What is philosophical scepticism? (3)
The view that knowledge is impossible within a certain domain (local scepticism) or that all
knowledge is impossible (universal/global scepticism). The former does not raise doubts
about our belief system as a whole, but the latter does.
(5)
Descartes uses his method of doubt which involves suspending judgement about all
knowledge, but only accepting beliefs that are indubitable (cannot be doubted). In this way
scepticism can achieve certainty. [His strongest wave out of the three waves of doubt is the
evil demon argument, which supports scepticism in that it explores the possibility that all
knowledge is false/impossible because it may be conceived in a world in which an evil
demon deceives us about the very existence of said physical world].
What is a priori knowledge vs a posteriori?
A priori knowledge is justified independently of any experience and can be sought through
reason alone, whereas a posteriori is dependent on experience, making it empirical.
What is the tripartite view of propositional knowledge?
The view that to value knowledge, it must be conceived from a justified, true belief. The
justified and true condition means that knowledge becomes more steadfast than the mere
belief from which it originates.
What is solipsism?
The theory that one cannot know of the existence of any reality beyond that of their own
mind, because it is only the self that can be known to exist.
What is an analytic truth vs a synthetic truth? (3)
An analytic truth is necessarily true in virtue of the meaning of the words, e.g. “A bachelor is
an unmarried man.” whereas a synthetic truth is true in virtue of how the world is, e.g. “grass
is green”.
(5)
Analytic truths cannot be denied without resulting in a logical contradiction. E.g.“not all
bachelors are unmarried” misunderstands the word bachelor – the concept of a married
bachelor does not make sense. Denial of a synthetic truth does not lead to a logical
contradiction. For example, we can coherently imagine red grass in denial of the synthetic
truth “grass is green”. Though experience tells us grass is not, in fact, red, there is no logical
contradiction in this idea.
What is empiricism?
The view that there is no such thing as innate knowledge because all knowledge is
empirical; it is acquired after we are born, through our experience. ‘A posteriori’ knowledge is
empiricist.
What is Hume’s Fork? (3)
Hume makes an important distinction between the only two ways in which we can properly
reason and find truths about the world:
1. Relations of ideas, which are analytic claims known a priori.
2. Matters of fact, which are synthetic claims known a posteriori.
(5)
1. Relations of ideas. These are analytic claims known a priori (independent of
, experience, conceived through reason alone and necessarily true in virtue of their
definition), e.g. ‘A bachelor is an unmarried man’.
2. Matters of fact. These are synthetic claims known a posteriori (through experience,
and true in virtue of how the world is), e.g. ‘grass is green’.
These are the two fork ‘prongs’ of the argument, and become the basis of deciding whether
certain knowledge is true as long as it fits into either category.
What is acquaintance/ability/propositional knowledge?
Acquaintance knowledge is ‘knowing of’ something, ability knowledge is ‘knowing how’ to do
something and propositional knowledge is ‘knowing that’ something.
What is the no false lemmas definition of knowledge?
For knowledge to have value it must be conceived from a justified, true belief that also has
not been justified using a false belief (a lemma is a premise accepted as true in an
argument, hence ‘no false lemmas’ means there should be no falsely-conceived ‘true’
premises).
(5)
In most cases, when we justify a belief using a false lemma, then the belief will turn out to be
false. However, if one happened to be true by coincidence, then we still know through the ‘no
false lemmas’ condition to not count it as knowledge as true knowledge is not based on false
beliefs.
What is virtue epistemology? (3)
Virtue epistemology seeks to justify knowledge in terms of the intellectual virtues and vices
of the knower; an act of knowledge occurs if the belief is successful (true) and where its
success stems from a virtuous intellectual disposition (so is not luckily true).
(5)
Sosa compares cases of knowing something with archery, so in accurately knowing
something (or shooting an arrow) three elements are involved:
1. Accuracy - whether it hits the target. A belief is accurate if it is true.
2. Adroitness - how skillful the shot was. An adroit belief is one formed by an intellectual
virtue.
3. Aptness - an apt shot is accurate because it was adroit. An apt belief is true because
it was formed with intellectual virtue.
In this, Sosa suggests that all valuable knowledge is apt belief.
What is reliabilism?
For knowledge to have value it must be conceived from a true belief that has been formed
through reliable cognitive processes; processes that are highly likely to result in true belief,
such as seeing things up close or reading from a trustworthy source.
(5)
Alvin Goldman suggests we should only count a process as reliable if it can distinguish from
the truth and other relevant alternatives or possibilities. If not, then the process is not reliable
and the knowledge conceived from it is not valuable.
What is direct realism? (3)
The view that mind-independent objects exist, and that there are two elements in perception:
the perceiver and the object perceived, in which there is no third mediator because we
immediately perceive physical objects.
(5)
This implies objects still exist when we do not perceive them. Russel uses the example of a
