Epistemology
Gig Φ Philosophy
(at-a-glance overviews of philosophical concepts)
Published September, 2022 [LAST UPDATED: 2024]
'Epistēmē' = to "know" / "understand"
The study of knowledge and justified belief
Often in the business of conceptualizing systems of practical and scientific knowledge
● What is knowledge?
● What makes it differ from mere /accidentally true belief?
● What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge?
● What can we know?
● Can we know anything at all?
● What are the limitations (if any) on what one can know?
● What is it possible to know (either practically / theoretically)?
● Where does knowledge occur / reside [in the (non)physical person]?
● How do we come to know things (i.e., what is the process, what is it's foundational starting point, when can we be confident we have knowledge)?
Kinds of Knowledge & Epistemology
Procedural & Acquaintance Knowledge
Knowledge of “how” or “who”
Examples: “I know how to drive.” or “I know who Sophie is.”
Not generally of concern for traditional philosophy since it was viewed as sufficiently explained by experience & evolutionary psychology.
However, Feminist epistemologists have utilized these scientific theories to help explain how these beliefs are socially constructed and have functioned historically in maintaining inequitable power structures.
(Descriptive/ Declarative)
Knowledge “that” something is the case
Examples: “I know that it is going to rain.” or “I know that God exists.”
Traditional philosophy has been focused on the nature of, and justification for, this kind of knowledge.
Contemporary epistemologists engage in a broad range of projects, including, but not limited to: formalizing the relationship between rational belief and probability calculi, illuminating widespread forms of epistemic injustice, & modeling an account of knowledge that incorporates (rather than being at odds with) emotion, context, and values.
Necessary & Sufficient Conditions
A necessary condition (NC) for some state of affairs S is a condition that must be satisfied in order for S to obtain (i.e. it is impossible to have S without having NC)
INFERENCE If NC is not present, then S does not occur. (~NC 🠢 ~S)
EXAMPLE Being 35 or older is a necessary condition for being U.S. President.
A sufficient condition (SC) for some state of affairs S is a condition that, if satisfied, guarantees that S obtains.
INFERENCE If SC is present, then S occurs. (SC 🠢 S)
EXAMPLE Stepping on Sophie’s tail is a sufficient condition for making her yelp.
● Being a tiger is a sufficient condition for being an animal.
● Being an animal is a necessary condition for being a tiger.
● Drinking water is a sufficient condition for quenching thirst.
● Having a racket is a necessary condition for playing tennis.
● Burning leaves is a sufficient condition for producing smoke.
● Breathing oxygen is a necessary condition for living.
● Having the flu is a sufficient condition for feeling miserable.
Some conditions can be both. NECESSARY & SUFFICIENT (e.g., all IFF statements).
Examples:
● "Being enrolled in a course is a necessary and sufficient condition for receiving a grade."
● "South Seattle College will raise tuition if and only if Green River College does."
Knowledge = Justified True Belief
The JTB Account: To know that something is the case ...
Belief = propositional attitude (i.e., taking the position that a proposition is true / false)
A proposition one does not even believe (i.e., something one is agnostic about) cannot be a proposition that one knows. Knowledge at least requires belief.
Often people will speak as if the opposite is true; that we can know things even if we don't believe them. This speaks more to an attempt to reconcile seemingly incompatible belief systems (e.g., I know I shouldn't smoke, but don't believe I need to quit.)
Truth = independent of what one believes [objective]
False propositions cannot be known since the conception of knowledge involves a connection to reality.
Though knowledge requires belief, many beliefs (as we are well aware) can be false, so knowledge also requires truth.
Justification = has been defined in a variety of ways. Successful definitions seek to avoid the infamous Gettier Problem (i.e., ensuring that one's true belief is not merely a matter of luck).
E.g., there seems to be a difference between believing it is going to rain based on (i) a reliable weather report v. (ii) a dream; even if it's true.
Thus, one needs good reasons / evidence to hold that true belief
Motivated by the fact that beliefs are internal mental states.
Maintains that when we know something, we are aware of the reason(s) it is true. This must make justification (sometimes also called "warrant") a relation to other mental states.
Distinguishes knowledge from other mental states (e.g., belief, desire, hope, wonder, doubt) based on things inside the mind (i.e., the character of the mental state itself and its relation to other mental states).
Foundationalism = basic beliefs
Self-evident or self-justifying truths which we know directly, not dependent on any other belief
Coherentism = holistic and interdependent
No beliefs are self-evident or self-justifying, nothing is known directly or independent of any other belief
Motivated by the fact that truth is the external connection of a mental state to the world.
Maintains that when we know something, the only thing that matters is that it matches the way the world actually is (is in the right relation to the truth). This must make justification / warrant a matter of how a belief arose.
Distinguishes knowledge from other mental states based on the relations between the mental state(s) and the world (i.e., they must be formed by a reliable belief forming process - which need not be accessible to the knower)
Reliabilism = Justification is accomplished if, and only if, a belief originates in reliable cognitive processes or faculties [in an epistemic environment that does not undercut that reliability (e.g., optical illusions / mind-altering states)]
The view that at least some knowledge is INNATE (born with) and that the mind can discover these truths through reason alone, without experience.
Thus, Rationalists search for & model a priori truths [“from the earlier”] = propositions that can be known before we experience things in the world.
EXAMPLES Mathematical truths, language, universal laws of nature. (e.g., “I think, therefore, I am.” & “All bachelors are unmarried men.”)
The view that the source of all knowledge is experience, not reason alone. This involves the position that we are born without any “innate” knowledge.
Thus, Empiricists search for & model a posteriori truths [“from the later”] = propositions that can be known only after we experience things in the world.
EXAMPLES Descriptive statements about specific things in the external world (e.g., “Barack Obama was the 44th President of the United States.”)
BOTH!
Some philosophers argue that, in important respects, knowledge comes from both sources (the canonical exemplar being Immanuel Kant).
Relativism
The view that the truth about something depends upon what ...
TYPES OF RELATIVISM
Subjective … a person believes
Cultural … a culture believes
The view that we lack knowledge in some fundamental way
TYPES OF SKEPTICISM
Pyrrhonian (universal) Total suspension of belief (no knowledge is possible)
Academic (particular) There are important realms of which we are ignorant (reliability of the senses)
Moderate (particular) There are important realms which cannot be known (beliefs not founded on experience)
Deals specifically with questions about the nature of knowledge drawing attention to fact that, historically, women and POC have been excluded / discouraged from important areas / disciplines of knowledge [particularly in academic institutions]; and examining whether & how this exclusion has had an impact on the subject as a whole.
