Module-3

Lecture notes on Epistemology

Epistemology= Episteme+Logus
Episteme means knowledge Logus means science or study
Epistemology means study of knowledge

Physics aims to acquire knowledge about light and matter.

Chemistry aims to acquire knowledge about chemical bonding and reactions.
Economics aims to acquire knowledge about human choice.
Psychology aims to acquire knowledge about human mind.
Is there any discipline which deals with knowledge? Yes, it is epistemology.

Epistemology is one of the core branches of philosophy that deals with nature and limitation of
knowledge. Major questions of epistemology are
What is knowledge?
What are human beings capable of knowing?
What is/are the source(s) of knowledge?
Up to what extent we can know?
What is truth? Or when a proposition is true?
Can we ever know the physical world?
Under the theme of epistemology we will discuss four important issues. They are as follows:
1. What is truth?
2. What is/are sources of knowledge? In connection to this question we will discuss the
distinction between rationalism and empiricism.
3. What is knowledge?
4. Is knowledge of the physical world possible?

1. What is Truth?
(Source: John Hospers, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, Allied Publisher,
2003, Pp. 114-118)
 Various usage of the word “true” in our daily conversation viz., true pearl, true friend,
true batsman, true bowler etc. True pearl means genuine pearl, true friend means real
friend.
 In the context of epistemology, the word ‘truth’ is used in a restricted sense. Here truth is
considered as a property or characteristic of a proposition. That means only a
proposition can be true. An object can neither be true nor be false. It can exist or cannot
exist. Fact can occur or cannot occur. Intention can be carried out or cannot be carried
out. Question can be answered or cannot be answered. Question can be asked or cannot
be asked. Objects, facts, intention and questions can neither be true or false. Only
propositions can be either true or false.
 Now the question is when a proposition is true? The understanding of this question
requires the understanding of propositional knowledge i.e., knowing a proposition true.
Knowing a proposition P means knowing P true. Can we know P if P is false? Not really.
It will invite contradiction. Think carefully about it. It is bit technical but not difficult at
all. (“A proposition can be true without being known to be true; but it cannot be known to
 be true without being true.” J. Hospers, p. 114)
 What is it for a proposition to be true? A true proposition describes a state of affairs that
occurs or did occur or will occur. Answering this question epistemologists and logicians
have developed three theories viz., correspondence theory of truth, coherence theory of
truth and pragmatic theory of truth.
 Truth as Correspondence between proposition and state of affairs: Firstly,
correspondence theory of truth holds that a proposition is true if it corresponds with
actual states-of-affairs or fact. For instance, I uttered the proposition that ‘it is raining
now at NUSRL campus’. To judge the truth value of my proposition you can look outside
of the window and declare whether or not I utter the truth. If it actually rains now at
NUSRL campus, then my proposition is true. That means my proposition actually
matches or corresponds to the actual state-of-affair.
 Truth as coherence among propositions: Secondly, coherence theory of truth claims that
a proposition is true if it coheres with other propositions. Coherence theory of truth looks
at the relations among proposition. This theory is very popular in court rooms. Judges do
not have any access to the state-of-affairs. In order to figure out the truth they have to rely
on the propositions of witness. The only way they can verify the truth value of
propositions of witness by relating the proposition of one witness with another. Judge
arrives at truth by looking at the coherence among propositions of witness and
authorities.
 Truth as what “works”: Thirdly, pragmatic theory of truth states that a proposition is true
if it works. For instance, you uttered a proposition that ‘I will get an auto outside our
university gate’. To check the truth value of a proposition if I go outside of the university
gate and find the auto then your proposition is true since it worked for me. This theory is
very popular among scientists. For them a scientific theory will be true if it works,
otherwise it is false.
Epistemologists and logicians have debated among themselves regarding the independent
status of their theory. Those who support correspondence theory of truth claim that the
basis of other two theories is correspondence. Other two theories cannot be established
without the base of correspondence theory. In the class we will discuss the question: Up
to what extent correspondence theory is right in its claim? Do you think that in
court room we can rely only on coherence theory of truth?
Case study to understand theory of truth

An actual case involving counselling of patient with schizophrenia. Narrated by

psychologist Victor Guarino
Francine was a 22 year old lady who hallucinated the voices of three young men, Bobby,
Jerry and Marty. The voices could occur at any time, and were frequently overwhelming.
They insisted that she kill herself, employing every persuasive argument at their
command. These “boys” seemed to have acquaintances in her early teenage years. She
did once date a boy named Bobby (the permanent voice) who was killed in a motorcycle
accident, but her reaction to his death was appropriate.
I could tell when these voices occurred, for Francine would become withdrawn and self-
absorbed. I would ask if she were hearing them, and whether she was all right. My aim
 was to teach her how to confront these voices by herself. Francine was a perfect patient.
She cooperated and complied in every way possible. She did not was these voices
because they could bring her to the edge and generally exhausted her both physically and
mentally. Most times she was able to deal with them. When they were overwhelming, she
would become careless in her usually immaculate appearance, her appetite would wane
and she just wanted to be alone. At these times I would sit with her and we would talk.
Our conversation might proceed as follows:
Psychologist: Are the voices back?
Francine: Yes.
Psychologist: Who is it?
Francine: Bobby.
Psychologist: What’s he saying?
Francine: It’s better where he is what am I waiting for?
Psychologist: Tell him you’re happy where you are and to leave you alone. You have
too much to live for. You have friends and parents who love you and care for you.
Francine: (With some conviction) Yeah.
(Pause)
Psychologist: What’s he saying now?
Francine: He’s laughing at me. He doesn’t believe me. Marty’s there too. They’re both
laughing.
Psychologist: Why don’t you tell them if they’re so happy where they are they’d leave
you alone. They’re lying. They’re miserable and thy want you to be miserable too.
They’re jealous of you.
Francine: That’s true.
I would let her be and watch her until her condition improved, or I would repeat the
process of debating with the “voices” to reinforce her conviction to stay alive.
Which theory of truth can best capture Francine’s hallucination? Whether or not
that theory can stand independent of other theories of truth?

2. Sources of Knowledge
(Source: John Hospers, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, Allied Publisher,
2003, Pp. 122-141 and Stephen Law, Why Expect Sun to Rise Tomorrow in
Philosophy Gym)

There are various sources of knowledge. But the question is which source of knowledge
should be considered as scientific or valid source? The following are the possible sources
of knowledge:
 Sense experience:
 Reasoning:
 Authority:
 Intuition:
 Revealation:
 Faith:
If you carefully analyse, then you will observe that each source has some limitations. In
spite of limitations why first three are considered as scientific sources of knowledge? In
 other words, any discipline claims itself scientific must incorporate first three sources in
their methodology to acquire knowledge. Read ‘Why expect sun to rise tomorrow?’ from
warm up module to understand that even inductive method (sense experience) which is
considered as back bone of scientific method is based on faith. Hume has logically
shaken the foundation of science by questioning the basis of inductive method. In this
article you will see that how Hume argues that inductive method is irrational and circular.
3. What is knowledge?
 What is the difference between the claim ‘I know there are five chairs in the other
room’ and ‘I believe (guess/think/feel) there are five chairs in the other room’?
What extra element(s) do we need to add to believe to convert it into knowledge?
Or what can we subtract from knowledge to make it belief?
 Plato defines knowledge as justified true belief. His theory of knowledge can be
stated in the form of the following:
Mr. X knows that P if and only if
(i) P is true
(ii) Mr. X believes that P, and
(iii) Mr. X is justified in believing that P
 Various attempts have been made by philosophers in recent years to defend Plato's
theory of knowledge. And Plato’s definition of knowledge is pretty relevant in the
field of law. The definition perfectly works in the law of evidence. Legal
philosophers who defend Plato's definition of knowledge agree with him that the
above three conditions are necessary and sufficient conditions for a person
knowing a given proposition.
 But Edmund L. Gettier raised serious doubt over Plato’s definition of
knowledge. According to him, those above mentioned three conditions are
necessary conditions for knowledge but not sufficient conditions. Gettier’s
criticism against Plato’s definition of knowledge can be understood with an
example. Suppose Tom is the witness to the fight that took place between Dick
and Harry. Dick, in a heated mood, says that he will kill Harry. Tom tries to pacify
the matter. Harry is pacified and leaves the place but Dick is not. He is very
stubborn to kill Harry. In spite of Tom's incessant effort Dick takes a knife and
promised to himself that today by any means he will kill Harry. He enters to the
house of Harry and comes out of Harry's house with blood stains in his shirt.
Harry has been killed. In court Tom narrates the entire incident and says that Dick
has killed Harry. Here Gettier would say Tom fulfils three conditions of Plato.
According to him, Tom believes that Dick has killed Harry. It is a fact that Harry
has been killed. And Tom has justifications or evidences i.e., Dick going Harry's
house with knife.
However, it just so happens that Harry is not being killed by Dick. Someone else
who happened to be the old enemy of Harry has killed Harry. But, coincidentally,
Dick reaches at the time of the death of Harry. In this case does Tom know that
Dick has killed Harry? Gettier would say that it is not right to say that “Tom
knows that Dick has killed Harry”.Gettier would say, Tom possesses a true belief
that is also justified. So, Plato's definition of knowledge is justified true belief is
not complete, according to Gettier. But Plato's defenders still believe that
knowledge is justified true belief. Justification, truth and belief are necessary as
 well as sufficient conditions for knowledge. They claim that Plato's conception of
knowledge works in court room. Being a student of law how do you defend
Plato’s definition of knowledge which is favourable to law against the
criticism of Gettier?

4. Knowledge of the external world

(Source: John Hospers, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, Allied Publisher,
2003, Pp. 493-505)
 Anyone who has not reflected very much about the problems of perception and
the objects in the world tend to believe that objects in the world do exist and we
perceive those objects the way they are. But there are certain cases which defy our
idea about the perception of objects. In illusion, hallucination, dream etc we do
not perceive the object the way they are. Another argument is given on the basis
of our constitution of sense organs. The basic idea about this argument is that our
sense organs are constituted in such a manner that we will perceive objects in
different manner than any other animal. For instance, our vision is constituted in
such a manner that we will perceive a particular object as yellow in color. We see
the object yellow does not mean that in reality the object is yellow in color. By
taking all these arguments into account philosophers have expressed their concern
regarding the correlation between the objects the way they appear to us and the
objects they way they really are. Their major concern is: do we have any reason to
say that there is a perfect correlation between our perception of the object and the
real object?
 John Locke came up with an answer to the above mentioned question. According
to him, any object that exists in the world has two qualities viz., primary qualities
and secondary qualities. Primary qualities like shape, size and extension exist in
the object independent of our perception and we perceive these qualities the way
they really are. On the other hand, secondary qualities do not exist in the object
itself. The object has power to produce secondary qualities within the human
being. Smell, taste, color, sound, touch etc are secondary qualities. For instance,
the temperature of a bucket of water is 22 degree Celsius. If you put your hand in
extremely cold refrigerator and then put your hand in the bucket of water then you
will find it hot. If you put your hand in boiling water and then put your hand in
the same bucket of water then you will find the bucket of water is pretty cold.
Locke would say that the sensation of cold or hot do not exist in water. Rather the
bucket of water has power to produce the sensation of either hot or cold within
you depending on your circumstance. The experience of primary quality exactly
corresponds to the object the way they really are and as far as the experience of
secondary qualities concerned they do not correspond to the object. According to
Locke, objects exist in the world but it is impossible for us to know they way they
really are. We can know the object up to some extent but not fully. Berkeley came
up with a contrary idea to Locke. He said that we cannot know the object at all.
What we can know only sensations of qualities.
 Berkeley's refuted Locke’s idea on four grounds.
▪Inseparability: Primary qualities are inseparable from secondary one. E.g.,
we cannot percieve circle without color.
▪Variability: like secondary qualities primary qualities do vary.
▪Resemblance: We cannot go beyond sense impression. So, our sense
impression can match with another sense impression and not with the
object outside our mind.
▪Causality: We can know only effect i.e., sense impression and not the
cause i.e., object.
▪Telephone exchange analogy to refute the existence of sense organ