Definition of Knowledge - A-Level Philosophy AQA Detailed 25 Mark Essay Plan
3 views 0 purchase
Course
Epistemology
Institution
AQA
An essay plan answering ' How should propositional knowledge be defined/Is Justified True Belief the correct definition of knowledge?'
It is designed for the AQA Philosophy A-Level 25 Marks. All essays are Band 5 and above.
The essays largely follow the recommended RICE (Reason, Issue, Counterex...
How should we define
knowledge?
Statement of Intent: We should define knowledge under Sosa’s Virtue
Epistemology. I will do this by showing that JTB and subsequently No False
Lemmas is unconvincing. I will then show that Infallibilism is not a convincing
account for knowledge and then show that Sosa’s Virtue Epistemology deals with
most of the problems of the previous theories and so is a much stronger theory
and therefore should be how we define knowledge. The key contention is the
problem of truth and justification and the gap between them and the theory that
deals with that the best is the best theory.
RICE 1:
R: We should not define knowledge as JTB due to Gettier Case. In one of Gettier
original cases, Smith has good justification that Jones will get the job because the
CEO of the company has told him that. Smith also knows that Jones has ten coins
in his pocket cause he has counted them there. Therefore because of these
premises he has entailed the proposition that ‘the man who will get the job has ten
coins in his pocket’. However it turns out that Smith is the one who gets the job
and unknown to him he also had ten coins in his pocket. And therefore the
proposition that The man who gets the job has ten coins in his pocket is true.
According to JTB, he did have knowledge because it was true, he did believe and
he was justified because he counted the coins and the CEO told him. However we
would say he did not have knowledge and therefore JTB is not the necessary and
sufficient conditions for knowledge and is not the correct definition.
I: We can adjust the definition of knowledge. No False Lemmas. S knows P IFF: P
is true, S believes that P, S is justified in believing P and S did not infer P from a
false lemma. A false lemma (an argument made part way through an argument) is
a false claim inferred from the inaccurate justification and therefore making the
statement not knowledge. Smith concluded that Jones will get the job from being
told by the employer and he then used that information to conclude that the man
with ten coins in his pockets will get the job. So ‘Jones will get the job’ is a lemma.
How should we define knowledge? 1
, This solves the previous issue in which Jones inferred the propositions from a
false lemma and so he did not satisfy the definition of knowledge and therefore
the problem is resolved.
C: Whilst this does solve the original cases, it still does not deal with the
underlying issue about the gap between truth and justification - how sure do we
have to be of justification etc. And because of that we can easily find further
Gettier cases which satisfy the 4th condition and yet we still wouldn’t call this
knowledge. AKA Dr Jones Case. Dr Jones has Lab results suggesting that Smith
has disease X (all the symptoms and lab results all seem to conclude he has
disease X and there is no known virus which produces these results) however in
reality Smith has disease unknown Y . Dr Jones proceeds to diagnose Smith with
Disease X, but by chance Smith has just caught virus X (So there has yet to be any
symptoms or lab results). Dr Jones diagnosis of Smith having Disease X is
therefore true and Dr Jones did believe it to be the case and she was justified due
to all the lab results and symptoms. Not only this it satisfies the No False Lemmas
clause because all the evidence is true as Smith does manifest the symptoms he
does and the lab reports are accurate but this time only the diagnosis is false (last
time the justification was inaccurate). So she satisfies the 4 conditions for
knowledge and yet we would not say she has knowledge. Therefore it remains
that No False Lemmas is not the necessary and sufficient condition of knowledge.
E: Overall, JTB is a good start for what some of the constituents of knowledge
would look like. However it is insufficient especially because it is apparent there is
a gap between truth and justification and the certainty of the justification which
needs to be addressed and just isn’t in JTB. The following definitions will.
I: Okay regarding this gap between truth and justification, what if we close the gap
completely? aka Infallibilism. Infallibilism claims that for something to be
knowledge the belief must be certain and if we can doubt such a belief then it is
not certain and therefore not knowledge. The justification of the belief must be
certain to the point it would be impossible to be mistaken by it. With the Gettier
Cases, they would argue that the justification Smith had of counting coins and
talking to the CEO was insufficient justification and therefore he never had
knowledge. Infallibilism makes justification so strong that it is impossible for a
justified belief to be false to the point it is utterly and undeniably true and
therefore it defeats all Gettier cases as such cases as discussed arise because of
the gap between truth and justification. Therefore this solves the issue.
How should we define knowledge? 2
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lameesrahman1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $4.56. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
