What is Epistemology?
"Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Classic approaches:
Skepticism: the belief that we can't have true knowledge.
Rationalism: the position that knowledge is established via reason.
Empiricism: the position that knowledge is established via sense experience.
Kant (Transcendentalism):the position that knowledge relies on a complicated combination of sense experience and a priori knowledge/reason.
Important vocabulary:
A priori: knowledge that is true “prior to experience,” that is, it is true by definition (or by the nature of the ideas involved). Examples include mathematical statements and definitions. E.g. “2+2=4,” “The angles of a triangle=180 degrees,” “A triangle has three sides,” “A bachelor is an unmarried (adult) male.” These claims would be true (by definition) even if all triangles or bachelors ceased to exist.
A posteriori: knowledge that requires observation in order to establish its truth. These are claims about things that are perceivable by sense experience. E.g. “Barack Obama is president in 2009,” “It is raining outside right now,” “Jim is taller than David.” Typically, claims of science are a posteri in nature.
Empirical: Empirical facts are a posteriori in nature. They are established by collecting experiences/evidence.
Pedagogical Goals for the epistemology module:
In this module, students will:
Explore and reflect upon their own intuitions about knowledge
Learn the major philosophical approaches to epistemology
Improve their argumentation skills (creating and analyzing)
Gain an understanding of the complexity of how humans interact with knowledge
When we discuss epistemology it will help us to understand some symbolic representations of information.
S knows that p.
This schema, or method of representing information is a simplified form.
S stands for subject, or the person doing the knowing.
p stands for the proposition that is known.
So for S to know p, there must be a justified, true belief (JTB) So, false propositions cannot be known. Knowledge requires truth and more than that, S needs to believe it, otherwise, S cannot possibly know it. But to be fair, S might believe something, and that something might be true, but that all might be a matter of luck. So the last part of this is the J in JTB, it has to have a justification. There must be reasons, or further premises to elaborate why the belief is held, and why it is true.
"According to evidentialism, what makes a belief justified in this sense is the possession of evidence."
- (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
However there is a catch. Gettier Cases
"Consider the well-known case of barn-facades: Henry drives through a rural area in which what appear to be barns are, with the exception of just one, mere barn facades. From the road Henry is driving on, these facades look exactly like real barns. Henry happens to be looking at the one and only real barn in the area and believes that there's a barn over there. Henry's belief is justified, according to TK(traditional knowledge), because Henry's visual experience justifies his belief. According to NTK (non-traditional knowledge), his belief is justified because Henry's belief originates in a reliable cognitive process: vision. Yet Henry's belief is plausibly viewed as being true merely because of luck. Had Henry noticed one of the barn-facades instead, he would also have believed that there's a barn over there. There is, therefore, broad agreement among epistemologists that Henry's belief does not qualify as knowledge." - (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
"Distinguish between Tim and Tim*: one and the same person whom we imagine in two altogether different situations. Tim's situation is normal, like yours or mine. Tim*, however, is a brain in a vat. Suppose a mad scientist abducted and "envatted" Tim* by removing his brain from his skull and putting it in a vat in which his brain is kept alive. Next, the mad scientist connects the nerve endings of Tim*'s brain with wires to a machine that, controlled by a powerful computer, starts stimulating Tim*'s brain in such a way that Tim* does not notice what actually happened to him. He is going to have perfectly ordinary experiences, just like Tim. Indeed, let's assume that the mental states of Tim and the mental states of Tim* are alike. But, since Tim* is a brain in a vat, he is, unlike Tim, radically deceived about his actual situation. For example, when Tim believes he has hands, he is right. When Tim* believes he has hands, he is mistaken. (His hands were discarded, along with the rest of his limbs and torso.) When Tim believes he is drinking coffee, he is right. When Tim* believes he is drinking coffee, he is mistaken. (Brains don't drink coffee.) Now suppose Tim* asks himself whether he is justified in believing that he has hands. Since Tim* is just like Tim, Tim* will say that his belief is justified, just as Tim would if he were to ask himself whether he is justified in believing that he has hands. Evidentialism implies that Tim*'s answer is correct. For even though he is deceived about his external situation, he is not deceived about his evidence: the way things appear to him in his experiences. This illustrates the internality of evidentialist justification. Reliabilism, on the other hand, suggests that Tim*'s answer is incorrect. Tim*'s belief that he has hands originates in cognitive processes — "seeing" and "feeling" his (nonexisting) hands — that now yield virtually no true beliefs. To the extent that this implies their unreliability, the resulting beliefs are unjustified. Consequently, he is deceived not only about his external situation (his not having hands), but also about the justificational status of his belief that he has hands. This illustrates the externality of reliabilist justification." - (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Key Questions
Can humans know the world as it really is?
Are there some things that humans can never know?
Are there some things we know with absolute certainty?
Is human knowledge based entirely on sensory perception?
What counts as a justification in claiming to know something?
Should we believe something just because someone else told us it was true?
How much can I learn, just by thinking on my own?
How do I know that the worldis real and is not an illusion?
Notable Philosophers
Thomas Aquinas
Plato (Meno)
Descartes (Discourse on Method)
Berkeley
Nagarjuna
Major Schools of Epistemology
skepticism
empiricism
pragmatism
Issues at Stake
Eyewitness testimony
What could be considered evidence for government action?
How much evidence is enough to change a government policy?
Which government policies are at stake in New Brunswick, or Canada, or the surrounding world?
How do you know if something is safe? Marijuana? School? Social Media? Friends? Others?
Comparisons of modern film as adaptations of philosophical thought regarding knowledge, and what is real? (The Matrix, Stranger than Fiction).
Useful websites
Epistemology Slideshare by PS Deb Director of Neurology at GNRC Medical Guwahati
"Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Classic approaches:
Skepticism: the belief that we can't have true knowledge.
Rationalism: the position that knowledge is established via reason.
Empiricism: the position that knowledge is established via sense experience.
Kant (Transcendentalism):the position that knowledge relies on a complicated combination of sense experience and a priori knowledge/reason.
Important vocabulary:
A priori: knowledge that is true “prior to experience,” that is, it is true by definition (or by the nature of the ideas involved). Examples include mathematical statements and definitions. E.g. “2+2=4,” “The angles of a triangle=180 degrees,” “A triangle has three sides,” “A bachelor is an unmarried (adult) male.” These claims would be true (by definition) even if all triangles or bachelors ceased to exist.
A posteriori: knowledge that requires observation in order to establish its truth. These are claims about things that are perceivable by sense experience. E.g. “Barack Obama is president in 2009,” “It is raining outside right now,” “Jim is taller than David.” Typically, claims of science are a posteri in nature.
Empirical: Empirical facts are a posteriori in nature. They are established by collecting experiences/evidence.
Pedagogical Goals for the epistemology module:
In this module, students will:
Explore and reflect upon their own intuitions about knowledge
Learn the major philosophical approaches to epistemology
Improve their argumentation skills (creating and analyzing)
Gain an understanding of the complexity of how humans interact with knowledge
When we discuss epistemology it will help us to understand some symbolic representations of information.
S knows that p.
This schema, or method of representing information is a simplified form.
S stands for subject, or the person doing the knowing.
p stands for the proposition that is known.
So for S to know p, there must be a justified, true belief (JTB) So, false propositions cannot be known. Knowledge requires truth and more than that, S needs to believe it, otherwise, S cannot possibly know it. But to be fair, S might believe something, and that something might be true, but that all might be a matter of luck. So the last part of this is the J in JTB, it has to have a justification. There must be reasons, or further premises to elaborate why the belief is held, and why it is true.
"According to evidentialism, what makes a belief justified in this sense is the possession of evidence."
- (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
However there is a catch. Gettier Cases
"Consider the well-known case of barn-facades: Henry drives through a rural area in which what appear to be barns are, with the exception of just one, mere barn facades. From the road Henry is driving on, these facades look exactly like real barns. Henry happens to be looking at the one and only real barn in the area and believes that there's a barn over there. Henry's belief is justified, according to TK(traditional knowledge), because Henry's visual experience justifies his belief. According to NTK (non-traditional knowledge), his belief is justified because Henry's belief originates in a reliable cognitive process: vision. Yet Henry's belief is plausibly viewed as being true merely because of luck. Had Henry noticed one of the barn-facades instead, he would also have believed that there's a barn over there. There is, therefore, broad agreement among epistemologists that Henry's belief does not qualify as knowledge." - (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
"Distinguish between Tim and Tim*: one and the same person whom we imagine in two altogether different situations. Tim's situation is normal, like yours or mine. Tim*, however, is a brain in a vat. Suppose a mad scientist abducted and "envatted" Tim* by removing his brain from his skull and putting it in a vat in which his brain is kept alive. Next, the mad scientist connects the nerve endings of Tim*'s brain with wires to a machine that, controlled by a powerful computer, starts stimulating Tim*'s brain in such a way that Tim* does not notice what actually happened to him. He is going to have perfectly ordinary experiences, just like Tim. Indeed, let's assume that the mental states of Tim and the mental states of Tim* are alike. But, since Tim* is a brain in a vat, he is, unlike Tim, radically deceived about his actual situation. For example, when Tim believes he has hands, he is right. When Tim* believes he has hands, he is mistaken. (His hands were discarded, along with the rest of his limbs and torso.) When Tim believes he is drinking coffee, he is right. When Tim* believes he is drinking coffee, he is mistaken. (Brains don't drink coffee.) Now suppose Tim* asks himself whether he is justified in believing that he has hands. Since Tim* is just like Tim, Tim* will say that his belief is justified, just as Tim would if he were to ask himself whether he is justified in believing that he has hands. Evidentialism implies that Tim*'s answer is correct. For even though he is deceived about his external situation, he is not deceived about his evidence: the way things appear to him in his experiences. This illustrates the internality of evidentialist justification. Reliabilism, on the other hand, suggests that Tim*'s answer is incorrect. Tim*'s belief that he has hands originates in cognitive processes — "seeing" and "feeling" his (nonexisting) hands — that now yield virtually no true beliefs. To the extent that this implies their unreliability, the resulting beliefs are unjustified. Consequently, he is deceived not only about his external situation (his not having hands), but also about the justificational status of his belief that he has hands. This illustrates the externality of reliabilist justification." - (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Key Questions
Can humans know the world as it really is?
Are there some things that humans can never know?
Are there some things we know with absolute certainty?
Is human knowledge based entirely on sensory perception?
What counts as a justification in claiming to know something?
Should we believe something just because someone else told us it was true?
How much can I learn, just by thinking on my own?
How do I know that the worldis real and is not an illusion?
Notable Philosophers
Thomas Aquinas
Plato (Meno)
Descartes (Discourse on Method)
Berkeley
Nagarjuna
Major Schools of Epistemology
skepticism
empiricism
pragmatism
Issues at Stake
Eyewitness testimony
What could be considered evidence for government action?
How much evidence is enough to change a government policy?
Which government policies are at stake in New Brunswick, or Canada, or the surrounding world?
How do you know if something is safe? Marijuana? School? Social Media? Friends? Others?
Comparisons of modern film as adaptations of philosophical thought regarding knowledge, and what is real? (The Matrix, Stranger than Fiction).
Useful websites
Epistemology Slideshare by PS Deb Director of Neurology at GNRC Medical Guwahati