An Epistemology Update

1. An Epistemology Update John Rafferty MA MSc PGCE Senior Lecturer Social Sciences Langside College Glasgow JRafferty@Langside.ac.uk Tel: 0141 272 3875

2. Section 1 Philosophical Issues in Epistemology

3. Outcome 1 • Demonstrate an understanding of the philosophical issues in the area of epistemology: • The Tripartite Theory of Knowledge • Philosophical Problems with the Tripartite theory • Scepticism, Rationalism and Empiricism

4. Question 1 Why are knowledge claims a problem in philosophy?

5. Appearance and Reality • Perceptual problems • Colour blindness; hallucinations • Optical illusions • The stick in water isn’t bent • Atmospheric effects • Mirages as they appear; Stars don’t twinkle • Time lapse illusions • Some stars no longer exist • Radical philosophical doubt • Descartes’ Demon; Plato’s Cave; The Matrix; Brain in a Jar

6. Illusions of perspective

7. Light refraction

8. Objects on the horizon

9. Railway tracks

10. Very small objects • Can you guess what this is?

11. Belief, Knowledge & Certainty • Belief • A proposition that is held to be true but without evidence • Knowledge • A proposition that is believed, is true and can be supported by evidence • Certainty • A proposition where there is no doubt about its truth

12. Question 2 What is knowledge?

13. ‘Knowing how’ v ‘knowing that’ • A distinction associated with Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976) • Knowing that • Facts and information; propositional knowledge; “I know that Berlin is in Germany” • Knowing how • An ability or skill; a dispositional or operational knowledge; “I know how to bake bread” • Most of epistemology has been concerned with knowing that, especially classical debates • Can all cases of ‘knowing how’ be reduced to collections of ‘knowing that’? • E.g. Knowing how to drive a car • Is knowing that useless without knowing how? • Is innatism only tenable as applied to knowing how?

14. The Tripartite Theory of knowledge • A classical definition of knowledge • An agent (A) can be said to know a proposition (P) if: • P is true (the truth condition) • A believes P (the belief condition) • A has sufficient evidence for P (the evidence condition • This definition of knowledge is called “Justified true belief” • Having two of these conditions is not enough to count as knowledge.

15. The Hesitant Student • Teacher: Billy, what is 3x7? • Billy: Er…(guesses) is it 21? • In this case p is true (3x7 is 21) and Billy has evidence for p (he has been to the classes) but he doesn’t believe P. • Is this a case of knowledge?

16. The Lucky Punter • A gambler finds a four leaf clover so bets on a horse that day believing that his horse will win now that he has this lucky charm. The horse does win. • In this case p is true (the horse did win) and the punter believed p (he sincerely thought the horse would win) but his evidence for this belief seems inadequate. • Is this a case of knowledge?

17. Santa’s Visit • Many children believe in Santa Claus. They leave cookies out for him that are eaten the next morning and as promised the presents arrive every Christmas day. Parents, shopkeepers and teachers all reinforce this belief. • In this case the children believe P (they think Santa is real) and have evidence for believing P (teachers and parents confirm it) but P isn’t true • Is this knowledge?

18. Problems with the tripartite theory • The Gettier Problem • Smith has applied for a job, but has a justified belief that "Jones will get the job". He also knows that "Jones has 10 coins in his pocket". Smith therefore concludes that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket". • In fact, Smith gets the job but, as it happens, also has 10 coins in his pocket. So his belief that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket" was justified and true but isn’t knowledge. • Infinite regress argument • Every justification in turn requires justification and arguably this demand for justification is never stated. • Some justifications are unreliable • Sense experience is prone to deception • Innate ideas are controversial • Analytic truths are trivially true

19. Question 3 Can knowledge claims be justified?

20. Rationalism Reason is the source of all knowledge Mind contains innate ideas Maths is a model for knowledge Knowledge can be gained a priori Knowledge can be certain The senses are easily fooled Examples: Plato, Augustine; Descartes; Leibniz Empiricism The senses are the source of all knowledge Mind is a ‘tabula rasa’ Biology is a model for knowledge Knowledge is only gained a posteriori Knowledge can only ever be probable Reason only gives us access to uninformative tautologies Examples: Aristotle (?) Locke; Berkeley; Hume Rationalism and Empiricism

21. Section 2 Classic Texts in Epistemology

22. Outcomes 2 & 3 • Critically analyse a standard philosophical position in the area of epistemology: • Describe the epistemology of Descartes or Hume • Explain the reasoning and assumptions on which this account is based • Cite specific extracts • Critically evaluate a standard philosophical position in the area of epistemology: • Explain the strengths and weaknesses of Descartes or Hume • Present a conclusion on the persuasiveness of this account • Give reasons in support of this conclusion

23. Section 2: Option 1 René Descartes

24. René Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy

25. Historical Context • The Renaissance • The end of Scholasticism • Rebirth in knowledge • Flourishing in the arts • Architecture • Painting • Science

26. Historical Context • The Reformation • Split in the church • Birth of Protestantism • Catholic dominance ends • Europe divided • Martin Luther

27. Historical Context • Discovery of the New World • New cultures and peoples • New world view

28. René Descartes Meditation 1 The Sceptical Method

29. Method • Assume nothing • Start afresh • Re-examine his beliefs • Focus on foundational beliefs • Reject obvious falsehoods • But also reject even slightly doubtful beliefs • Looking for 1 certainty to base his knowledge on • Architectural metaphor • Barrel of apples analogy

30. Attacking Sense Experience • Objects in the distance • Small objects • Other arguments from illusion are possible • But surely apart from these the senses are reliable?

31. Dreaming Argument • A stronger argument against sense experience • Any given sense experience can be replicated in dreams • Hence sense experience is unreliable • In fact, there is never any sure way of distinguishing dreams from reality

32. A Priori truths • Dreams are like paintings • They must be based on reality • Or at least the colours and shapes must be real • Whether awake or asleep a square still has 4 sides • Hence maths and geometry escape the dream argument and may be reliable

33. Do all dreams contain some knowledge?

34. The Demon Hypothesis • An argument against a priori knowledge • The ultimate in scepticism • A test which any candidate for certainty must pass • Imagine a demon were fooling us in everything we see and think • If this scenario were true, could anything still be certain? • This idea has reappeared in different forms

35. René Descartes Meditation 2 Finding Certainty

36. The Search for Certainty • Restates his sceptical approach • Like Archimedes he is looking for 1 fixed point • Assumes he has no body • Assumes everything revealed by the senses is a lie • Assumes the Demon fools him at every turn • Can anything be known if we assume all this?

37. The Cogito • Cogito ergo sum • I am, I exist (Meditations) • I think therefore I am (Discourse) • Defeats the Dreaming Argument • you must exist to dream • Defeats the Demon Hypothesis • You must exist to be fooled • A self-authenticating statement • You affirm its truth each time you think it • But surely we know external objects better than we know the mind?

38. The Wax Example • Wax has one set of properties when cold • But all its properties change when heated • Yet we still think it’s the same wax. Why? • It can’t be the senses that tells us this - they give conflicting reports • Can’t be imagination either - wax can change more ways than we can imagine • So it must be pure mental scrutiny that reveals the true nature of the wax • Hence Rationalism should be adopted over Empiricism

39. Perception • In fact all perception is really a case of mental judgement • We say we see a man crossing the square • Yet all we see are a hat and cloak which could conceal an automaton • Our judgements go beyond what we strictly have sense experience for

40. René Descartes Meditation 3 Rebuilding knowledge

41. Rebuilding Knowledge • Descartes’ strategy in rebuilding knowledge rests on 2 central claims: • The clear and distinct rule • The existence of a benevolent God

42. The Clear and Distinct Rule • What is it that convinces us of the truth of the Cogito? • It is a “clear and distinct” perception • A psychological state which gives rise to irresistible certainty • Hence anything else which is clear and distinct must also be certain • This rule can now be used to rebuild knowledge by identifying other truths • God’s existence, for example, can be known clearly and distinctly

43. The Trademark Argument • This argument in Meditation 3 helps support the clear and distinct rule • We have an idea of God in our mind • This idea must have a cause • There must be as much reality in an effect as in its cause • The cause of the idea is God • The idea is like a trademark left in our minds by God • The idea of God includes the notion that he is benevolent • Hence God is no deceiver • Hence whatever we perceive distinctly must be true since a benevolent God wouldn’t allow this level of deception

44. René Descartes Meditation 6 Resolution of Earlier Doubts

45. Naïve Realism • The simplistic view that unreflective people have • External objects present themselves to the senses unbidden • They are more distinct than those presented by memory or imagination • They can’t come from within so must come from without • It seems that the sense come first and the intellect later • So nothing is present to the mind that was not first present to the senses

46. Rejection of Naïve Realism • Descartes refers to arguments from Meditation 1 • Objects at a distance • Phantom limbs • Demonstrate the fact that senses don’t always report the truth • Dreaming argument • I don’t believe the objects in dreams are located outside of me so why make this assumption when awake? • But must we resort to scepticism?

47. Rejection of Scepticism • Although we shouldn’t heedlessly accept sense reports, neither should we heedlessly reject them • We have a passive faculty for receiving ideas of objects but there must be an external cause to the ideas we receive • These causes can only be: • External objects • God • The demon • God is not a deceiver so wouldn’t allow us to think that these ideas were caused by external objects when they weren’t

48. SenseExperience • There is an outside world • However it may not exist in the way it is presented by my senses • Everything I am taught by nature contains some truth • God equips us with a number of faculties: • Reason • The Senses • Memory • It is impossible that there could be any falsity in my opinions which couldn’t be corrected by some faculty supplied by God

49. How is Error Possible? • Some things which my senses appear to be telling me are in fact a misjudgement of reason • “Grass is green” • Grass stimulates sensations of green in us • “The tower is small” • The tower simply appears small and my memory and other senses can confirm its true size • “My amputated foot causes pain” • Feelings of pain from a distant body part could equally be caused by stimulating parts in between • With the judicial use of clear reasoning we can correct the errors of the senses

50. The Dream Argument • Dreams have no consistency between one dream and the next. • Life picks up from where it left off but dreams do not • The laws of nature are broken in dreams • People can fly or talk to dead people • By the application of reason we can distinguish the two states when we are awake