WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE
Define/explain the tripartite definition of knowledge
● Justified true belief
● Contains 3 individually necessary + jointly sufficient conditions for knowledge
- Necessary = if one condition is missing, there XX be a case of propositional
knowledge as components has not been satisfied
- Sufficient = no other component is necessary for there to be a knowledge
claim
● I know proposition P iff:
● P1) P is true (T)
● P2) I believe that P (B)
● P3) I am justified in believing that P (J)
What is meant by (a) a necessary condition and (b) a sufficient condition?
(a) A condition is necessary iff A is a necessary condition for B whenever B cannot occur
without A having occurred first.
(b) A is a sufficient condition for B whenever the occurrence of A is all that is needed for
the occurrence of B
Define (a) acquaintance knowledge, (b) ability knowledge, and (c) propositional
knowledge.
(a) Acquaintance knowledge is knowing X (a place/thing/person) by direct contact (normally
via experience) with X.
- E.g. knowing the taste of a pineapple
(b) Ability knowledge is knowing how to perform/complete a task/action.
- E.g. knowing how to swim
(c) Propositional knowledge is knowing that a proposition is true, nature of the world
- E.g. knowing that it is raining
Explain why truth is not necessary for knowledge
● There have been many instances in the past where people believed that they knew
something which later turned out to be false.
- For example in 19th century Britain, people believed sickness travelled
through bad smells, of which they had belief (B) and justification (the people
near the Thames, which smelt bad, became sick) (J). but they were wrong
(due to Germ theory).
- Therefore they didn’t have justified true belief.
● However if we can never be sure our claims are true (imagine a world where germ
theory gets proved wrong), knowledge becomes impossible to obtain.
, Explain why belief is not necessary for knowledge
● Radford’s example:
● In a quiz, Albert is asked “when did Queen Elizabeth die?”
● He doesn’t think he knows the answer but answers correctly - 1603 (E) - as well as
many other questions to which he believed he didn't know the answer.
● Redford then claims
a) Albert doesn't believe in (E)
+ This is because he doesnt think he knows the answer. He doesn't trust
his answer because he takes it to be a mere guess
b) Albert knows (E)
+ This isn't simply epistemic luck, Albert answered many other questions
correctly too, which must indicate that he retained at least some of the
information he had previously learned
● Since he takes (a) and (b) to be true, Redford establishes that knowledge without
belief is possible.
Explain why justification is not necessary for knowledge
● The amount of justification is unspecified + The definition also doesn't tell us what
kind of justification is adequate.
- Thus, not all justification will lead to knowledge, take Paul the psychic octopus
and imagine this scenario
+ I believe France will win the world cup
+ My justification is that Paul successfully predicted it by choosing the French
box in the aquarium
+ France actually win the world cup
● Could I say I actually knew that France would win the world cup because of
justification from an Octopus?
Define/explain the tripartite definition of knowledge
● Justified true belief
● Contains 3 individually necessary + jointly sufficient conditions for knowledge
- Necessary = if one condition is missing, there XX be a case of propositional
knowledge as components has not been satisfied
- Sufficient = no other component is necessary for there to be a knowledge
claim
● I know proposition P iff:
● P1) P is true (T)
● P2) I believe that P (B)
● P3) I am justified in believing that P (J)
What is meant by (a) a necessary condition and (b) a sufficient condition?
(a) A condition is necessary iff A is a necessary condition for B whenever B cannot occur
without A having occurred first.
(b) A is a sufficient condition for B whenever the occurrence of A is all that is needed for
the occurrence of B
Define (a) acquaintance knowledge, (b) ability knowledge, and (c) propositional
knowledge.
(a) Acquaintance knowledge is knowing X (a place/thing/person) by direct contact (normally
via experience) with X.
- E.g. knowing the taste of a pineapple
(b) Ability knowledge is knowing how to perform/complete a task/action.
- E.g. knowing how to swim
(c) Propositional knowledge is knowing that a proposition is true, nature of the world
- E.g. knowing that it is raining
Explain why truth is not necessary for knowledge
● There have been many instances in the past where people believed that they knew
something which later turned out to be false.
- For example in 19th century Britain, people believed sickness travelled
through bad smells, of which they had belief (B) and justification (the people
near the Thames, which smelt bad, became sick) (J). but they were wrong
(due to Germ theory).
- Therefore they didn’t have justified true belief.
● However if we can never be sure our claims are true (imagine a world where germ
theory gets proved wrong), knowledge becomes impossible to obtain.
, Explain why belief is not necessary for knowledge
● Radford’s example:
● In a quiz, Albert is asked “when did Queen Elizabeth die?”
● He doesn’t think he knows the answer but answers correctly - 1603 (E) - as well as
many other questions to which he believed he didn't know the answer.
● Redford then claims
a) Albert doesn't believe in (E)
+ This is because he doesnt think he knows the answer. He doesn't trust
his answer because he takes it to be a mere guess
b) Albert knows (E)
+ This isn't simply epistemic luck, Albert answered many other questions
correctly too, which must indicate that he retained at least some of the
information he had previously learned
● Since he takes (a) and (b) to be true, Redford establishes that knowledge without
belief is possible.
Explain why justification is not necessary for knowledge
● The amount of justification is unspecified + The definition also doesn't tell us what
kind of justification is adequate.
- Thus, not all justification will lead to knowledge, take Paul the psychic octopus
and imagine this scenario
+ I believe France will win the world cup
+ My justification is that Paul successfully predicted it by choosing the French
box in the aquarium
+ France actually win the world cup
● Could I say I actually knew that France would win the world cup because of
justification from an Octopus?
