General Epistemology Luosuo Version 1

Knowledge & Inquiry Questions / ​ Parallels ​ / ​ Main Ideas Notes General Epistemology: Knowledge & its Nature, Construction & Validity Readings Used so udh to read stufs twice 1. The Matrix Possibility 2. The Analysis of Knowledge 3. Rationalism vs Empiricism Stanford 4. Perception and Knowledge 5. An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, Dan O' brien The Search for an Understanding of Knowledge Begins with... //Realism and Opposing Views //Skepticism Utility of Doubt // Meno’s Problem Philosophical Doubt ● Ordinary Doubt: Doubting the ​ Evidence ​ of some Propositions ● Philosophical Doubt: Doubting ​ every ​ Proposition that is Logically Possible to Doubt ○ Utility: Leads to the Search for ​ Evidence ​ and ​ Stronger Justification Confidence in Knowledge ● Exists on a Scale Philosophical Doubt Stems from Problems such as... State 4 Thought Experiments that rely on the Egocentric Predicament Explain the Problem raised by Hume’s Veil of Perception Explain the Problem raised by Agrippa’s Trilemma The Egocentric Predicament/Indiscernibility Arguments ● The problem of not being able to view reality outside of our own perceptions ● All worldly knowledge takes the form of ​ mental representations ​ that our

● //3 Theories of Justification/Truth mind examines in different ways. ● Examples ○ Plato’s Cave ○ The Matrix ○ Zhuangzi’s Butterfly Dream ○ Brain in a Vat ○ Descartes’ Evil Demon ● Response: Kant’s Noumena and Phenomena ○ Noumena: The objective world independent of human minds ○ Phenomena: What we can experience ○ If noumena and phenomena are completely distinct: No issue since the phenomena is all we can interact with anyway ■ Anything we perceive would fall into the realm of the phenomena ○ As indiscernibility arguments (e.g. Brain in the Vat, Descartes Evil Demon can take an infinite number of forms while the phenomena can only take one, the probability that we are in a pseudo-word is infinitely smaller compared to the probability that we are in the more consistent perceived world) Other Responses ● Fallibilism: Further Explained in “Certainty vs Fallibilism” Cogito Ergo Sum: I think therefore I am (Descartes Evil Demon) ● Certain ​ presupposition that one thinks in Doubting ● Refutation: The Cogito could have been demon-inspired ○ BUT: One would still be thinking in doubting the demon inspiration of the Cogito ○ Leads to an Infinite Regress ○ Mr Dio: This infinite regress allows one to always be able have to argue that “But you would have to be thinking to doubt that” ■ Personal Opinion ​ : However the Skeptic also always has the ability to argue that “The Demon might have inspired that”; by that same logic wouldn’t the Sceptic be equally right? ○ Class: The colour Red must still come from the Demon’s perception → Red exists somewhere in the Real World Hume’s Veil of Perception ● Argues that we do not Perceive the actual World but Instead Interpret Sense Datum ○ Arguments from Illusion ○ Arguments from Hallucination

● Further Explained in “Perception” Agrippa’s Trilemma Based on the proposition that in order for a ​ belief to be justified ​ it must have ​ evidence in the form of another belief 1. It continues ​ Infinitely ​ : An ​ infinite regress ​ which suggests that there is ultimately no justification 2. To avoid infinite regress, it must end at a ​ foundational belief ​ : Which may be a ​ dogmatic assumption ​ ; unless one proves that the belief is self-evident a. However, one would still need to justify why a particular belief is self-evident, why self-evidence is sufficient etc. 2. It ​ circles back ​ to the first/a previous justification: Which would be circular reasoning 3. Skepticism ensues a. Which would, in itself, be unjustified ● Further Explained in “Justification Condition” ● The Bane of my Existence Armed with enough Crippling Scepticism to leave us weeping into a tub of Ice Cream at 4am, one would be motivated to understand the NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE and Why we should care about it Why Knowledge? ● Knowledge is what tethers the Truth of Reality to our Comprehension i.e. to Know is to Believe Justifiably in the Truth ● “The Unexamined Life is not Worth Living” - Socrates However in Understanding KNOWLEDGE one must acknowledge (ahuohuo) that there are different TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE State the 3 Types of Knowledge Types of Knowledge ● Competence/Procedural: Knowing ​ How ○ Skill: e.g I ​ know ​ how to ride a bicycle ● Acquaintance: Knowing ​ Who ○ Person: e.g. I ​ know ​ Stalin ○ ≠ I know that John exists (Claim) ● Propositional: Knowing ​ That ○ Claim: I ​ know ​ that the Earth is Flat. ○ Focus of KI Can Competence and Acquaintance Knowledge be split into Propositional Claims ● //K-Reliabilism

To gauge the confidence we should have in Propositional Knowledge, we need to see how well it fulfills the DEFINITIONS OF KNOWLEDGE, such as... State the Equation for the Definition of Knowledge in the KI Syllabus ● //Gettier Problems Define Simple K-Reliabilism and explain how it is Different from Simple J-Reliabilism Definition of Knowledge: True - Justified - Belief Theory A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if: 1. P is ​ true ​ , and 2. S ​ believes ​ that P is true, and 3. S is ​ justified ​ in believing that P is true a. I.e. Has a Valid Reason to Believe ● Propositional Knowledge Only T B K = J ● However some Philosophers believe this to be an Insufficient Definition (See “Gettier Problem”) ○ Checking Knowledge Definitions: ■ Sufficiency: All cases of K must be cases of JTB ■ Necessity: All cases of JTB are cases of K ● What we’re trying to “get at” in our Definitions: An Epistemological Link Between Truth and Belief Alternative Definitions Simple K-Reliabilism ​ : S Knows P if and only if: 1. P is ​ true 2. S ​ believes ​ that P is true 3. P was produced by a reliable (Degetterising; Epistemic-Luck-Preventing) cognitive process ● Suggested to be Best Form by Fallibilism T B K = R ● Benefits: ○ Animals can have Knowledge ​ (no one cares Dretske) ○ Externalist: No need for direct access or the ability to directly access cognitively the justifications that make up claim ■ Does not require assessment of all evidence in making propositional Knowledge claims ○ Meant to avoid Gettier Problems Fallibalistically (in a manner that aims to achieve good >maximally good K) ● Difference from J-Reliabilism ○ Suppose B is a belief that, though produced by a reliable faculty or process, is in fact false ○ About B, K-reliabilism implies one and only one thing: B is not an instance of knowledge ○ But J-reliabilism implies two things about B ■ B is not an instance of knowledge (in the sense that it is not true)

■ B is a justified belief Personal Opinion ​ : Sufficiency Challenge ● How would one ​ Know that a Cognitive Process is Reliable ​ from Birth ​ ? Do we know nothing propositional before learning which processes are reliable? ● Can we ​ actually tell if a MOK is degetterising ​ ? Aren’t Gettier Cases only Discovered in Retrospect/With an Omniscient Perspective? ○ Need K-Reliabilism + Fallibilism for non self-evident Knowledge ● Could the Justification for an MOK’s Degetterising Ability also be arrived by Epistemic Luck? ● Must we check to see which MOKs ​ we use for all Propositional Knowledge? ● Reliable Methods were used in ​ Alice’s Clock Therefore we shall Analyse the 3 CONDITIONS which are... Beliefs in the JTB have to be p_______ State the Limitation of Belief as a Condition of Knowledge Belief Condition ● A ​ personal ​ ​ confidence ​ in the ​ truth or reliabi