Introduction to Knowledge and Doubt

Page 1

Introduction to Knowledge and Doubt

Epistemology is about how we get knowledge and how we can be sure that knowledge is reliable. Epistemology tries to separate true knowledge from opinion and beliefs.

What is knowledge and what is opinion?

Fact - can be proven with evidence or reason

Opinion - can't be proved with evidence or reason

The difference between propositions can lead to problems For example, 'Santa exists'. Most children would be adamant the proposition is certain as they have it on good authority (presents/adults) and the evidence (presents) is real so it is a fact. So, although there seems to be good evidence that Santa does exist we all know that Santa does not exist. So it is actually an opinion.

Knowledge can lead to further mind bending ideas. For instance:

how do you know your parents are really your parents?

how do you know you are not dreaming right now?

how do you know things do not disappear when you are not looking at them? How do you know you even exist at all?

In Epistemology, if there is any doubt at all about the knowledge claim then the knowledge becomes uncertain and can't be claimed to be true. This becomes extremely important because when beliefs and laws are formed around uncertain knowledge claims they can be unjust and cruel (Jim Crow laws in USA and the Holocaust.)

What does it mean to know?

When philosophers talk about knowledge or what it is to 'know' something, they are very clear that the word 'know' can have different uses. I can say that I know the Battle of Bannockburn was in 1314, that I know how to play the guitar or that I know the Algrave region of Portugal. In each of these examples knowledge is being claimed but the type of knowledge is different

knowing that is propositional knowledge and can be factual or theoretical

knowing how is a skill or ability

I know is knowledge through acquaintance of a place/person or thing

The Battle of Bannockburn took place in 1314 is clearly propositional knowledge as this knowledge is not a skill and because we can't claim to have been there neither is it knowledge through acquaintance.

Types of Epistemology

Epistemology wants to find out the foundational truth of knowledge. Philosophers approach epistemology as trying to find a method of acquiring knowledge that is secure and then building upon that. If the knowledge foundation is secure then the knowledge that is built on this will also be secure. Rationalism and empiricism are two approaches that are regarded as being based on foundational truths.

Rationalism holds that knowledge begins within the mind: we are all born with knowledge already in the mind and this knowledge is certain. This is known as innate ideas. Rationalist philosophers (Plato, Augustine, Descartes, Leibniz) believe that the best way to arrive at JTB is through the use of reason and innate ideas not through experience and the senses.

Empiricism is based upon knowledge gained through the senses. Empiricists (Locke, Hume) reject the claim that innate ideas exist at all; Locke claimed that the mind of a new born baby was 'tabula rasa' (blank slate) and that all knowledge is written upon the mind as the mind starts to experience the world. This approach to knowledge is 'a psteriori' i.e. knowledge that comes 'after experience'. Locke argued that this was the only way we can acquire knowledge.

Criticisms of Empiricism:

optical illusions - if we based our knowledge on the senses then it is entirely possible that our senses will mislead us. The plane in the sky is much further ahead than we think, the star that has already exploded.

hallucinations - this is when we think we see or hear things but they aren't actually there. When we have a fever we can be convinced something is real but it is not or when we are gripped by fear we are certain someone is looking at us.

physical laws of the universe - we can't always observe what is going on in the universe. Gravity exists but we can't see it, infrared and ultraviolet light can't be seen by the human eye. What if there are other things we don't yet know about and how can we be sure of a knowledge claim if we don't know what we are looking at.

Page 2

The Tripartite Theory of Knowledge

The TTK is also known as Justified True Belief or JTB.

Justified

You must have sound reasons (evidence) to support your claims. This evidence can come from a variety of sources: empirically verifiable (testing), rationally sound or it comes from a trusted authority (text book, teacher or news).

True

The claim must be true - it must relate to reality rather than appearance. We can't 'know' something that is false i.e. we can't claim the Earth is flat because this is simply false.

Belief

You actually have to believe the proposition. You can't claim to have knowledge of something unless you believe it i.e. you can't say you 'know' 2+2 =5 because you don't believe it is true. Propositions of what we think we know can be proven false using the types of verification showing that they don't meet the criteria of the TTK.

JTB is a working definition that philosophers use to define 'certain' knowledge but it is not universally accepted as many arguments are based upon the same evidence but reach opposite 'truth' conclusions i.e. arguments between evolutionists and creationists use the same evidence but come to radically different conclusions.

Criticisms

Some people believe that JTB does not give us a good basis for what we know as knowledge, they are known as sceptics. Sceptics are usually philosophers who maintain that knowledge can never be certain. They usually focus on the justification part of the TTK by arguing that we can never really 'know' anything because we can only justify our reasons up to a certain point. Sceptics are not people who deny that knowledge exists, only that we can never be completely certain of the justification or evidence put forward. It is about the doubting, not the doubt. Sceptics list the following arguments to support their claims:

Argument 1: Gettier - the problem of accidental correctness.

Edmund Gettier theorised that we can think of something as knowledge through JTB but what if it only meets the categories by accident. He poses the question 'if someone is accidentally correct does this count as knowledge?' He created a counter example to the TTK by showing how it might be possible to meet all three conditions for knowledge and yet we could not call it knowledge. Example of this:

the faulty watch - someone tells the time but uses a watch that is broken. However, they didn't know it was broken so they believed that what they were saying was true. The time actually was what they said but they were correct accidentally.

Argument 2: infinite regress of justification - can the justification part even be secure?

Sceptics would continuously attack the justification part of JTB by asking 'how do you know?' Each piece of supporting evidence needs to be supported by other evidence and that evidence by other evidence. This is a very powerful challenge as sooner or later, justification becomes impossible.

Argument 3: problems with knowledge from the senses

As we have seen, if we base knowledge on the senses then it is possible that our senses may be deceived. The plane in the sky, the star that has already exploded, the pencil in a glass, and the oar in the water. It is possible that the knowledge we perceive to be true is nothing more than sense deception.

Argument 4: problems with reason

Plato suggested that we can 'reason' or think about absolutes through study and reflection and this will help us to identify 'forms'. However, Plato believed that knowledge was gained in previous lives and that the soul was in constant flux of reincarnation. For Plato, it was a case of remembering that we are all born with 'innate knowledge', knowledge that we might now call instinct. Through study and reflection, Plato believed we could recover what we already knew. However, this is problematical and not certain and his theory of the Forms does not help us to be certain and does not help JTB. Innate ideas include an inbuilt idea of God, knowledge of right and wrong, and the ability to use language and apply maths. However, not everyone has this knowledge and innate ideas are very difficult to prove.

Argument 5: the problem of authority

Most of the knowledge we all have has come from or does come from some sort of authority. We gain knowledge from books, teachers, TV, newspapers, and internet media sources, etc. Sceptics would argue that there is always the possibility that the source of the knowledge could be wrong and so we can't rely on this type of justification as reliable. Examples of this could be people that live in dictatorships where history was/is taught to suit the regime, where news stories suit the regime, etc. One of the biggest problems when faced with a proposition is: how do we know whether the claim is true or false. According to the TTK, the claim needs to be justified true belief. But what if we don't know whether a claim is true or false? For example, the highest mountain in the world is Mount Sagamatha - is this claim true or false? If you have never heard of Mount Sagamatha then can you make a judgement on the proposition? The answer is no - just because we have never heard of something doesn't mean it must be false. The English name of this mountain is Mount Everest, this is generally accepted as being the highest mountain in the world. However, the highest mountain is actually Mauna Kea in Hawaii.