The Standard Analysis of Knowledge PHI3300 Exam 1 Study Guide S knows that p IFF 1 p is true 2 S believes that p is true and 3 S is justified in believing p 1 2 and 3 are necessary for knowledge 1 2 and 3 are sufficient for knowledge The Gettier Problem Both of these can be true a S s belief that p is justified and true b S does not know that p Gettier aims to show that 1 2 and 3 are not sufficient for knowledge Therefore the classical Justified True Belief of knowledge knowledge is JTB is false The Coin Problem Smith has strong evidence for believing that a Jones will get the job and b Jones has 10 coins in his pocket Smith infers c the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket All conditions 1 2 and 3 are met Smith believes that the man who will get the job will also have 10 coins in his pocket o This is justified and true Smith does not know that the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket But Therefore justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge 1 P a g e PHI3300 Exam 1 Study Guide Brown is in Barcelona Smith has strong evidence for believing that a Jones owns a Ford Smith randomly infers b Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Boston c Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona d Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Brest Litosvk Jones does not own a Ford but is driving a rental and by pure luck Brown is in Barcelona Smith s belief is justified and true BUT smith does not know that Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona Therefore justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge No False Beliefs View Clark S Knows that p IFF 1 S believes that p 2 S is justified in believing p 3 p is true and 4 each belief in S s chain of inferences is true Coin Problem Smith employs the false belief that Jones will get the job in order to infer that the man with 10 coins in his pocket will get the job Brown is in Barcelona Smith employs the false belief that Jones owns a Ford in order to infer that Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona Lehrer s Counter Example to No False Beliefs View S knows that p IFF 1 S believes that p 2 S is justified in believing p 3 p is true and 4 there is at least one true chain of inferences that produce p You believe that someone in your office owns a Ford 2 P a g e PHI3300 Exam 1 Study Guide You believe this on the basis of 4 beliefs 1 Jones owns a Ford 2 Jones works at your office 3 Brown owns a Ford and 4 Brown works in your office Suppose 4 is false you still know that someone in your office owns a Ford Therefore Clark s conditions are not necessary for knowledge one can have knowledge without satisfying the 4 conditions Basic Intuition behind the Defeasibility Theory The first reply is too restricted The problem with Gettier problems is that they don t allow enough into one s justification Suppose I have justification for believing B o A defeater is a proposition statement that if added to my evidence would undermine or defeat my justification for believing B Coin Problem Defeater Jones will not get the job defeats Smith s justification for believing p Brown is in Barcelona Jones does not own a ford defeats Smith s justification for believing p Intuition in Gettier Problems there is a defeater that the person doesn t know about Theory Knowledge undefeated justified true belief Chisholm s First Pass at accounting for a Defeater When p completely justifies S in believing h this justification is defeated by q IFF a q is true and b the conjunction of p and q does not completely justify S in believing that h Lucky Pyromaniac Pyro s belief that the match will light when he strikes it is true but it is not knowledge Defeater the match contains impurities that raise its combustion temperature above that which can be produced by the striking friction 3 P a g e Problem of Misleading Defeater PHI3300 Exam 1 Study Guide Chisholm s Account of Defeaters Fails one can have knowledge and not have undefeated true belief Tom Grabit Mrs Grabit is a pathological liar and John Grabit does not exist So I did know Tom Grabit stole the book The Mrs Grabit defeater is misleading Second Pass at accounting for Defeater When p completely justifies S in believing that h this justification is defeated by q IFF a q is true b S is completely justified in believing q is false and c The conjunction of p and q does not completely justify S in believing that h Grabit Case Although a person in the Gettier example is justified in believing that the defeater is false I am not justified in believing anything about Mrs Grabit Because I neither entertained any beliefs concerning Mrs Grabit nor would I have been justified in My justification does not depend on being completely justified in believing that Mrs Grabit did doing so not say the things in question Problem with the Second Pass Principle if I am completely justified in believing r is false I am also completely justified in believing r and q are false Consider the statement I was born in St Paul and Mrs Grabit said that Tom Grabit was not in the library This statement defeats my justification that Tom Grabit stole the book Lesson of Conjunction Problem as long as there is some statement r that is true but that I am completely justified in believing is false the second pass theory reduces to Chisholm s theory Basic Intuition behind Causal Theory of Knowing 4 P a g e PHI3300 Exam 1 Study Guide The problem is that there is no causal connection between the fact that makes p true and S s belief that p Coin Problem what makes S s belief true is that Smith gets the job and Smith as 10 coins in his pocket But he believes this on a false belief that Jones is getting the job and Jones has 10 coins in his pocket Brown is in Barcelona what makes Smith s belief true is that Brown is in Barcelona and he believes this because he believes Jones owns a Ford But it is only by pure luck that Brown is in Barcelona not from causal connection Causal Theory of Knowing Part I Goldman to have knowledge one must reconstruct the causal chain mirroring inferences The reconstruction must contain no mistakes All details need not be reconstructed but the important ones that link Additionally for knowledge based on inference these inferences must be warranted genuinely confirm p is very highly probable Examples 1 Perception Vase case must be an appropriate causal chain …
View Full Document
Unlocking...