1. On your whiteboard:
How many different ways can you think of using the term:
“I know…”
(i.e. what different types of things can you know?)

2. Key Questions / Lesson Objective:
What different types of knowledge are there?
How do we define words and terms?
What keywords will we be using in this topic?

3. What is the difference between the knowledge in each of these cases – how would you group them?
I know kung fu
I know that WW2 was from 1939 to 1945
I know of California
I know how to make ducks follow me.
I know what you did last summer
I know that 2+2=4
I know what Marmite tastes like
I know how to pass my Philosophy course.
I know Kim Kardashian.

4. What is the difference between the knowledge in each of these cases – how would you group them?
I know kung fu
I know that WW2 was from 1939 to 1945
I know of California
I know how to make ducks follow me.
I know what you did last summer
I know that 2+2=4
I know what Marmite tastes like
I know how to pass my Philosophy course.
I know Kim Kardashian.

5. Have a go at answering the questions at the bottom of page 3.
Types of Knowledge
Acquaintance – Knowledge in the sense of knowing a person, place, thing, sensation or feeling. Doesn’t necessarily involve being able to give a verbal report of the knowledge, generally how we discover most things about the world.
Ability – Knowledge of how to do something or “know-how”. Involves a capacity to perform a certain kind of task, but need not involve any understanding of what such performance entails. Also doesn’t necessarily include the ability to give a verbal report of the knowledge.
Propositional – Knowledge that some claim – a proposition – is true or false. Knowing that something is the case. A proposition is a declarative statement about some state of affairs. “Eagles are birds” – something expressable in language. This is the type of knowledge we are primarily interested in.
Have a go at answering the questions at the bottom of page 3.

6. Key Questions / Lesson Objective:
What different types of knowledge are there?
How do we define words and terms?
What keywords will we be using in this topic?

7. Related Keywords
Before we begin to explore knowledge in more detail we need to look at some related keywords. “Since factual knowledge is expressed in language, it seems to involve holding beliefs. A swallow does not need to have any specific beliefs to fly south during the winter (ability) or to know its chicks (acquaintance) but propositional knowledge is different. I can also say that if I have knowledge of certain facts I believe certain propositions to be true; in other words , I agree with these propositions. Because factual knowledge deals with knowing facts, and so with having beliefs, these beliefs can either be true or false.” Add the definitions of the four terms (belief, proposition, fact and truth) at the bottom of page 4 to your notes.

8. How would you define knowledge? - Whiteboards
Definitions
Now we have an understanding of the types of knowledge we deal with, and some associated key terms we might use when discussing knowledge. We can move closer to the main aim of this topic – trying to give a working definition of knowledge. To achieve this we first need to discuss what we are looking for when we try to define a word or term. In other words, what kind of definition do we need.
How would you define knowledge? - Whiteboards
How do we usually define words and terms?

9. Side Note - The Dictionary Approach
When people who write dictionaries aim to define a term there are two different approaches they may take:
Prescriptive – What the word should mean if people use it correctly.
Descriptive – What the word means in terms of ordinary usage.
Whilst most dictionaries initially started out as the former (following strict rules of language) most nowadays use the latter – since slang and colloquialisms often rapidly alter the way we use words.
Unfortunately, neither of these work for our purposes. We need an agreeable definition of knowledge first to prescribe how the term should be used, and we’ve already seen people use the word in different ways (often ways they don’t understand) so descriptive usage is not exact enough for our purposes. We need to look for something different.

10. Philosophical Definitions
How we define terms was a topic investigated by the philosopher Linda Zagzebski (1947-) and she identified another issue when it comes to the way we define terms, building on work done by Locke (he’s back!). Locke (and later Zagzebski) noticed subtle differences in how humans classify and divide the world – specifically in how we identify and define specific concepts.

11. The ‘Real Essence’ of Things
If we take the examples of water and weeds – is there a difference between how we define / classify these terms?

12. Water And Weeds Initially it may not seem like it:
There are lots of liquids in the world and we classify some as water.
There are lots of plants in the world and we classify some as weeds.
However, the classifications do not have the same status:
In the case of water we have a genuine difference between liquids on a molecular level that makes some liquids water (H20) and some not.
In contrast, there is no genetic difference between weeds and non- weeds; the classification is culturally specific – a question of which plants human like in their garden.

13. Water And Weeds
Initially it may not seem like it:
There are lots of liquids in the world and we classify some as water.
There are lots of plants in the world and we classify some as weeds.
However, the classifications do not have the same status:
In the case of water we have a genuine difference between liquids on a molecular level that makes some liquids water (H20) and some not.
In contrast, there is no genetic difference between weeds and non-weeds; the classification is culturally specific – a question of which plants human like in their garden.
Locke suggested this difference is because water has a real essence, whereas weeds do not. This means there is something about the object in question (water) that makes it what it is. In the case of a weed, there is nothing about the object itself that makes it a weed, it’s something external – our tastes.
The term natural kind has also been used for the same distinction. The category of water forms a ‘natural kind’ i.e. it’s based on some difference in the nature of the things involved – the category of weeds does not, it is a cultural term.

14. Real Essence or No?
Which of the following terms are part of a natural kind or have a real essence? Which are / do not?
(If you’re struggling think of the definition of the word – which definitions relate to some real difference in the world? Which relate to some cultural / societal difference?)
Fruit
Death
Art
Moon
Monsters
Dessert
Piano
Planets

15. Quick Question - Whiteboards
What does it mean to say that something has a ‘real essence’ (according to Locke) or is part of a ‘natural kind’ of category?

16. Real Essence to Real Definition
For those objects that have a real essence, we can seek what Locke termed a real definition. A real definition is one that effectively identifies the real essence of an object (i.e. water = H20). Locke thought the main aim of science was to make sure our real definitions matched our real essences. This is not to say that those objects (like weeds or monsters) that do not have real essences will not have a definition – just that the definition is artificial to some extent and open to change. It may be something we agree on now, or reflects our current use of language, but it could change in future.
Does knowledge have a real essence that could lead us to a real definition?

17. Zagzebski on Knowledge
Zagzebski thinks it’s not clear whether terms like knowledge can have a real definition. She is fairly sceptical about whether the term has a real essence (i.e. something independent from culture / society) because the way we use the term has changed so much throughout history. This would suggest that the concept is a cultural one rather than a natural one. However, she suggests that we should treat knowledge as if it has a real essence, and therefore seek a real definition. It’s entirely possible our usage in the past has been outright wrong and there is some clearly definable way of using the term that we just haven’t found yet.

18. What have we covered today then?
We’ve looked at 3 different ways of using the term “know” in conversation – corresponding with 3 different types of knowledge (ability, acquaintance and propositional).
We introduced the question for this topic – how do we define knowledge, before realising we needed to look first at how define terms full stop.
We looked at how we define terms according to dictionary usage (prescriptive and descriptive) and some problems with this approach (*NOT ON THE SPEC*).
We looked at one philosophical approach to definitions (Locke and Zagzebski) focusing on the idea of ‘real essence’ or ‘natural kind’.
We finished by pointing out that it doesn’t seem knowledge has a ‘real essence’ so whilst we may be able to find a definition that works, it may not be a ‘real’ one.

19. Key Terms from Today Acquaintance Knowledge Ability Knowledge
Propositional Knowledge
Proposition
Belief
Fact
Truth
Real Essence
Real Definition
Natural Kind

20. Lesson Summary: What different types of knowledge are there?
How do we define words and terms?
What keywords will we be using in this topic?