7 A* Epistemology philosophy essays
1. Definition of knowledge
2. Direct realism
3. Indirect realism
4. Idealism
5. Reason vs Empiricism
6. Intuition and deduction
7. Limits of knowledge
, What is the definition of Knowledge?
Plato claimed that knowledge is justified, true belief however since then many have
criticised this view as it fails to encapsulate knowledge. Zagzebski claims that when defining
knowledge we should avoid circular, obscure, negative, and ad hoc definitions. However,
defining knowledge has been proven difficult as Locke suggest that knowledge may not have
real essence (made up or constructed of something) and therefore may mean that
knowledge is a social construct. In this essay it will be argued that we do not currently have
an adequate definition of knowledge, but virtue epistemology is the strongest definition.
Plato used the tripartite definition to define propositional knowledge- knowledge as
justified, true belief. In order to distinguish between true belief and knowledge, Plato
claimed that the justification condition acts as the glue that keeps knowledge in the mind
and allows us to value knowledge over lucky cases of true belief. Justification, truth, and
belief are all individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for knowledge meaning
that they encapsulate all instances of knowledge whilst discarding cases that are not
knowledge. Although Plato’s definition provides a structured understanding of knowledge
and captures the intuitve notion that knowledge is more than a true belief, there are
challenges to this definition that raises questions about the sufficientcy of justifcation in
knowledge. Firstly, that JTB are individually necessary conditions for knowledge. The belief
condition can be shown to not be necessary for knowledge as take the example that in
school you learn a historical fact which later comes up in a pub quiz, you do not believe you
know the answer but get the question correct because you had knowledge but without
belief. Additionally, if we take the coherence theory of truth (something is true to the extent
to which it coheres with other truths) then somebody in the past could claim knowledge of
the Earth being flat as that was “true” for them. Therefore, we can have knowledge without
belief, truth, and justification so they cannot be necessary conditions for knowledge.
Furthermore, Gettier challenged Plato’s definition of knowledge through his Gettier cases
where there can be instances of lucky justified, true, belief. For example, Gettier’s first case
Smith and Jones states:
Smith and Jones interviewing for the same job
Smith as evidence that Jones will get it as the President of the company has
told him
Smith says Jones has 10 coins in his pocket
Smith thus believes that the man with 10 coins in his pocket will get the job
Smith gets a job not Jones, but Smith also happens to have 10 coins in his
pocket
This demonstrates that there can be JTB but not knowledge as Smith had a belief that “the
man with 10 coins in his pocket will get the job” which is true as Smith got the job and had
10 coins in his pocket and was justified has Smith thought Jones, who had 10 coins, was
going to get the job as the president of the company told him so. Therefore, JTB cannot be
sufficient conditions for knowledge as this cannot account for cases of double luck.
Furthermore, there can be cases where there is JTB but not knowledge due to an unusual
context. The Fake Barns case is where Barney is unknowingly driving through fake barns
county, she sees a barn ahead and forms the belief that there is a barn ahead of her,
, however that happens to be the only real barn in the county. Therefore, she cannot be said
to have knowledge as it is a case of luck.
As a response to Gettier, alternative definitions of knowledge have been suggested.
Infallibilism claims that you know p if: p is true, you believe p, you cannot rationally doubt p.
The justification needs to be so strong that the truth is guaranteed, and we should only
count knowledge those things which there is no hypothetical alternatives. This is supported
to the extent that it overcomes the Gettier cases as it can be doubted the Jones will get the
job and it overcomes Fake barns cases as it was a possibility that the barn was not real and
therefore both of these instances do not count as knowledge under an infallibilist definition.
Infallibilsm sets a high standard for knowledge which is successful in eliminating cases of
unreliable justifications, however the definition is overly demanding. By setting the bar too
high for what counts as knowledge, infallibalism excludes beliefs that we would normally
consider knowledge and raises doubts about the attainability of knowledge overall.
Therefore, it is not a convincing definition of knowledge.
Reliabilism is a further definition where you know p if: p is true, you believe p, your
knowledge of p comes from a reliable source. A reliable source could be methods such as
good eyesight, hearing or memory but it does not require a justification. This allows children
and animals to have knowledge because whilst they cannot justify their beliefs, they still
have knowledge through faculties such as sight. Reliablism has been strengthened through
redefining reliable methods such as redefining seeing an object up close to visual
identification in highly deceptive circumstances.
Although this definition could overcome the Geitter cases as it could be argued that
overhearing from the president of the company is not the most reliable method however,
this does not solve the fake barns case as the site of a barn is using visual perception which
is a reliable cognitive process however it is not knowledge but luck. Reliablism does have
strengths as it can accommodate cases where a belief is true even if the believer is unaware
of why it is true. However the reliability of belief-forming processes can be hard to
determine, and like in the case of the fake barns, it still allows for accidentially true beliefs
to count as knowledge. Therefore, reliablism cannot work as a definition of knowledge.
Alternatively, the no false lemmas definition of knowledge also fails as it cannot encompass
all cases of knowledge. No false lemmas claims that there cannot be any false lemmas
(premises accepted as true in an argument) in the forming of a knowledge claim so you
know p if: p is true, you believe p, your belief in p is justified, you did no infer p from
anything false. This does overcome Gettier cases as in the Smith and Jones case there is a
false lemma that Jones will get the job and therefore does not count as knowledge as the
true belied is derived from a false one. However, this does not solve the fake barns case
because Barney has not inferred that it is a real barn from anything false but is just luck.
Therefore, the No false lemmas definition does have merit in it can be considered a more
specific and accurate definition that directly addresses the challenges posed by Gettier.
However, there are still dificulties in determining whether a belief’s justification relies on
false premises, so does not resolve all issues with defining knowledge.
Finally, virtue epistemology has the most accurate definition of knowledge so far but still
fails to fully define knowledge. This claims that you know p if- p is true, you believe p, your
true belief is because of intellectual virtues. Intellectual virtues include good memory and
