RI Structures of Knowledge 2023

Structures of knowledge

Overview01 0304 02RecapCoherentism reliablismsummary

recap01

recap●Knowledge as JTB and the Gettier Problem●Scepticism and the Infinite Regress –Foundationalism as a response●Reason vs Experience as the ultimate source of our knowledge and thus stopping the regress●Kant –we need both in order to have knowledge ●Other possible responses to the Infinite Regress: Anti-foundationalist

Anti-foundationalist●R & E have failed to provide us with a conclusive response to the Infinite Regress●Maybe it is this demand for certainty for the foundation of our beliefs that is the problem●In real life, we don’t actually demand such certainty •2 traditional anti-foundationalist theories: Coherentismand Reliabilism•Basic approach: our beliefs can never be absolutely justified and justification need not be an all-or-nothing affair.•Instead, justification is of degrees, not something that one has or has not -some beliefs are better supported than others •But none are so certain as to be immune from revision

Coherentism02What is it?

•There is no ultimate foundation for our knowledge•Instead, beliefs are justified by other beliefs…•which are in turn justified by still other beliefs… •in such a way that no set of beliefs is the sole justification for the rest•Essence 1: a belief is justified if it fits in or cohereswith the rest of the belief system•Essence 2: this justification is by degrees –the better the belief fits in with the system, the better justified it is•Metaphor: a webof beliefs •What does it mean to cohere?•3 Cs: Consistent, Cohesive, Comprehensive Coherentism

consistent●Beliefs should not contradict each other●Unlike Foundationalism, beliefs can be in tension with each other without outright contradiction●E.g. 1) Newtonian vs Einsteinian Physics –Foundationalist would only allow for one or the other (or none!) but the Coherentistcan allow for both (Newtonian subsumed under Einsteinian)●E.g. 2) Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism–both the Foundationalist and Coherentistwould only allow for one or the other (or none) because the dispute here is a significant point in the theory●More consistent = more coherent = more justified

cohesiveness●Consistency is not sufficient for a belief system to be coherent●i.e. not enough to not contradict each other●They must be mutually supportive●E.g. The belief is “there is a table in front of me”.●1) I am in a room with a table, there are pink elephants in the room●2) I can see the table, I can feel the table●More cohesiveness = more coherent = more justified

comprehensiveness●A belief system is more coherent the more comprehensive it is, i.e. the wider the scope of beliefs ●More comprehensive = more coherent = more justified●E.g. ceteris paribus, a belief system that is able to explain the workings of the natural world is more coherent than one that is only able to explain a contained ecosystem like a leaf litter community●Ultimately, the other two criteria are more important