Philosophy covers a wide range of fundamental problems where it branches out to areas such as language, ethics, political philosophy, metaphysics, logic, or epistemology – the theory of knowledge. For years, philosophers have analyzed and questions what knowledge is, its value, sources, structure, and whether we know anything at all. Epistemology questions what knowledge is and how we as humans can acquire it – which involves much debate. Though our understanding of knowledge is ambiguous, we do know that knowledge is justified, true belief.
There have been attempts to answer the queries through the Justified-True-Belief Account of Knowledge (JTB), known to have been credited by Plato. According to the theory, knowledge is explained in some manner or way, a proposition known can’t be false, and the proposition must be accepted. The justified-true-belief account of knowledge, though, is considered to be a definition of knowledge where S, a person, knows that P, a proposition, if and only if: P is true, S believes that P is true, and S is justified in believing that P is true. However, this theory of knowledge challenges our understanding of propositional knowledge – like when people once thought they knew that the earth was flat; one could not know what was flat, only think that one knows it. The truth condition of the JTB of knowledge states that if you know that P, then P is true (Powerpoint, Lecture 4). Though P can be a claim that something else is false. Thus, the Gettier problems. In Edmund L. Gettier’s short article, “Is justified true belief knowledge?” he discusses the question about whether or not a piece of information with a faulty premise is knowledge. This innovative philosophical idea that Gettier wrote about, le...
... middle of paper ...
...rly refutes the tradition definition of knowledge. As earlier stated, many attempts have been made to repair or replace the definition of knowledge; hence the theories such as, the Casual Theory, to use as a solution to an ambiguous problem. However, there is still no positive and certain solution to the Gettier problem as effective as his challenge may be in order to define knowledge.
Works Cited
Gettier, Edmund L. "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" EEE. N.p., n.d. Web.
.
Goldman, Alvin I. "A Casual Theory of Knowing." EEE. N.p., n.d. Web. .
Powerpoint.
Powerpoint
The purpose of this paper is to show that Goldman's causal theory of knowledge does not solve the Gettier problem. First, I will reiterate the Gettier problem. Second, I will show how Goldman's theory attempts to solve the Gettier problem. Next, I will show how over determination points out a major flaw for Goldman's theory. Finally, I will demonstrate that Goldman's theory does not work if the world we live in is not one of absolute truth and void of deception.
Justified true belief was the accepted definition of knowledge until Gettier wrote this article. It has three necessary conditions that were considered jointly sufficient for the definition of knowledge. It states that a subject knows a proposition if and only if the proposition is true, the subject believes in the proposition, and the subject is justified in believing that the proposition is true (121).
Zagzebski defines knowledge by expressing the relationship between the subject and the truth proposition. A truth claim becomes knowledge when your state of belief makes cognitive contact with reality. What it is to know that you understand something is different from having a relationship with something. Propositional knowledge, that can be known or believed, is her focus due to simplicity. The criteria required for belief is to have a thought, followed by augmentation with experience. The minimal criteria for a definition of knowledge must incorporate two types of “good”; a moral and an ethical. These truths are implemented to develop the foundation on which Zagzebski later builds her definition.
There is no concrete definition of knowledge, but there is a definition that is widely agreed upon, or a standard definition. This definition may be widely accepted, but just like most things in philosophy, it is controversial and many disagree with it. The definition involves three conditions that must be met in order for one to truly say that they know something to be true. If one were to state: “The Seattle Mariners have never won a world series,” using the standard definition would look like this: first, the person believes the statement to be true. Second, the statement is in fact true. Third, the person is justified in believing the statement to be true. The three conditions are belief, truth, and justification. There are the “necessary and sufficient conditions” for knowledge. Necessary and sufficient conditions are linked to conditional statements, ‘if x, then y’ statements.
The first component of knowledge that must be examined is the faculty of intellect. Intellect allows one to think. Thought consists of the ability to understand, imagine, and perceive. Perception encompasses the ability to use the senses to form ideas of some object, whereas imagination allows one to fabricate ideas and form new thoughts. When one imagines, he simply invents ideas that exist to be judged by the mind. Ideas do not necessarily need to be true, and because of this they cannot be wrong. One can have the idea of some entity that does not exist, such as a satyr or siren, and this does not pose any issue. Simply holding an untrue idea is not an error. In the same s...
I shall also expound Ayer's theory of knowledge, as related in his book. I will show this theory to contain logical errors, making his modified version of the principle flawed from a second angle.
In the field of philosophy there can be numerous answers to a general question, depending on a particular philosopher's views on the subject. Often times an answer is left undetermined. In the broad sense of the word and also stated in the dictionary philosophy can be described as the pursuit of human knowledge and human values. There are many different people with many different theories of knowledge. Two of these people, also philosophers, in which this paper will go into depth about are Descartes and Plato. Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy and Plato's The Republic are the topics that are going to be discussed in this paper.
After all, Socrates already argues that Theaetetus's first definition of knowledge as reception is insufficient, now the discussion has moved away from non-cognitive accounts of knowledge to the relationship between beliefs or judgment and knowledge. Theaetetus compares this with the idea that all belief counts as knowledge, which he proclaims cannot be right since there are false beliefs. However, Socrates proposes he cannot understand how there can be such a thing as falsity, he then suggests holding on to discuss the problem. Socrates lays out an abrupt and puzzling argument that allegedly displays the impossibility of false belief. The puzzle of false belief relies on the defenseless proposition that one either knows an object or does not.
This is the basis of 'justified true belief'. So for a piece of knowledge to be valid according to Plato's 'justified true belief' theory you must be able to believe the statement, your belief has to be true and your belief must be justified. An example of this is to take the statement that 'all living things are made of cells'. For this statement to be true it must pass three tests, firstly you must believe that all living things are made of cells. All living things must be made of cells if you know one that is not then your belief is not true which it must be. Finally, you must have justification for the statement that you know all living things are made of cells.
Some of the objections, such as the ones made by Edmund Gettier, claim that three conditions are not nearly enough to justify a true belief, and that at the very least a fourth must be added. Gettier presents a very valid criticism of the JTB theory of knowledge, and his counter examples highlight flaws in the JTB theory that make it an inadequate theory of knowledge. Gettier claims takes an issue with the third part of the JTB theory, which states that proposition P must be true. Gettier makes the interesting observation that person S may very well be justified in believing in proposition P even if P is false
Epistemology, also known as theory of knowledge is the part of philosophy that discusses the nature and scope of knowledge. Some questions that study the nature of knowledge could be, Have you ever thought about how we know things? What does it mean for someone to know something? How much can we possibly know? How do you know that 2 + 2 = 4, or that the square root of 144 is 12? Do we know something from reason or from di...
Question No. 5 “No knowledge can be produced by a single way of knowing.” Discuss.
It is noticeable that many subjects that once belonged to philosophy have broken off and become independent disciplines. These subjects include physics, psychology, and chemistry. This, however, has not left philosophy devoid of content. There are numerous other things that have always belonged to philosophy since the beginning of time and are still part of philosophy up to date. These issues are; the possibility of knowledge, the nature of the universe, the standard of justice, the correct use of reason, and the qualities of beauty. These issues have the foundational structures of the five branches of philosophy that are epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, logic, and aesthetics.
Whether someone's belief is true is not a prerequisite for belief. On the other hand, if something is actually known, then it categorically cannot be false. For example, if a person believes that a bridge is safe enough to support him, and attempts to cross it, but the bridge then collapses under his weight, it could be said that he believed that the bridge was safe but that his belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. By contrast, if the bridge actually supported his weight, then he might say that he had believed that the bridge was safe, whereas now, after proving it to himself, he knows it was
Descartes defines knowledge as doubt and uncertainty. He describes that our main source of knowledge is our sense perception.