence/reasons/justification. What counts as the right kind of grounding/evidence/reasons/justification? We will have another lecture on this.

The value of knowledge Why is knowledge so prized? Part of it seems to be to do with truth? But why is knowledge so much better than mere true belief? The Meno Problem (from Plato’s Meno) If I want to get to Larissa, a guide with a true but unjustified belief about the fastest route to Larissa will serve me just as well as guide who actually knows the fastest route to Larissa. So, what is the value of knowledge over true belief?

Journal Entries Beginning in week 3 (this week) all TOK students will be required to complete a weekly journal entry of words. Journal entries should be submitted via to your individual discussion group leader before the next TOK session. This week’s question: Describe one instance in which you thought you knew X but came to realize that you did not. What made you realize that you did not know what you thought you did, and how did you react to this discovery?

Reading for next week Dombrowski, et al, Theory of Knowledge Course Companion … From the heading ‘Justification: “good reasons” for belief’ on page 104, to the end of page 114.

Discussion questions for this week Can you think of a piece of know-how that you possess which you could not articulate in the form of knowledge-that? What are some central knowledge claims within your favorite academic disciplines? What kinds of know-how are required for those disciplines? Given that believing X is accepting the truth of X, what difference is there from the first person perspective between true and false beliefs? If I come to realize that a belief of mine is not based on solid evidence, should I - or in fact would I - continue holding that belief? How might we solve the Meno Problem? Are we simply wrong to think of knowledge as more valuable than mere true belief?