Epistemology

Epistemology

1. What is knowledge

   • Propositional
     • To know that X
       • I know that 2+2=4
     • When do we "know that"?
       • Tripartite definition
         • What is it?
           • Justified true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge
             • Justified - a proposition which has good reason to be supported
             • True - a proposition which is factually correct
             • Belief - a proposition which one agrees with
             • Necessary - something which is needed to have something else
               • X is necessary for Y, to have Y one must have X
                 • However if one has X they may not have Y
               • Eggs are a necessary ingredient for an omelette
             • Sufficient - if one has one thing one must have a second
               • X is sufficient for Y, if one has X one must have Y
               • Being a mother is sufficient for being female
             • "necessary and sufficient"
               • Each condition is individually necessary
                 • Every condition must be present to have knowledge
               • All conditions are jointly sufficient
                 • If all conditions are present then so is knowledge
         • What's wrong with it
           • Issues with individual necessity
             • Belief
               • If one gives a correct statement without believing it did they know it?
                 • You ask someone when Queen vic died, they say 1901, you would say that they knew it but they actually guessed, they didn't believe it
                   • Was this knowledge without belief
                     • No
                       • The individual would not claim to have knowledge of this, "i knew when queen vic died" is not a fair statement, it was a coincidence
               • Weak attack
             • Justification
               • If you make a true claim without justification is it knowledge?
                 • In a multiple choice exam 100 people get a question right. Is the proposition that "I know 100 people knew the answer" fair?
                   • No
                     • It is plausible at least one guessed and did not know (see belief)
                       • Therefore 100 people got it right, but that doesn't mean 100 people knew
                     • While colloquially one may claim this logically it is not fair
               • Somewhat effective
             • truth
               • Can you know something without it being true?
                 • A colour blind person buys purple shorts
                   • Is it fair for them to say: "I know the shorts are blue"
                     • Yes
                       • No one would knowingly hold a false belief so therefore if the person thinks it is true, it is fair for them to claim that they know it
                         • Aposteriori knowledge is not objectively verifiable, the best possible verification is consensus, but the majority of the world believe in a God, that doesn't make said Gods existence true
                           • Therefore, either:
                             • Truth is a redundant condition for knowledge
                               • This is counter intuitive, when we make claim to propositional knowledge we are providing a state of affairs in the world, if such state of affairs is incorrect what is the point in providing it, knowledge itself becomes a redundant concept and certainly does not fit lsemnatic use
                             • We can never claim to know anything aposteriori
               • Highly effective
             • Can you have knowledge without one of the conditions?
           • Issues with join sufficiency
             • Can you have all the conditions but not knowledge?
             • Gettier problems
               • Classic
                 • Smith and Jones both apply for a job, the boss tells S that J will get the job.
                   • S sees J put 10 coins in his pocket
                     • S forms the belief that the man with 10 coins in his pocket will get the job
                       • This is justified by the previous 2
                       • He believes it
                       • S gets the job and finds 10 coins in his pocket
                         • It's now true
                         • Is it fair to say he knew the man with 10 coins would get the job?
                           • He has JTB so it should
                           • No
                             • The implication is that he assumed J would get it so he didn't know
                               • However
                                 • The justification is actually unfounded, there is no good reason that the money leads to the job
               • Twin
                 • You go to visit a friend
                   • As you approach the house you see a figure identical to your friend
                     • Justification
                     • you form the belief your friend is in the house
                       • Your friend is upstairs, you are looking at the twin
                         • Truth
                         • Did you know they were home?
                           • No
                             • We have JTB without K
                             • Using counterfactuals if they weren't home according to JTB you would still "know" they were home (see issues with truth"
               • Clock
                 • You are going through a train station and the clock reads 6.05
                   • You form the belief that it is 6.05
                     • The clock is broken
                       • It is 6.05
                         • did you know it was 6.05?
                           • No counterfactually you did not
                             • We have JTB without K
               • Therefore, JTB=/=K
                 • The problem is rooted in justification, this can be strengthened
                   • Infallibilism
                     • A person is only justified in belief "that p" if they cannot be mistaken about p
                       • Pros
                         • we are not infallible about other people, time or job offers
                           • Therefore avoids Gettier problems
                       • Cons
                         • There's very little we are infallible about beyond our own consciousness
                           • Therefore we know nothing about the outside world
                             • Therefore, using demon doubt one has entailed solipsism
                               • While not logically problematic this is certainly not what we mean by knowing p
                   • No false lemmas
                     • Justification cannot be inferred from a falsehood
                       • This resolves the gettier problems
                         • Is relient on hindsight, we can only determine what we do not know, not what we do know
                           • So, do we assume we know it unless proven otherwise or assume we know nothing
                             • The first doesn't solve Gettier
                             • The second doesn't fit what we mean by know
                   • Epistemic virtues
                     • These are vague but can include open mindedness
                       • be open minded to your friend havig a twin etc.
                         • Again to what degree these should be exercised is unclear and if done to extreme again we a ruling out all knowledge
                           • Also elitist - only some can have k
                   • Reliabilism
                     • A person only knows that p if and only if the person's true beluef was formed through a reliable cognitive process
                       • What is a reliable cognitive process?
                         • Often produces true beliefs
                           • Doesn't solve clock or twins
                         • Goldman and Nozick counter factuals
                           • if, counterfactually, your thought process could misinform you then it isn't reliable
                             • However, like Infallibilism this ultimately entails solipsism
   • Know how
     • Knowing how to do X
       • I know how to ride a bicycle
   • Acquintance
     • To have knowledge of X
       • I know Cambridge

2. Concepts

   • What are concepts?
     • The ingredients of thoughts
       • They do not make a claim about the world
       • Tomorrow is Tuesday requires the concept of tomorrow and Tuesday
   • Where do they come from?
     • Experience is the origin of concepts
       • This is the empiricist position
       • "Tabula Rasa" or blank slate is a metaphor for this position, all concepts are acquired, if you can claim not having the concept then it was gained through experience
       • What is experience?
         • Locke
           • Sensation - external experiences perceives through perception
             • Pain
           • Reflection - internal experience and observation of ones own thoughts
             • Sadness
           • Types of concept
             • Simple, cannot be reduced
               • Yellow
             • Complex, built out of simple
               • A dog
         • Hume
           • Ideas
             • This is less forceful, one can control an idea
               • I have an idea of a blue pen, now its pink
           • Impressions
             • This is forceful and uncontrollable
               • I am holding a blue pen, I cannot change its colour
           • Hume's copy principle
             • All ideas are built upon impressions
               • We cannot hold a concept without experiencing it
       • Empiricist arguments
         • Adequacy of stimulus
           • Based on Locke's definitions
           • Any concept which we hold can be broken down to simpler ones
             • Any simple concept can be traced back to experience
         • On its own these arguments are anecdotal, it works better as a response to claims of innatism
         • Condillac's statue
           • Based on Hume's definitions
           • If a statue was made animate and capable of sensation is there any concept it could not acquire?
     • Innate
       • This is the rationalist position
       • There are some concepts which we have without any experience
       • Rationalist arguments
         • Descartes trademark argument
           • I have an idea of God
             • The idea has a cause, imagination, experience or it is innat
               • it is not imagined or experienced
                 • It is innate
                 • Cannot be changed and does not become acquired
         • Plato's universals
           • What are universals?
             • General concepts which apply to a lot of things
               • Red
           • Why would they be innate
             • We never experience an independent universal
               • Yet we have the concept of an independent universal
                 • Therefore it is innate
             • Universals are perfect instances
               • we have a universal concept of a circle but a perfect circle does not exist
                 • therefore it cannot be experience and must be innate
         • Kant's causation
           • "Causation is necessary for experience, therefore it cannot have been gained from experience and must be innate"
             • Causation is how we make sense of the world around us
               • Without causation we wouldn't know why things happen
                 • If we didn't know why things happened we want have a concept of causation
                   • Therefore causation is not experienced but innate
         • Numbers
           • Hard-line
             • We have an innate concept of specific numbers
               • Some tribes don't have a word for 7
                 • However if shown 7 things they can replicate it despite not having the words to describe what they have done
           • Weak
             • We have a concept of rough quantity
               • Young babies spike interest if shown varying quantities on a screen instead of the same
                 • Therefore young babies have a concept of quantity
                   • If they're too young to experience then innate
               • Studies have shown humans thing logarithmically
                 • Our society focuses on arithmetic thinking so if this is true it suggests we have a concept before we experienced society
         • Infinity
           • Infinite things have never been experienced, it is abstract
             • Therefore it is innate
           • According to causal adequacy the finiate cannot give way to the infinite
             • We are finite
               • We cannot have created infinity
                 • God is infitie so could do and could give us the idea
                   • Inifinity is innate
         • Empirical response
           • Tit for tat (weak)
             • These arguments demonstrate that the concept could come from experience, not that it did
             • God
               • Godly attributes are extensions of human
                 • therefore not innate but imagination
               • And we have experienced a God, Jesus,
                 • Therefore, not inate but experience
               • No such concept
                 • God is defined as infinitely great
                   • We have no firm concept of infinity
                     • Therefore, we cannot hold the concept of God
                 • Not all societies have a deity
             • Causation
               • experience
                 • in reaching for a chocolate bar I can link the cause, my desire, to the result, me reaching for the chocolate bar
                   • Therefore I can find causation in experience
               • No such concept
                 • Correlation is not causation
                   • If I throw a brick at a window there is no examinable causal link
                     • after the fact I can link the window breaking to the brick but not until it has occurred, therefore it does not exist as a natural phenomena but a construct of the human mind, a construct which can be established through thought, it is not innate
                       • Therefore as a natural phenomena causation does not exist
             • Numbers
               • We experience quantity all the time it is not possible to not experience quantity, this could easily be learnt
             • Infinity
               • No such concept
                 • We do not have a positive concept of inifity
                   • our concept is the finite indefinitely extended, this is not the concept of infinity but the concept of non finite
                     • Our experience of the finite then is the root therefor it is not innate
             • Universals
               • Experience
                 • through extraction I can havea concept of red
                   • see a telephone box, a bus and a kit kat, from these things I can extract the concept of red
           • Locke's arguments against innatism (mediocre)
             • Argument of acquisition
               • We can observe children acquiring concepts
                 • We cannot verify how concepts would be created innatley
                   • By Okham's razor innatism is not preferable
             • Law of non contradiction
               • It is impossible for the same thing to be and to not be
                 • This law is a concept which we hold and is critical to understanding the world
                   • the concepts of impossibility and identity are critical and these are so complex they must be learned through great care
               • This is more about knowledge but according to the spec should be here...
             • unprompted demonstration
               • If a child cannot produce the concept without prompt then there is no reason to believe the concept is innate
                 • Concepts are either from memory or regular cognitive function, infity meets neither by necessity
             • innate capcity to acquire =/= innate concept
               • Reply to causation
               • if this were true all concepts would be innate as they require consciousness
                 • Thought is experience so apriori knowledge and consideration can reveal concepts, that is not innate concept
             • Universal assention
               • If a concept is innate it is universall assented to
                 • No concept is universall assented to
                   • Therefore no concept is innate
                     • However this is a bad argument
                       • ratioanlists make no claim of universal assension
                         • It is inductive
                           • The inference is invalid
           • Links to non-naturalism (highly effective)
             • Innate concepts must arrive in ones consciousness somehow
               • this can only occur through the metapyshical
                 • there is no empirical evidence of the metaphysical
                   • with no evidence there is no reason to believe in it
                     • Therefore all concepts relient on non naturalism are untenible
                       • concept rationalism is untenable

3. Knowledge

   • Hume's fork
     • All synthetic knowledge is a posteriori and all a priori knowledge is analytic
       • Semantics
         • Analytic knowledge is that which is determined through its own meaning
           • All bachelors are unmarried
         • Synthetic knowledge is where truth of statement cannot be determined through the statement itself
           • Steve is a bachelor
       • Epistemics
         • A priori
           • knowable without expereince
             • parallel lines never meet
         • A posteriori
           • knowledge is dependent on experience
             • I am currently sitting down
     • This is the empirical position
     • Rationalists aim to break this
       • The goal is to find a priori synthetic knowledge
         • Leibniz necessary truths
           • We know some necessary truths
             • These truths require justification
               • The justification must be applicable to general statements
                 • Therefore it cannot be based upon specific examples
                   • Experience only produces specific examples
                     • Therefore experience cannot justify necessary truths
                       • The justification for any principle is the law of non contradiction
                         • The law of non-contradiction is necessary for learni
                           • If it is necessary for learning it cannot be learnt
                             • Therefore knowledge of the law of non contradiction is innate
         • Plato's slave boy
           • Pythagorus is either learned or innate
             • The slave was not taught pythagorad
               • It was not learned
                 • the slave produced the theorem
                   • it must be innate
         • Empirical responses
           • No such knowledge
             • Pythagorus is applying other principles, non contradiction is redundant detail to any proposition
           • The knowledge is experience
             • For plato the experience i being taught and for leibniz see concept
           • The knowledge is analytic
             • Essentially no such knowledge arguments
           • Non naturalism
           • Universal assent
         • Descartes induction and deduction thesis
           • Induction is a simple act of mental vision
           • Deduction is inference from premise
           • The goal is to demonstrate the world exists (synthetic) through a priori reasoning
             • I think therefore I am
               • Through thought I have an idea of God
                 • Ideas have a cause
                   • The cause must be more real than the idea
                     • e only more real thing is God
                       • od exists
                         • I have perceptions
                           • These perceptions are invo
                             • Therefore, i cannot be t
                               • The cause must be God or the obje
                                 • God is not a deceiver, which he would be if he was the cause
                                   • My perecptiobns are of the
                                     • The world is real
             • Issues
               • Causal principle
                 • Assumes everything has a cause, there is not justification for this
                   • Quantom phenomena exist without cause, why must the concept of GOD have a cause
               • Cartesian circle
                 • God exists because of clear and distinct perceptions of his existence
                   • But these perceptions are only reliable because of his existence
                     • However God verifies previous perception, current perception can be used to assertGods existence without relying upon it
       • a final anti empirical line is cartesian scepticism
         • sense doubt
           • Our senses can be deceived - hallucination and illusion
             • Therefore they shouldn't be trusted
               • Empirical knowledge is based on sensation
                 • empirical knowledge should be disregarded
         • Dream doubt
           • dreams and reality are indistinguishable
             • Dreams are not real
               • we do not know if our experience is real
                 • BUT if dreams are indistinguishable then the linguistic distinction would be redundant
                   • The distinction is retroactive so the point stand
         • Demon doubt
           • It is possible that all experience is a deception by a demon
             • Therefore no perception is reliab
               • Therefore no proposition is reliable

4. Perception

   • What are the immediate objects of perception
   • Direct realism
     • We directly perceieve what is physically in the real world
       • All pereception is of mind independent objects, thsy do not need to be perceieved to exist
     • The only argument fore this is common sense
   • Indirect realism
     • There are MI objecrs but we perceive them indirectly through sense data
       • Sense date are the MD object of perception, they are non-physical
       • Mnd dependent thinsg rely upon being perceieved for them to exist
     • Arguments for indirect awareness
       • Perceptual variation
         • There is a table
           • the table does not change
             • Therefore I cannot ot be directly perceiving the table as if we were the perception wouild be consistent
               • The argument begs the question
                 • It asserts that our perception of ging in order to justify the conclusion that our perception of the obnject is changing
               • This issue can be justified through relative variation, other factors such as the light hitting it etc. can explain away any perceptual variation
       • Argument from illusion
         • I am directly aware of the illusion
           • Physically that is not how things are
             • Therefore I am directly aware of something non-physical
               • My sensation when under illusion is the same as when not
                 • Therefore the cause of my sensation is the same
                   • In normal experience I am directly aware of something non-physical
                     • See relational properties
                     • 1 and 2 contradict, one cannot be aware of one and know another
       • Argument from hallucination
         • During perception we are aware of objects
           • When hallucinating the objects of perception must be MD
             • My experience of perception is the same when hallucinating and when not
               • Therfore the cause is the same - all perception is MD
                 • If 3 were true hallucination and reality would be indistinguishable
                   • Hallucination is similar to dreams yet dreams and reality aren't the same
       • Time lag argument
         • We observe galaxies millions of years late
           • We may be observing things which no longer exist
             • We cannot be directly aware of that which does not exist
               • We're observing things as they were, not are, that doesn't mean we aren't directly aware of what they were
     • Arguments for MI objects
       • If we are immediately aware of SD how do we know MI exist
         • Perceptions are not subject to our will, therefore MI exist
           • But demon doubts
           • Locke
         • perceptual variation cannot be accounted for by SD alone, while not certain MI are the best explanation for the variation
           • Russel
       • How do we know SD is an accurate representation of MI
         • Relational properties: I know my phone is smaller and to the left of my laptop but I do not know more about either
           • Russel
         • We perceive primary qualities accurately, secondaries are unclear
           • Locke
           • Primary qualities are insperable from the object, e.g. size and spatial location
             • is entails objects could exist which are unconceivable to us (colourless), this may be uncomfroatble but is not, in itself, problematics
           • Secondary qualities are subjective, for example colour and depend on our perception
           • Causal issues
             • What causes SD, ithere has to be a physical/non-physical link
           • Representation issues
             • MD is fleeting and conflicting, MI are consistent, saying they represent is inconsistent
   • Idealism