Higher/Int 2 Philosophy, Empiricism
Epistemology – The Theory of Knowledge
By the end of this unit you should be able to
Epistemology is also called the theory of knowledge.
You may have heard people say “I know what I know okay!” This suggests that there is something certain that they possess which they call knowledge.
What is knowledge?
The list of different knowledge statements on this page can be grouped according to three basic types. This can be seen in examples 1-3.
1I know the earth is the third plant from the sun=Knowledge that…
2I know how to ride a bike =Knowledge how…
3I know North Berwick =Knowledge about…
Knowing that.. is called propositional knowledge. Knowing that the earth is the third planet is an example of “knowledge that…”. Propositional Knowledge.
Knowing how to ride a bike is “knowledge how..”. This is an ability or a skill not propositional knowledge.
Knowing about North Berwick is a third kind of knowledge often called knowledge by acquaintance. It comes from familiarity. Implicit in this claim is that the claimant has been to North Berwick.
What about the statement “I know the quickest way to the school lunch hall”? What kind of knowledge claim is being made here? Why?
Some would claim that knowing how is a special kind of knowing that.
Focus
Epistemology is sometimes called the theory of knowledge. Epistemology is mainly concerned with the kind of knowledge involved in truth-claims, that is, when the truth or falsity of something is proposed or claimed. In other words propositional knowledge. Propositional knowledge is knowledge that, not knowledge how or knowledge about.
We are dealing with knowledge that something is the case – facts.
Knowledge that = propositional knowledge.
Definition of Propositional Knowledge
Perhaps the most common simple definition of knowledge is justified true belief. This important definition is also known as the tripartite definition of knowledge.
Tripartite Definition – “I have knowledge if…”
1I believe that something is true
2I have a good reason to believe that it is true and
3It is true.
- What this definition is claiming is that there are three necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge to take place.
So for the first statement on page 1 to be knowledge an individual..
1would have to believe that the earth was the third planet fromthe sun.
2would have to have justification for believing that the earth wasthe third planet from the sun.
3it would have to be true that the earth was the third plant from the sun.
Assignment 1
1What is epistemology?
2What different kinds of knowledge are there?
3Give examples of each.
4With which kind of knowledge are we concerned?
5How can this kind of knowledge be defined?
6What does this definition claim?
7Apply this definition to a propositional claim of your choice.
8With what kind of knowledge are we not concerned? Give examples.
9Into which of the three knowledge categories do each of the statements on page 1, examples 4-20 fall?
10How would you respond to the claim “I know what I know”?
Obviously, the kind of knowledge involved in a straightforward historical claim like "I know that in fourteen hundred and ninety-two Columbus sailed the ocean blue" is quite different from the kind of knowledge delivered through an introspective intuition, as in "I know that I exist." And both of these are quite different from the knowledge involved in the religious assertion, "I know that God loves me" and so on.
Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?
Remember our working definition for knowledge is belief which is justified and true.
The question is - are these the only necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge?
Some do not think so!
The Greek philosopher Plato pointed out that we can be right about something but not really know about something. He used a story to illustrate his argument.
A traveller asked a local which of the two roads ahead led to the town he wished to reach. The local, not knowing but wishing to be helpful pointed to the one which subsequently proved to be the right choice.The traveller believed that it was the correct road, he was justified in his belief and his belief was true - it was the correct road - but he did really know it was the correct road?
About forty years ago a philosopher called Edmund Gettier
About forty years ago, a then very young philosopher called Edmund Gettier wrote a two-page article the content of which epistemologists are still discussing. The title of the article was “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” In his article, Gettier gave some examples of hypothetical situations in which it appeared that beliefs were justified and true but we were left with the feeling that knowledge had not been the result. These examples have the catchy title of Gettier Examples! Below is not a Gettier example but a Gettier-Type Example. It is a little less complex but still hits all the Gettier buttons – sort of Gettier-Lite.
Gettier-Type Example
The Cow in the Field
Farmer Jones is concerned about her prize cow, Daisy. In fact, she is so concerned that when her dairyman tells her that daisy is in the field happily grazing, she says that she needs to know for certain.
Farmer Jones goes out to the field and standing by the gate sees in the distance, behind some trees, a white and black shape that she perceives as her favourite cow. She goes back to the dairy and announces that she knows Daisy is in the field.
At this point, does Farmer Jones really know what she thinks she knows? (JTB?)
Some time later, the dairyman goes out into the field again. There he finds Daisy, having a nap in a hollow, behind a bush, well out of sight of the gate. In the distance, he also spots a large piece of black and white material caught in a bush directly in line with the gate. This is what Farmer Jones actually saw. Not Daisy.
What this Gettier-Type example seems to show is that the tripartite definition for knowledge maybe necessary but is not sufficient as a definition for knowledge.
We should be able to agree that belief is an essential part of the definition for knowledge and that what is believed has to be true to be knowledge. But what else?
I Just Don’t Believe It!
On the other hand, if you don’t believe something then it stands to reason that even if it is true, it is not knowledge.
Beyond Belief!
People can also believe very strongly that the earth is flat but this does not make it true so it can’t be knowledge.
Assignment 2
1What is the main problem raised by the definition of knowledge as justified, true belief?
2Why is Edmund Gettier important to this issue?
3Choose a Gettier/Gettier-type example to illustrate the problem he raised
What we are left with then is the question of justification.
What justifies a true belief?
In philosophy, there have traditionally been three responses to the question – “how can knowledge be justified?”
There are two positive and one negative responses.
Firstly the two positives:
Empiricism –all real knowledge is based on sense experience – we do not know until we experience, we are born with our mind tabula rasa – a blank sheet. So knowledge is justified by true perceptions – what we learn from what our senses tell us about the world.
Rationalism -sense experience can be unreliablebutat least some knowledge is independent of sense experience, mathematical knowledge is not based on sense experience, we do not have to experience murder no know that it is wrong. We are therefore born with some innate ideas. So knowledge is justified by intuitive reasoning – not flawed sense experience.
And now the negative:
Scepticism –Put simply, this is the view that knowledge claims cannot be justified. There is no such thing as certain knowledge. Justification is impossible.
The Challenge of Scepticism
The word "scepticism" comes from a Greek word which means to reflect on, consider, or examine, so it is not surprising that it is usually associated with doubting or suspending judgment. Sceptics come in many varieties. We, however, wish to distinguish just two main sceptical types or levels of scepticism, local and absolute scepticism.
Scepticism is also part of philosophical enquiry. It is part of questioning and arguing. It is not to take things for granted. It is not to accept “common sense”. That is the sceptical process.Those who take a sceptical position accept the tripartite definition for knowledge they just do not accept that it is possible! Sceptics claim that you cannot justify any knowledge.
Everyday Scepticism
In everyday terms, a sceptic is someone who, at one time or another has doubts or who suspends judgment about something. All of us are sceptics in this sense.
None of us can know everything although sometimes we pretend or think that we know more than we do. A dose of common sense scepticism is indeed probably healthy for us. For one thing, it is a corrective to gullibility, superstition, and prejudice. All of us should rightfully be sceptical of the claim that a vast herd of giraffes is at this moment roaming the school, or of certain promises made by politicians running for office.
The Sceptical Process – Philosophical Scepticism
By philosophical scepticism we do not mean any particular position or movement in philosophy, but the tendency of some philosophers to deny or doubt the more cherished philosophical claims. This is the philosophical process of scepticism.
Absolute Scepticism
Those who take the absolute sceptical position deny there is any possibility of knowing anything for certain. (Reasons later)
Local Scepticism
There are also philosophers who claim that we cannot really know anything about certain specific things for example God or morality, but accept mathematical or scientific knowledge. We can describe this position as Local Scepticism.
Assignment 3
1What differing positions do empiricists, rationalists and sceptics take? Explain each carefully.
2Explain the difference between, everyday, philosophical, local and absolute scepticism.
So let’s recap- Tripartite definition of knowledge is ….
- Common sense or everyday scepticism is
- The Philosophical Sceptical Method is
- Local Sceptics are (e.g.)
- Absolute Sceptics are
Why do sceptics take this view?
Optical Illusions
We have all had experiences when our senses have deceived us. We think we recognise some one in the street with embarrassing results. On a hot day the road ahead appears wet.
The problem is – if our senses can deceive us sometimes, how do we know that they are not deceiving us now? All knowledge could be based on an illusion!
Hallucinations
This is a similar argument. An hallucination is perceiving something which is not real. An illusion is misperceiving a real object or event. Hallucinations, under normal circumstances are less common. But they do occur. When they occur they seem real.
The problem again is – how do we know that all our knowledge is not based on an hallucination?
Appearance Not Reality
A bat’s view of the world is different from a bee’s view, a dog’s view and your view. Which is the real view? The temptation is to say the human way is the real way but isn’t that just speciesism? Would it not be more realistic to say that we all have virtual views of reality? The problem here is that we cannot justify the claim that the world is as we perceive it to be. All we can say is that “X appears to be the case.”
Perception and Interpretation
When you see someone trip and fall down or a red light change to green, the meaning is obvious to you. You know what these events mean. When you see the character represented here what does it mean to you? The chances are nothing. But to someone who understood the character, they would know the meaning. So there is a back-story to knowledge. It’s not just what you see is what you get. To every event party, the mind brings something.
The problem illustrated here is that there are unconscious events happening in our mind when knowledge is taking place.
Brain in Vat
This is the view that is explored in the film The Matrix. How do we know that our experience is not just created for us? How do we know that we are not just a brain in a vat being fed nutrients and experiences or merely a piece of periphery attached to a mega –computer?
The problem here is in demonstrating that this is not the case.
It’s All a Dream
This is similar to the Brain in Vat and Hallucination problem.
How do you think it would go?
The Problem of Infinite Regress
This is one of the main arguments used by sceptics to challenge justification of knowledge. The problem of the infinite regress means that you can never arrive at foundationally certain, demonstrable knowledge – justification is an illusion.
For example if I were to ask you if you knew the name of the highest mountain in Scotland, you might answer confidently “Ben Nevis”.
However a sceptic would challenge “But how do you know”? Again you might say “because I read it in my geography book”. – Sceptic -“But how do you know the book is accurate”? “Because the authors are well-respected geographers”. Sceptic - “But”.... and so on and so on ad infinitum.
The problem of the infinite regress is that it seems to demonstrate that there is no foundationally certain knowledge – no possible way of justifying any belief.
Assignment 4
1In a column and in your own words, explain each of the arguments used to support the sceptical position.
Empiricism – Knowledge is Justified By Sense Experience
“Seeing is believing”, “I saw it with my own eyes” are two examples of statements which indicate the importance of our senses are to us in the quest for certain knowledge. We justify knowledge by our perceptions.
Remember, empiricists reject the rationalist claim that we are born with innate ideas. Empiricists believe that we are born with our mind a blank sheet - tabula rasa. This is the belief that all knowledge is the product of experience.
Only a posteriori knowledge is informative and a priori knowledge amount to no-brainer statements which are completely uninformative about the world – all bachelors are unmarried men – well duh!
Scientific knowledge is empirical knowledge – real knowledge! Maths might help to explain some relationships between facts but this is only of secondary importance.
David Hume pointed out that claims about innate knowledge were counter intuitive with three examples.
Imagine Adam seeing water for the first time. Would he innately know that sticking his head under it would make it difficult to breathe? No!
Imagine someone seeing one snooker ball strike another for the first time. Would they have been able to predict what was going to happen? No!
Could someone who is blind from birth conceive of green? No!
Hume and other empiricists claim that only from experience can such knowledge be gained.
With what kind of knowledge would Farmer Jones justify her true belief?
Assignment 5
1How would an empiricist view the rationalist belief in innate ideas? Give a reason.
2How would an empiricist judge a priori knowledge?
3How might an empiricist illustrate their argument that all knowledge is a posteriori?
4Which of the knowledge claims on page 1 are justified empirically – by sense experience?
5 If a tree falls in an unpopulated forest, does it make a sound?
Empiricists Response to the Sceptical Challenge
Much of sceptical and rational attack on empiricism relates to the problem with perception.
Empiricist Responses
Challenge - Illusions
Response – If we know they are illusions then we are not deceived. We have five senses so we can check any perceptual information a number of times. We have no reason to believe that we are being deceived much or all of the time.
Challenge - Hallucinations
Response - These are very rare occurrences which means most of the time this is not happening. Often we are aware that an hallucination is taking place.
Challenge - Appearance not Reality
Response - As a species we would not have survived if our perception did not fit with reality. If our perceptions were false, we would have been an unsuccessful organism.
Challenge - Perception and Interpretation
Response – This just demonstrates the empiricist view that we learn from experience – hopefully!
Challenge - Brain in Vat/It’s All a Dream
Response – Which makes more sense, to say this is happening or to say that this is not really happening? Most people would say that to say this was not happening is counter-intuitive.
Challenge - The Problem of Infinite Regress
Response – our perceptions accurately represent what is the case – experiences can be verified by other senses and other individuals’ sense experience. Sense experience is coherent.
However this is a recurrent problem and we are back to the principle of sufficient reason.
Some would claim that there are certain foundational truths – verified by science – foundationalism.
Assignment 6
1In a column, list the empiricist responses to the challenge of scepticism. (see Assignment 4)
Is Absolute Scepticism a Coherent Position?
Actually, there have been relatively few absolute sceptics. It is not hard to see why.
As stated earlier, critics of this position have been quick to charge that it is impractical and self-contradictory.
- It is impractical because, from the purely practical standpoint of getting along in the world, no one in his or her right mind can actually live on such a premise. Our daily lives would not be possible if we did not accept that what appears common sense is real - that our ‘knowledge’ is Knowledge.
Why, for that matter, are you reading this, studying philosophy, or studying anything, if not because you think that something can be learned, understood, known? And where, from the sceptical view, is there any place for responsible actions or serious commitments or decision making?