Epistemology Study Guide

📖 Core Concepts Epistemology – the philosophical study of knowledge: its nature, origin, and limits. Types of Knowledge Propositional (knowledge‑that) – knows that a statement is true (e.g., “Paris is the capital of France”). Knowledge‑how – practical skill or ability (e.g., riding a bike). Knowledge by acquaintance – direct familiarity (e.g., the taste of chocolate). Central Triplet – Belief, Truth, Justification. A knowledge claim must involve all three. Sources of Knowledge – perception, introspection, memory, reason, testimony. Each can supply justification. Traditional Analysis – Justified True Belief (JTB): \[ K = (B \land T \land J) \] (B = belief, T = truth, J = justification). Major Theoretical Divisions Empiricism vs Rationalism (experience‑based vs reason‑based origins). Internalism vs Externalism (justification depends on internal vs external factors). Foundationalism vs Coherentism (basic vs mutually supporting beliefs). A priori vs A posteriori; Analytic vs Synthetic truths. Truth Theories – Correspondence (mirroring facts) vs Coherence (fit within a belief system) vs Pragmatic/Deflationary etc. Gettier Problems – Cases where JTB holds but knowledge seems absent because of epistemic luck. --- 📌 Must Remember JTB is NOT sufficient – Gettier counter‑examples (e.g., Smith’s “job” case). Empiricism: all knowledge ultimately derives from sensory experience. Rationalism: some knowledge is independent of experience (innate ideas, intuition). Internalism: justification must be accessible to the thinker (evidence, mental states). Externalism: reliability of the belief‑forming process can justify a belief even if the thinker can’t “see” it. Foundationalism: basic beliefs are self‑justified; all others derive from them. Coherentism: a belief is justified if it coheres with the whole web of beliefs. A priori knowledge = knowable without experience (e.g., logical/mathematical truths). A posteriori knowledge = requires experience (e.g., “the sky is blue”). Analytic truth – true by meaning alone (e.g., “All bachelors are unmarried”). Synthetic truth – true by how the world is (e.g., “Snow is white”). Reliabilism: a belief is justified if produced by a reliable truth‑producing process. Safety Theory: a belief counts as knowledge only if in nearby possible worlds it would still be true. --- 🔄 Key Processes Evaluating a Knowledge Claim Identify the belief (what is asserted?). Check truth (does the proposition correspond to reality?). Assess justification: a. Gather evidence from sources (perception, memory, testimony, reason). b. Determine if the source is reliable (externalist) or accessible (internalist). Look for defeaters – any evidence that would undermine the justification. Constructing a Gettier Counterexample Start with a justified true belief. Introduce an element of epistemic luck that disconnects justification from truth. Verify that the subject still lacks knowledge. Choosing a Truth Theory for an Argument If the question stresses correspondence to facts → use Correspondence Theory. If the focus is on systemic coherence → use Coherence Theory. --- 🔍 Key Comparisons Empiricism vs Rationalism – Experience‑based knowledge vs knowledge from innate ideas/reason. Internalism vs Externalism – Justification depends on internal evidence vs external reliability. Foundationalism vs Coherentism – Basic self‑justified beliefs vs network‑wide coherence. A priori vs A posteriori – Knowable without experience vs knowable only through experience. Analytic vs Synthetic – Truth by meaning alone vs truth by empirical facts. Correspondence vs Coherence Truth – Truth as matching facts vs truth as fitting within a belief system. Invariantism vs Contextualism vs Contrastivism – Fixed standards vs context‑sensitive standards vs knowledge relative to explicit alternatives. --- ⚠️ Common Misunderstandings “Justified true belief = knowledge.” Forget Gettier cases. “All knowledge is propositional.” Overlooks knowledge‑how and acquaintance. “Internalism denies any role for reliability.” Internalists still accept that reliable processes can be part of internal evidence. “Empiricists deny any rational insight.” They accept reasoning about experiences. “A priori truths are mystical.” They are usually logical or mathematical, not supernatural. --- 🧠 Mental Models / Intuition Pyramid of Knowledge: Bottom layer = basic (foundational) beliefs; higher layers = justified by lower layers → visualizes foundationalism. Factory Analogy (Externalism): Beliefs are products; a reliable factory (cognitive process) guarantees good products even if the manager (subject) can’t inspect every step. Mirror Model (Correspondence): Truth is a mirror that reflects reality; a true belief “matches” the mirror’s image. --- 🚩 Exceptions & Edge Cases Gettier Luck: Even with JTB, accidental truth‑makers block knowledge. Safety Failures: A reliable process that occasionally yields false beliefs in nearby worlds violates safety. Contextual Knowledge: In high‑stakes contexts, the standard for “knowing” may be stricter (Contextualism). Defeaters: New evidence can overturn previously justified beliefs (e.g., discovering a memory error). --- 📍 When to Use Which Choose Reliabilism: when the question stresses the source’s reliability (e.g., “Is testimony sufficient?”). Pick Safety Theory: when the problem mentions “nearby possible worlds” or “epistemic luck”. Apply Coherentism: when justification is framed as fitting a system of beliefs rather than resting on basics. Use A priori analysis: for statements about logic, mathematics, or definitions. Invoke A posteriori analysis: for empirical claims about the world. --- 👀 Patterns to Recognize “Justified true belief + luck” → likely a Gettier‑type trap. Reference to “reliable process” → externalist justification (reliabilism). Talk of “basic beliefs” → foundationalist framework. Mention of “coherence” among beliefs → coherentist justification. Shift from “what is true?” to “what counts as true?” → truth‑theory question. --- 🗂️ Exam Traps Distractor: “Knowledge is simply true belief.” – Misses the justification requirement and Gettier counterexamples. Distractor: “All a priori knowledge is analytic.” – Confuses analytic truths with a priori; some a priori propositions are synthetic (e.g., Kant’s synthetic a priori). Distractor: “Internalism says external factors are irrelevant.” – Overstates; internalists can appeal to reliable processes if they are recognizable internally. Distractor: “Contextualism denies any objective knowledge.” – Contextualism allows objective knowledge; it just says the standard can vary with context. Distractor: “Fallibilism means we can never have knowledge.” – Incorrect; fallibilism accepts knowledge while acknowledging it can be revisable. ---