Epistemology A level Philosophy

What does Locke say concerning the definition for knowledge?

"Knowledge then seems to me to be nothing but the perception of the connection and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy of any of our ideas. In this alone it consists. Where this perception is, there is knowledge, and where it is not, there, though we may fancy, guess or belief, yet we always come short of knowledge."

How does the argument for regularity weaken Berkeley's account?

. Where do our ideas come from? A realist would argue that i is because of the existence of mind-independent matter that our experience fits together the way it does. Idealism appears to have no parallel explanation and the whole world of ideas that we inhabit appears nothing short of miraculous. While idealism does account for indirect gaps between reality and perception, its radical nature makes it a seemingly unapproachable theory. Its failure to account for regularity and continuity without defying Occam's Razor and therefore undermining these logical strength of the overall argument. To that extent, idealism is unable to answer the question and establish the extent of which we can know the external world.

What is the fake barn example?

A man is driving in the countryside, and sees what looks exactly like a barn. Accordingly, he thinks that he is seeing a barn. In fact, that is what he is doing. But what he does not know is that the neighbourhood generally consists of many fake barns — barn facades designed to look exactly like real barns when viewed from the road, as in the case of a visit in the countryside by Catherine II of Russia, just to please her. Since if he had been looking at one of them, he would have been unable to tell the difference, his "knowledge" that he was looking at a barn would seem to be poorly founded.

What is Russel's argument for Direct Realism?

According to Bertrand Russell, by triangulating our senses and under normal viewing conditions, perceptual variation should not be an issue. He states that the existence of the of the external world is the best hypothesis we have, and while we can never find complete proof, it is still reasonable to believe in the external world as this explains why we have the sense data that we do and why our perceptions behave in regular and predictable ways. Although the oar appears bent, by touching it we know that it is not. This deals with the problem of illusion. To deal with the problem of hallucination, we must also look to our sense. Macbeth, when he hallucinates the dagger, knows that it is not real because he cannot grasp it. Other sense and the triangulation of such can once again help detect deception. Furthermore, if we couldn't detect hallucinations, then we would remain unaware that we were ever subject to them. It seems logical to conclude that if hallucinations were really subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception, he we would be so utterly unaware of them that the argument could not even be started. Another argument in defense of direct realism against the problem of hallucination is that hallucinations are not perceptions at all. They are entirely mind dependent and lack importance or state of being in the external world. When Macbeth sees the dagger, he sees it as a result of his madness (as Shakespeare put it, his "heat oppressed brain"). He does not see an object which reflects the light back into his eyes causing an image to form in his head.

What s the main premise of indirect realism?

As Locke explains, the particles of light coming from external objects "convey to the brain some motion, which produces these ideas which we have of them." the particles which convey information of the world around us are not perceptible themselves, but rather have the power to produce ideas in us which is representative but not identical to the external world. Therefore, we are not directly aware of the world itself, but rather its appearance in our minds. We perceive the world indirectly. Locke concludes that there is a correspondence but not an identity between the way the world is and our senses

What is the master argument?

Berkeley also has another argument which he thinks proves conclusively that materialism is false. This argument seeks to demonstrate that it is actually inconceivable for an object to exist outside of a mind. The argument goes like this: (1) We can conceive of a tree existing independent of an out of all minds whatsoever only if we can conceive of the tree existing unconceived. (2) But an unconceived conceived thing is a contradiction. (3) Hence we cannot conceive of a tree (or anything else) existing independent and out of all minds. Berkeley named this the master argument, and felt that it definitively proved the existence of only mind-dependent objects. When we do not perceive objects, they do not exist.

Why does Berkely contest indirect realism?

Berkeley argues that we cannot know the nature of mind independent objects because mind dependant ideas cannot be like mind independent objects.

What three types of perceptual variation are there?

Between individuals: One person is colourblind, the other is not. If one sees a red box as grey, and the other sees it as red, who is right? Or are they perceiving two separate and changing realities? If they are both naive realists, they both explain that their separate versions of the box both equally and directly correspond to reality. The box is red and grey. This appear to prove that our senses do not directly correspond to reality. Location (between individuals): One may see a brown, large table. One may see a small table from afar, and the light makes the table appear ochre as opposed to mahogany. Species: A snake may perceive the world predominantly thought the medium of taste. They perceive it in ways which we cannot comprehend, yet if we a re perceiving the same reality, and our sense data is isomorphic with the wold around us, this should not be possible.

What does Locke say concerning the coherence of the senses as proof of the external world?

Ideas are common to different sense, so we can establish the nature of the external world. We can both see and feel the faces and edges of he cube , and this agreement between the sense suggests that there exists some object that is capable of having these qualities that individually stimulate both senses.

Briefly outline how each of the responses of infallibalism, reliabilsm etc can resolve Gettier cases?

Infallibalism: Justification must be so strong the belief must be true. No False Lemmas: Justification should not be built on false beliefs. Reliabilism: Justification should be based on a reliable process. Virtue Epistemology: Beliefs should be true because they are based on skilful justification.

What are the two rationalist ways of showing that we have synthetic a priori knowledge?

Innate knowledge and intuition and deduction.

How does Locke prove the existence of an external world?

Involuntary nature of our senses. Senses cannot be controlled in the way that memory can. I can conjure up my imagined smell of roses, however sensations force themselves upon me. The fact that I cannot control what sensations I have suggests that they must have been produced in my mind by some exterior cause. This is not a deductive proof, but Locke seeks to supply all the assurance one could want.

According to Virtue epistemolgy, how is knowledge formed?

Just like an archer, if the process is accurate because it was adroit (formed by intellectual virtue, not luck) then the process is also apt, and therefore there is knowledge. so aptness means that the accuracy of a claim is a direct result of the knower exercising their skills as a knower (adroitness). The emphasis is on a knower who has developed a set of effective disositions which she then uses in order to arrive at a claim. Pprovided that the belief is accurate, Sosa would say she 'knows' it.

What is naive realism?

Naive realism states that our senses give us an accurate, isomorphic picture of reality. When I see a yellow box on the table, there is in fact a yellow box on the table. How we perceive the world is precisely as it is.

So, considering these theories, is knowledge a justified true belief?

Overall, it is clear from Gettier counter examples that, while providing a firm foundation for the definition of knowledge, a justified true belief cannot be sufficient. From this the definition of knowledge must itself be reworked, but not to the extent of infallibilism, which soon becomes impractical. It seems that we should search for what knowledge is, not what it should be. Therefore, it can be argued that knowledge is, for the most part, based around reliabilism. Able to cope with Gettier counterexamples well without providing an overly complicated and impractical answer, reliabilism hold the greatest relevance towards everyday functionality and its wider use throughout the universe (not just humans and reflective knowledge). On the basis of this and using a reliable process, we can conclude that, while still not perfect, knowledge is best defined as K= R+T+B, making the theory of a JTB obsolete.

The criticisms against Naive realism?

Perceptual variation, illusion, hallucination and time lag. If a colorblind person saw the box on the table, it would not appear yellow but grey. Who has the correct perception? Equally, a bat uses echolocation to find an object- unlike us, it does not have the same perception of colour. Hallucination refers to states of consciousness where we perceive that which is not in reality- for example, when we dream, we may feel, smell, see and taste yet we know that once we wake up, we will return to reality. Outside of our minds, the worlds that we conjure up in our subconscious cannot exist, despite the fact that we appear to be experiencing them sensibly. It is in this sense that our senses deceive us, and some philosophers (such as Descartes) go as far as to argue that we are unable to differentiate between our dreams and the world around us, as hallucinations are indistinguishable from veridical perception, and therefore we cannot possibly know reality. Examples of Neckers cube and the refraction of light in water further prove that, by illusion, our senses can be deceived. An oar may appear bent in water, but when it is out of water, it is straight again. Based on these arguments, there are two possibilities: we hypothesise that either there a multiple, changing realities that account for variation or that perception differs and therefore cannot be used as direct evidence for the external world. By argument of abduction, it seems like the latter is the most plausible argument.

Pace for Reliabilism

Point: Formed by Alvin Goldman out of his theory of Causal knowledge, is the theory that S knows P if- and only if- S has a true belief formed by a reliable belief-forming process. Therefore the traditional tripartite view of knowledge, according to reliabilism, is insufficient, and instead justification is replaced by a reliable process in order to form K= R+T+B. Arguemnt; By reclassifying the process and adding either a sensitivity condition or no relevant alternatives, Gettier counterexamples become obsolete, making reliabilism arguably a sufficient and necessary condition for knowledge. By replacing justification with reliabilism, we see the necessary components for knowledge moving away from internal justification to external justification. This can be seen as a strength of reliabilism as it would mean that knowledge can extend outside of human experience. For example, swallows know to migrate to the same place every year. While they cannot justify their migratory patterns, they know that as it gets colder, going south is the best way to find the right food and avoid danger. They cannot have propositional knowledge, however, in the case of reliabilism, they can still have knowlegde. Counter: Pessimistic Pete buys a lottery ticket with a 1/1,000,000 chance of winning, He concludes that he has already lost. This is reliable, as Pete is 99.999% right, however he cannot know the answer until the numbers are called out, and therefore he cannot have knowledge. The same is seen with Gettier's second counter example. Smith uses verbal and visual evidence to believe that Jones owns a Ford, which are reliable processes. Smith forms the new, disjunctive belief that either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona. Reliabilsm may also be circular:Q) How do you know that it is true that you are seeing a table? Because seeing is reliable Q) How do you know seeing is reliable? Because when i see the table, the table is there. Q) But how do you know it is true that you are seeing a table? Evaluation: There are many advantages to a reliabilist account of knowledge: its naturalistic orientation makes it most suitable for wider uses within and outside of philosophy, and by moving to external justification it does not limit knowledge to the purely reflective; its aim to clarify the relationship between belief and truth makes it a sound basis for justification and suggests ways of handling knowledge which prevent luck, as seen in Gettier counterexamples. Although the account of a reliable process may be circular and the process itself may be up for scrutiny by radical scepticism, it offers the most coherent explanation of the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge that can be referenced in everyday life.

Pace for Infallibalism.

Point: Founded by Descartes in his meditations, the theory states that to understand what knowledge is, we must first say what it is not, and doubt everything. Argument: The justification must be so strong that it is impossible to be wrong. In the Gettier examples, Smith does not have an infallible justification and t is therefore not a case of knowledge. Counter: It limits our knowledge greatly to the point of impracticality. Who's to say that our whole reality is wrong? Surely sense experience can always be doubted? All we can know are a priori truths. Evaluation: It is impossible for anything to ever truly be infallible. Consider the arguments by demon and by dreaming. While this theory my give us guidance for what the sufficient conditions for knowledge should be, it has too many limitations that render it impractical with everyday life. Descartes' theory only tells us what it is possible for us to not know, and fails to provide any philosophical conclusion concerning knowledge without n unsolvable scepticism.

Pace for Virtue Epistemology

Point: Knowledge is a true belief brought about by a virtuous intellectual disposition. K = V+T+B Argument: To have a virtuous disposition, you must have the following three qualities: Aptness, prevents luck. Accuracy, the belief is true. Adroitness, the belief is formed on the basis of intellectual virtue, using a reliable intellect process. Counter: But Sosa, in introducing the idea of reflective knowledge, seems to be exploring under what conditions a person i able to assert that they have knowledge. Someone may have knowledge but not be in a suitable position to claim it Describing he conditions for knowledge is different from describing the condition for warranted assert on knowledge. Evaluation: Copes well well with many Gettier cases as beliefs must be accurate because of intellectual virtue, not because of luck. But the fake barn case is still a problem as intellectual virtue seems to be well applied and a true belief arises as a result. But Sosa claims that the believer lacks understanding of context and therefore lacks the ability to judge how apt their belief is. They have animal but not reflective knowledge.

Pace for No False Lemmas.

Point: No false lemmas adds an extra necessary condition that the belief and justification are not built upon false premises. Argument: Matches our intuitions and copes well with Gettier counter examples (Smith's belief is build upon the false premise that he has been told Jones will get the job). Counter: the theory must be amended when considering the following example: a) you believe that is it roughly midday. b) You see a clock that says 12 o'clock. c) You believe that it is now 12 o'clock,and it is. However the clock was broken. No premise or belief is false, but a broken clock is always right twice a day. Therefore no false lemmas extends to no hidden false assumptions. Evaluation: The theory still does not cope with Gettier's fake barn case. Although it matches up with our intuitions well, the cases of things be luckily true can create certain examples that make the account compelling.

PACE the theory that knowledge is a justified true belief.

Point: these are the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge as it holds the subjective and objective components. Argument: It gives a firm and universal foundation for what knowledge should be in accordance with most of our intuitions. Counter: Smith and Jones- if we can have a justified true belief that is luckily true, then these criterion are clearly not sufficient. Evaluation: So, clearly a justified true belief does not give a coherent account of what knowledge is. Any proposition proven to be true based on luck, poses an obvious logical problem for our definition of knowledge.

What is the differentiation between primary and secondary qualities?

Primary qualities: Absolute qualities of an object, shape, number, extend-ability. No matter who or what is perceiving these objects, the primary qualities remain undifferentiated between the perceivers. Secondary qualities; Properties of the object that have the ability to produce powers within us. They are interpreted by sense data subjectively, from individual to individual. For example, when you put your hands too close to fire, you feel pain. Despite the fact that the pain is inflicted by the fire, it is not within the fire- to say that would be absurd. Yet we often say that heat is property within fire, despite the fact that heat too is a sensation caused within us. It is in this way that we are able to distinguish between primary and secondary qualities of an object.

How does Catherine Trotter Cockburn build on Locke's argument based on the coherence of the sense?

She begins by conceding that if we had just one sense, we might never come to the notion that there is a world beyond our interior world of our minds. This is because the connection between any sensation in the mind and the object causing it outside the mind is arbitrary, and the result of our bodies and sense organs- there is no basis for inferring the external world. Cockburn maintains that there is no resemblance between the ideas of one sense and another. But our experiences of the connection between ideas of different senses provides additional evidence that the real existence of objects outside the mind- not because of resemblance, but because we are able to learn the connection. There is regularity in the way that these senses interrelate, so we can conclude that these different sense experiences are produced in a law like way by objective reality.

What is the tripartite definition of knowledge?

That knowledge is made of three components: justification, truth and belief. Truth and belief form the subjective components-consider a blind man on the right road. Justification ad truth makeup the objective components for knowledge.

What is an issue with Berkeley's "to be is to be perceived?"

There is an issue of continuity in this theory. Even when I not perceiving my bike, if I find it after 50 years, I will have found it to have rust. In the same way, my cat will get hungry if I leave it for a few weeks. If I am not perceiving this things, how are they able to change state and therefore have existence outside my perception?

According to Zagzebski, what should definitions be?

They should not be 1. Circular 2. Ad Hoc 3. Obscure 4. Via negativa

What are the strengths of virtue epistemology?

This copes well with many Gettier cases as belief must be accurate because of intellectual virtue, not because of luck.

What is the water example Locke uses?

This example is used to demonstrate the subjectivity of 'powers'. I may submerge both my hands in the same pool of water. But if one of my hands is warmer than the other (I may have had one in my pocket while the other was exposed to cold air), the temperature of the water will feel different in each of my hands.

How does Berkeley deal with Locke's response?

To combat radical scepticism, a final, seemingly radical solution was proposed by George Berkeley: idealism. He believed that there simply was no external world. We have no experience of mind independent objects, so for something to exist it must be a perception (to be is to be perceived). Primary qualities are secondary qualities, they are not absolute, but dependant on having a relationship of a perceptual being. John Locke and indirect realism ask you to conceive of something that is impossible to conceive of. All perceptions are mind dependant, therefore the world is mind-dependant, and there is no external world.

To what extent can we know the external world?

To conclude, if we were to follow schools of thought such as Kantianism and Indirect Realism, it would be justified to say that we cannot possibly know the external world due to massive disparity between reality and perception. Due to the fact that this can lead to scepticism and radical doubt, it seems sound to conclude that both of these fail to explain the world around us or provide any form of absolute knowledge. Idealism would suggest that we can know the world around us exactly, as the world around us exists entirely dependant of us and as such our senses correspond directly to reality (our senses are reality). However, the direct disregard of Occam's Razor by Berkeley poses an obvious logical problem and makes the overall argument of idealism uncompelling. So therefore, (and ironically according to Occam's razor) it would seem that the most simple explanation is the best: direct realism with a scientific account against exceptions such as time lag, hallucination and illusion appears to be the most sound account. Under normal viewing conditions and through triangulation of senses, it would seem to also account for perceptual variation. It is direct realism, therefore that provides the best account for how our senses are an accurate representation (but not an isomorphic match) of reality, and we can therefore know the external world whilst also not being lead into radical doubt or solipsism.

How does the Smith and Jones case contend the tripartite definition of knowledge?

Two men, Smith and Jones, attend a job interview. Smith believes that Jones will get the job, having been told such by the employer. He also knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket, because he has seen them. He forms the following argument: Jones will get the job. Jones has ten coins in his pocket ∴ The man with 10 coins in his pocket will get the job. However, unknown to Smith, he also has 10 coins in his pocket, and he gets the job. Here, Smith has a justified true belief, but he cannot be said to have knowledge. Because he was right based on luck, it goes against our intuition to say that he must have knowledge. It is in this way that Gettier proves that a justified, true belief is not sufficient for our definition of knowledge.

What does the dialogue between Hilas and Philonous seek to prove?

With his dialogue between Hylas and Philonous, Berkeley draws three main conclusions. 1. We can trust our senses. 2. The things that we see and feel are real. 3. The qualities we perceive as existing really do exist. Berkeley does not doubt sensible things, but simply says that they exist mind-dependent and are not external. What he does deny is the philosophers idea of matter, as he says it leads to skepticism to say that the brown, pine table is in fact made up of tiny, odourless colourless particles. It is in this sense that Berkley makes himself to be he defender of common sense.

What does Zagzebski say about knowledge?

Zagzebski thinks it is ambiguous whether concepts such as knowledge can have real (essential) definitions. She is fairly sceptical about whether knowledge has a real essence, in part because the term has varied so much in its use historically. Only recently has 'knowledge' related to immediate perceptual awareness., previously the word knowledge was only used in relation to our conceptual understanding. This suggests that the concept is a cultural one, not a natural kind. However she suggests that we should treat knowledge as if it does have a real essence, and so should seek a real definition. We should only give up if we are defeated in the project.

How is indirect Realism useful, but how does it also lead to scepticism?

strength of an indirect realist account is that it is able to deal with problems that face directs realism and and naive realism, such as perceptual variation. To a bat, the size, shape and number of an object (all of its primary qualities) remain inherent and objective. It is only its secondary qualities and the power that they produce in us that varies, the bat may see the box as blue, I may see it as yellow, yet we will both walk into the box and experience it blocking our path in the same way. So, according to indirect realism, we can trust our senses to a certain point concerning primary qualities, and it is secondary qualities that differ sand remain subjective. However, indirect realism is accused of leading directly to skeptical worry. If all that is directly perceived is a representation of reality in the mind, then one can never directly perceive objects outside of mind. If we have no immediate access to reality, then how can we possibly determine how accurate the representation of it is?

What are the two possible responses to the issue of continuity?

there are two answers to the problem of continuity: either matter exists independent of us or God (an all seeing, all experiencing being`) is using their perception to causes the continuity within the universe. While Berkeley argues for the latter, Occam's Razor compels us to accept the former by argument of abduction. It states that, to keep something logically sound, one must "not multiply entities beyond necessity", which Berkeley appears to do. It is this flaw of the logical structuring of Berkeley's argument that weakens it.