Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IntroductionToEpistemology (H) tcm4-640707
IntroductionToEpistemology (H) tcm4-640707
IntroductionToEpistemology (H) tcm4-640707
Philosophy
Introduction to Epistemology
[HIGHER]
The Scottish Qualifications Authority regularly reviews
the arrangements for National Qualifications. Users of
all NQ support materials, whether published by
Learning and Teaching Scotland or others, are
reminded that it is their responsibility to check that the
support materials correspond to the requirements of the
current arrangements.
Acknowledgement
Learning and Teaching Scotland gratefully acknowledges this contribution to the National
Qualifications support programme for Philosophy.
This resource may be reproduced in whole or in part for educational purposes by educational
establishments in Scotland provided that no profit accrues at any stage.
Teacher’s notes 4
Introduction 5
Glossary 34
Bibliography 36
Teacher’s notes
These notes are designed to provide teachers/lecturers with an accurate and
detailed course content for the 10-mark mandatory unit Introduction to
Epistemology. Given the lack of student textbooks for philosophy, it is hoped
that these notes will help teachers/lecturers to provide their students with
resources that cover the course requirements. However, they should not be
used as the sole resource for students. Students will benefit from a variety of
reading resources and so it is advised that the notes are used in conjunction
with other resources.
The notes also include a reflective summary of the course that is designed for
students to refer to as they work through the unit. The aim is to encourage
students to participate in the process of self-evaluation. It should be noted
that this summary is the writer’s own attempt to interpret the SQA
Arrangement documents so schools and colleges should take care to ensure
that they are satisfied with this particular interpretation.
Many students benefit from materials that contain interesting images and
graphics. Although some are included in this pack, teachers/lecturers are
encouraged to take time to add their own graphics to the resource to help
make them as appealing as possible for the students.
The glossary at the end of the notes is based on the recently published revised
Arrangements document.
Introduction
The word epistemology comes from two Greek words:
episteme = knowledge
logos = theory (or sometimes translated word)
This may sound a bit dull but it is actually a fascinating area of philosophy.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature and limits of
knowledge.
Which, if any, of our beliefs are true and which are false?
Activity
On your own, think about things that you would call knowledge. Think also
about things that you would call belief.
In groups try to persuade each other that what has been identified as
knowledge is actually just belief. Is there anything that everyone agrees
should still be called knowledge?
Now make a list of what your group concludes can be called knowledge.
Try to put together a definition of knowledge.
1. What is knowledge?
2. How is knowledge acquired?
3. Can knowledge claims be justified?
The English word ‘know’ is used here in three different ways. First of all, we
have ‘propositional’ knowledge (knowing that something is true). Secondly,
we have knowledge of ‘how to’ do something. Finally, we have personal
experience of something (knowledge by acquaintance).
Activity
In which subjects did you learn about these propositional knowledge claims?
How can you be sure that these propositional knowledge claims are true?
Socrates goes on to say that in order to stop your true beliefs from drifting
from your mind you must ‘tether them’. Your beliefs need to be ‘tied down’
by something.
Activity
In pairs, discuss what is required for you to ‘tie down’ your true beliefs.
Socrates’ answer to the question above is simple. In order for you to keep
your true beliefs from slipping from your grasp you must ‘tether them by
working out the reason’. The key difference between a true belief and
knowledge is that any knowledge claim needs to be backed up with reasons.
Knowledge is more valuable than true beliefs because a knowledge claim
includes the essential condition of justification. Plato’s point is simple. To
have knowledge is to have true beliefs that are secured by reasons. These
simple observations led to what has become known as the tripartite theory of
knowledge.
The standard definition of knowledge has been summarised into the phrase
‘justified, true belief’.
The three conditions below form what is called the ‘tripartite theory of
knowledge, or knowledge as justified, true, belief.
Individually necessary …
To say that the tripartite theory is individually necessary simply means that
for us to have knowledge, we must satisfy each condition. Any knowledge
claim that cannot do this cannot be a knowledge claim at all. We simply
cannot do without any of the three conditions.
Jointly sufficient …
This simply means that the three conditions are all that is needed. If it is true
that the tripartite theory is ‘jointly sufficient’ and we can show that we have
satisfied all three conditions then we can guarantee the success of a
propositional knowledge claim. In other words, if you have satisfied all three
conditions then you can say with certainty that you have knowledge.
This is a problem with the definition itself. In the 1960s, a philosopher called
Edmund Gettier came up with some questions and examples that undermined
the tripartite theory. In 1967 he published a paper simply entitled ‘Is
Justified, True Belief knowledge?’ His paper was based around a number of
examples in which he attempted to show that it is possible to satisfy all the
conditions and yet still be unable to say conclusively that you had knowledge.
Gettier was questioning whether the tripartite theory was jointly sufficient.
The examples he and others have subsequently used are known as Gettier-
type counter-examples.
Example 1
Your teacher has an identical twin. The twin enters the room and you form
the justified, true belief: ‘My teacher is in the room’. As it happens, she’s
sitting at the back of the room where you hadn’t seen her. But, do you have
‘knowledge’?
Example 2
What appears to be a window is really a TV screen relaying recorded images
of the outside from a week ago. You look, and form the justified belief: ‘It is
raining’. As a matter of fact this is also true. But, do you have ‘knowledge’?
Activity
Try to come up with a fourth criterion of knowledge that removes the Gettier
problem. Test your new clause with others in the class.
Do you agree with Gettier that maybe the tripartite theory is not ‘jointly
sufficient’ after all?
2. Global sceptics have claimed that the only thing that we can know is
that knowledge is impossible. This is extreme scepticism. Some extreme
sceptics – also called solipsists – go so far as doubting that we can
know anything at all outside our own minds. All we can have certain
knowledge of is the content of our own minds.
Philosophers such as René Descartes and David Hume both recognised that
what we may take to be justification may in fact not be justification after all.
Think of the people who thought that the Earth was stationary. What more
justification would you need than the fact that you can see it and feel it to be
stationary? The history of humanity is to a great extent a history of humans
discovering that we have got things wrong – that what we had thought was
knowledge (sometimes with great confidence and apparent justification) was
in fact wrong. Clearly our false knowledge claims were caused by mistaken
justifications. So, in order to avoid making errors we need to be careful to
justify our justifications.
This, however, leads us into a problem that is very hard to solve. Whatever
evidence I bring forward to support a propositional knowledge claim is in as
much need of support as the proposition itself. I need a justification for my
justification, and then a further justification and so on and so on … This
endless search for justification is called the infinite regress argument. The
point is that the sceptic claims that since an infinite regress never comes to an
end, the original propositional knowledge claim can never be justified at all.
Activity
In pairs, try to come up with a way to overcome the infinite regress argument.
If the infinite regress argument cannot be overcome, can we really say that
the tripartite theory of knowledge is individually necessary?
The next section will look at some famous attempts to acquire propositional
knowledge that survives even the infinite regress argument.
The tripartite theory makes the claim that the three conditions are
individually necessary and jointly sufficient.
– the Gettier problem (if it’s possible to satisfy all three conditions and
still not have knowledge then the tripartite theory is not jointly
sufficient)
– the challenge of scepticism (i.e. if the justification condition cannot
ever be satisfied then for knowledge claims to be possible the tripartite
theory is not individually necessary).
Other philosophers have decided that the search for a certain foundation isn’t
a realistic goal. They believe that foundational truths can’t ever be found.
They prefer, as you might expect, a non-foundationalist approach to
knowledge. For example, coherentists argue that you can call something
knowledge if the propositions cohere to a unified body of beliefs about the
world. They argue that we can call something ‘knowledge’ if it is ‘highly
likely’ that the claim is true.
Rationalism
The term ‘rationalism’ comes from the Latin word ratio, which means reason.
Rationalism has its roots in ancient Greece with the writings of Plato. In the
modern era it was largely a continental philosophical movement, René
Descartes (1596–1650) and Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) being two of the
most influential rationalists.
1
Cardinal, Hayward and Jones, p41
Foundationalism
Human reason should therefore form the basis of any attempt to satisfy the
justification clause of the tripartite theory.
A priori truths
These types of truths are said to be necessarily true. This term is used to
describe all those statements which, when you think about it, cannot be
anything other than true.
As was said earlier, rationalists believe that the foundation of any knowledge
claim lies in the human mind alone. This means that a significant mark of the
rationalist approach to knowledge is through the use of a priori truths. These
give the rationalists the certain foundation they are looking for.
Empiricism
We are born knowing nothing and that everything we know must come
from our senses 2
The term ‘empiricism’ comes from the Latin word experientia, which means
experience. Empiricism can be traced back to the early Greek philosopher
Aristotle. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the main empiricists
were three British philosophers John Locke (1632–1704), George Berkeley
(1685–1753) and David Hume (1711–1776).
Foundationalism
An empiricist may want to point out that much of our knowledge claims are
inferred from other sources, eg books, teachers etc. However, our sense
experiences are immediate and so not inferred from anything else. This
means, they argue, that sense experience should be the bedrock or foundation
on which all other knowledge must be based.
A posteriori truths
If experience and not reason is the primary source of any knowledge claim
then empiricism will focus its attention on a posteriori rather than a priori
truths. A posteriori statements are known to be true (or false) as a result of
experience. For example, I know, a posteriori, that the cat is black. After my
experience of looking at the cat I can say confidently what colour it is. Unlike
a priori truths, the a posteriori truth that the cat is black is not necessarily
true. A posteriori truths are only contingently true. A contingent truth is a
truth ‘that could have been otherwise’, or a truth ‘that might not have been
true and only happens to be true’.
2
Cardinal, Hayward and Jones, p51
Activity
Make a list of four or five a posteriori truths. Are they all contingent truths?
Make a list of four or five a priori truths. Are they all necessary truths?
Why might someone say that a posteriori truths defeat the infinite regress
argument?
Why might someone say that a priori truths defeat the infinite regress
argument?
What truths do you think are ‘superior’: necessary truths or contingent truths?
What do you think forms the better foundation for any knowledge claim, a
priori or a posteriori truths?
Innate ideas
Activity
Before we look closely at the belief in innate ideas take time to think a little
about your ‘mind’.
If you were born without senses would there be some facts that you could still
know?
Philosophers like Plato, St Augustine and Descartes have all argued that we
are born with certain pieces of knowledge inside us. They support this view
because we seem to have knowledge of some facts that go beyond experience.
For example, they may say that we have an innate idea of morality. This
belief in innate ideas is often associated with rationalists because
traditionally they have argued that reason can reveal this knowledge that we
have been born with.
Activity
Split the class into four groups. Each group should discuss one of the words
below and attempt to come up with a definition or explanation of the meaning
of the word. The group must then present their explanation to the rest of the
class.
Does the class agree with the view that we all have a similar grasp of the
meaning of these words?
Why is it that we know what these words mean but can’t agree on how best to
define them?
Some rationalists may argue that our instinctive grasp of the meaning of
concepts like beauty mean that they must somehow be innate in us. Plato
believed that concepts like beauty and justice are not things that can ever be
perceived by the senses. He pointed out that we encounter beautiful things but
we can’t ever see beauty in itself. Yet, we all know what beauty is.
that our minds contain no knowledge at all when we are born and that
everything we know comes after experience.
A child knows not that three and four are equal to seven, till he comes to
be able to count to seven, and has got the name and idea of equality…But
neither does he readily assent because it is an innate truth…the truth
appears to him, as soon as he has settled in his mind the clear and distinct
ideas that these names stand for. And then he knows the truth of that
proposition [3 + 4 = 7] upon the same grounds, and by the same means,
that he knew before that a rod and a cherry are not the same thing (Book
1, ch. 2, sec. 16)
But alas, amongst children, idiots, savages and the grossly illiterate what
general maxims are to be found? What universal principles of knowledge?
Their notions are few and narrow, borrowed only from those objects they
have had most to do with, and which have made upon their senses the
frequentest and strongest impressions. (Book 1, ch. 2, sec. 27)
Activity
Each member of the group should read carefully one of Locke’s arguments
against innate ideas. They should then try to produce a simple diagram that
will help them explain the argument to the others in the group.
One member of the group will then attempt to explain the argument to the
class.
Leibniz used an analogy of the mind being like a veined block of marble. A
piece of marble has veins that indicate shapes that a skilful sculptor can draw
out. 4 Without these ‘veins’ it would be impossible to draw out any clear
shape. Leibniz explained that a block of marble may be veined in such a way
as to have a sculpture of Hercules ready to be shaped from it. Where the
block of marble has the potential to be carved into a particular shape, the
mind has a ‘special affinity’ for grasping necessary truths. Leibniz was
arguing that ideas and truths are therefore innate in us as a natural
potentiality. If our minds did not have the potential to understand
mathematics, for example, then all the sense experience in the world could
3
G. W. Leibniz, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2009.
4
G. W. Leibniz, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2009.
not bring us to the truth that 1 + 1 always equals 2. Leibniz believed that the
senses can explain the source of contingent truths. However, they can’t
explain the origin of necessary truths. These necessary truths can only be
explained if there are ideas that are innate in us from birth.
Activity
Do you think it is possible for a blind person to ‘know’ what colour is? Is it
possible for a deaf person to ‘know’ what music is?
Activity
Draw a diagram that illustrates the different views that exist about innate
ideas.
You should focus your attention on Leibniz’s metaphor of the veined block of
marble and Locke’s view that at birth the mind is tabula rasa.
Try to use pictures and symbols to help you explain your diagram to others in
the class.
Coherentism
The justification of a belief consists of the way it fits or coheres with the
rest of the beliefs that one holds 5
5
Cardinal, Hayward and Jones, p73
Non-foundationalism
Where foundationalists look for a set of certain beliefs that are built upon a
certain foundation, coherentists look for a web of interlocking beliefs.
Coherentists expect this coherent web will need to be adjusted as new beliefs
are added to it. The new beliefs are only added or old ones removed if there is
strong evidence that the web needs adjusting.
A priori beliefs will therefore play an important part in the building of the
web. The belief that the Sun is the centre of the solar system didn’t appear to
cohere with many other knowledge claims that existed in the fifteenth
century. However, as more knowledge was acquired, particularly the
mathematical a priori understanding of how the solar system worked, this
radical view could be accepted as other beliefs were rejected.
A posteriori beliefs also play an important part in the building of the web .
Brand Blanshard argues strongly that a coherent set of beliefs should be
grounded primarily in empirical data. The coherentist, according to
Blanshard, is trying to form a systematic ordering of our experience.
Activity
What coherent body of knowledge would lead you to say that you know Santa
Clause exists?
What body of knowledge would lead you to revise your knowledge claim as
you experience different things as you grow older?
Activity
Which beliefs do you hold that you’d say are at the centre of your coherent
web of beliefs, ie which beliefs do you hold are most certain and unlikely
ever to be removed?
Which beliefs do you hold that you’d say are at the edges of your coherent
web of beliefs, ie which beliefs do you hold are least certain and therefore
most likely at some point to be removed?
– Rationalists often focus their attention on a priori truths, truths that are
necessarily true and discovered just by thinking.
– Traditionally, rationalists believe in innate ideas (eg Leibniz’s metaphor
of the mind being like a veined block of marble).
You know that the infinite regress argument suggests that it is impossible to
ever justify fully any knowledge claim. If this argument succeeds then the
justification clause of the tripartite theory of knowledge can never be
satisfied. We then looked at some famous responses to this sceptical
argument: rationalism, empiricism and coherentism.
The foundational approaches tried to find self-evident truths that make the
demand for further justification unnecessary. If someone asked you ‘How do
you know that a bachelor is an unmarried male?’ or ‘How do you know that 2
+ 2 = 4?’ you would probably ignore the question or at best think of it as
being silly. These a priori truths are necessarily true so the need for further
justification isn’t required. In the same way if someone asked you ‘How do
you know the cat is black?’ you would probably also want to ignore the
question as your senses clearly can confirm the truth of this self-evident
proposition.
The belief that humans are born with certain innate ideas in their minds has
been a traditional mark of rationalism, but how can you really know with
certainty that there are innate ideas? Does Leibniz’s argument prove beyond
doubt that innate ideas exist? Locke’s presentation of his famous arguments
against innate ideas at least suggests that it is difficult to say with certainty
that innate ideas exist. You may be willing to say that Leibniz’s argument is
persuasive and that you believe in innate ideas, but can you really ever say
that you know with certainty that they exist?
Many philosophers would wish to point out that a posteriori truths, although
less certain, are clearly much more useful in the real world.
Problem 3: A priori truths can only ever give us indirect knowledge about
the world
Activity
2+2=5
Take a moment to discuss this with others in your class. Try to work out why
it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the simple sum above is true!!
Activity
Some philosophers argue that maybe Descartes and Leibniz were right when
they proposed that mathematical concepts are innate.
Use the web to investigate modern views that argue that our understanding of
mathematics is innate.
Even if Descartes and Leibniz were wrong about innate ideas it could easily
be pointed out that maths still works. Maths has provided an essential
foundation of much scientific certainty. The symbols also, very usefully,
allow us to work out the power required to keep planes in the sky and
buildings from falling down.
Is it really fair to say that a priori truths tell us nothing important about the
world?
Do you agree with the claim that a priori truths are ultimately trivial?
If empiricists are right then everything in your mind ultimately comes from
moments of sense experience. Although this sounds like a sensible, justified
belief, philosophers have presented many problems with this idea.
Most of the time, people take a commonsense realist view that things are, in
reality, what their appearance suggests them to be. This view assumes that
because we have mental pictures of books, chairs, desks, stairs and tables,
then there necessarily exists a physical world where these objects exist apart
from our own mental pictures of them. The commonsense realist view also
assumes that the physical world continues to exist when we stop directly
perceiving the world through our senses, for example when we are asleep or
unconscious. It also assumes that this world is knowable to us through our
five senses – sight, touch, hearing, taste and smell.
But the distinction between the way things are in reality and the way things
appear to be is one of the first things philosophers will want to insist upon.
Consequently, we have to ask: is the commonsense realist view of the world
reliable? Can we trust the evidence of our five senses? Is there a difference
between appearance and reality?
How can we know for certain that the mental representations produced by our
senses and interpreted by our brain, do in fact correspond to reality?
There are many beliefs that dominate human thought, beliefs like justice,
beauty, goodness etc. If empiricism is right then it is difficult to explain
where these concepts come from. Rationalists often argue that without innate
ideas there can be no real explanation for where these strongly held beliefs
come from. As mentioned earlier, Plato pointed out that we can never
perceive ‘beauty’. So, if empiricism is right, we have a problem of trying to
explain where this idea came from. The same could be said for our strongly
held convictions about morality. If empiricism is right then does this mean
that there can be no knowledge of morality? We can’t perceive ‘goodness’ so
if empiricism is right then maybe we can’t ever say that we know that an
action is good. Many people are uncomfortable with these conclusions.
Activity
Activity
Humans can see in colour whereas dogs can only see in black and white.
Find out about some examples of visual perception limitations that humans
may have, ie what can humans not see?
Activity
2500 years ago Plato presented a famous allegory called the cave. In it he
suggested that there is a difference between appearance and reality.
Activity
Do you agree with the view that sense experience alone cannot lead us out of
the trap of solipsism?
Task
Do you agree with the view that ‘highly probable’ beliefs can be called
knowledge?
So, who is right? The sceptics, who argue that ‘knowledge’ of anything is
impossible? The rationalists, who base their knowledge claims on innate ideas
and a priori truths? The empiricists, who base their knowledge claims on
self-evident a posteriori truths? The coherentists, who base their knowledge
claims on sets of highly probable coherent beliefs? Or, maybe a mixture of
some or all of these approaches is the best way ahead?
Some philosophers suggest that there are some problems with the
rationalist’s approach to finding a foundation of knowledge.
Some philosophers suggest that there are some problems with the
empiricist’s approach to finding a foundation of knowledge.
– Is there a difference between how things appear in our senses and how
they are in reality?
– Is there some evidence for the existence of innate ideas?
– If empiricism is the foundation of knowledge then do we fall into the
trap of solipsism?
Some philosophers suggest that there are some problems with the
coherentist’s approach to knowledge.
Self-assess,emt
I initially found this topic: very hard, hard, OK, easy, very
easy
Self-assessment
I initially found this topic: very hard, hard, OK, easy, very
easy
Self-assessment
I initially found this topic: very hard, hard, OK, easy, very
easy
Glossary
Bibliography
Cardinal, D, Hayward, J. and Jones G, Epistemology, the theory of
knowledge: Philosophy in focus, Hodder Murray, 2004.
Popkin, R and Stroll, A, Philosophy, 3rd edition, Made Simple Books, 1993.