Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Chris Heathwood
Office: Hellems 192
heathwood@colorado.edu
(Metaphysics)
(Ethics)
(Epistemology)
Some Questions in
Epistemology
1. What is knowledge?
2. What is epistemic justification?
3. What are the fundamental sources of
knowledge?
4. What are the limits of human
knowledge?
5. What is the status of skepticism?
What is a theory of
knowledge?
A theory of knowledge is a statement of
the conditions under which a person
knows that something is the case.
It is a statement of this form:
How Do We Go About
Constructing (and Evaluating)
a Theory of Knowledge?
Analogy: Bachelorhood.
What is bachelorhood?
What is it to be a bachelor?
What are the conditions under which a person
qualifies as a bachelor?
What a theory of bachelorhood looks like:
x is a bachelor if and only if _____x_____.
Plato on Knowledge
Theaetetus
by
Plato
translated by F.M. Cornford
Socrate s:
Socrates:
But the question you were asked, Theaetetus, was not, what
are the objects of knowledge, nor yet now many sorts of
knowledge there are. We did not want to count them, but to
find out what the thing itself knowledge is. Is there
nothing to that?
Then tell me, what definition can we give with the least risk
of contradicting ourselves?
Theaetetus Theory of
Knowledge
The True Belief Theory:
S knows that p if and only if
(i) S believes that p; and
(ii) p is true.
The Lesson:
a belief that is true
just because of luck does not
qualify as knowledge.
d.
e.
perception
introspection
memory
iv. testimony
v. induction
vi. deduction
B. Plato on Knowledge
1. Theaetetus Theory of Knowledge
2. Socrates Refutation of Theaetetus
3. Platos Theory of Knowledge
C. Gettiers Refutation of Plato
II. The Problem of Induction
A Gettier-style Counterexample
STEP 1. Suppose I see your drivers
license, an Alaska drivers license.
This seems to justify me in believing
(1) You are from Alaska.
Note: this assumes that justification does
not entail truth.
(That is, that what justifies me in believing
something need not absolutely guarantee
that that thing is true.)
A Gettier-style Counterexample
STEP 2. Now suppose that on the basis of
my belief that
(1) You are from Alaska
I come to believe that
(2) Someone in my class is from Alaska.
It seems that I am justified in believing (2).
This is due to the following principle:
If S is justified in believing p, and p entails q,
and S believes q on the basis of Ss belief
that p, then S is justified in believing q.
A Gettier-style Counterexample
STEP 3. Now suppose that the drivers
license I saw was in fact a fake ID, and that
(1) You are from Alaska
is in fact false.
(Note: I have a false justified belief in (1).)
(Note also: the JTB Theory thus far implies,
correctly, that I do not know (1).)
A Gettier-style Counterexample
STEP 4. Finally, suppose that, just by
chance, someone else in the class really is
from Alaska.
In other words, my belief that
(2) Someone in my class is from Alaska
actually turns out to be true.
It is true just by luck.
A Gettier-style Counterexample
STEP 5. Lets ask some questions about
this proposition:
(2) Someone in my class is from Alaska.
FIRST QUESTION: Would you say that I
know (2)?
ANSWER: No.
SECOND SET OF QUESTIONS:
YES
Is (2) true?
YES
Do I believe (2)?
Am I justified in believing (2)? YES
A Gettier-style Counterexample
STEP 6: Thus, bringing it all together:
I have a justified true belief in (2), but I dont
know (2).