Overview
Week 4: Epistemology & Theories of Knowledge
First, find and read the 4 very short essays on epistemology in Files (select “date modified” to see the most recently posted pdfs in Files), which include: Zagzebski’s Caring and Epistemic Demands, Ayer’s What is Knowledge, Gettier’s Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?, and Nozick’s Conditions for Knowledge.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge and rationality, including what counts as knowledge and what counts toward viable methods and best practices of knowing.
Engage in active reading: as you read, reflect on what you’re reading. Take notes. Identify arguments, with premises and conclusions; render them into standard form. Think critically about the premises and arguments. This is solid advice for any and all of the essays and excerpts that we’ll be reading for the rest of the semester! Please note that Dr. Lang will be sharing Modules in Canvas starting later this week, as guides with lecture notes etc. Plus, the optional, live Philosophy Sessions via Zoom start this week: Mondays at 2pm-3pm and Tuesdays at 11:30am-12:30pm.
Discussion Questions:
You have some options with the Discussion, but please note that your first quiz will be next week, and you will definitely need to know what Zagzebski, Ayer, Gettier, and/or Nozick have to say about knowledge. Again, guides will be provided later this week; stay tuned for that! Please read each option because there’s some helpful information within them.
Discussion Option 1: Zagzebski
As you read Linda Zagzebski’s essay about Epistemic Demands, identify (for your own understanding) her main argument and any sub-arguments. You’ll find deductive and inductive clues that you can assemble into analytic interpretations.
- a) Share your interpretation of the essay by crafting any part of her argument (main argument or a sub-argument, or even one of her supportive side arguments…check out the essay and you’ll see what she says) into Standard Form. Include at least 1 quotation from the essay, with page #.
- b) Share your reflections about the implications of her argument(s) for your own life: provide an example of something you care about and the epistemic demand(s) that follow, as well as any other necessary factors that Zagzebski identifies. What steps have you taken to fulfill the “epistemic demand”? What challenges exist in your quest to meet those demands? Include at least 1 quotation from the essay, with page #.
Discussion Option 2: Ayer, Gettier, and Nozick, regarding what is knowledge?
Gettier’s essay is a direct response to Ayer’s essay, in which he is providing an argument about what counts as knowledge. Nozick then adds to the conversation by responding to the arguments of Ayer and Gettier. Read the essays, please. They’re short. Find them in Files as noted. I’m reiterating this because about 1/3 of students are not reading the assigned essays. Read. This is Philosophy.
a)Ayer’s claim has been interpreted succinctly as: K = JTB (Knowledge = Justified True Belief); as such, JTB comprises the necessary and sufficient conditions of K. Gettier replies with a counter-example about Smith and Jones that puts a wrench into Ayer’s argument. This means that the K=JTB model of knowledge is insufficient. Gettier's reply shows the power of a counter-example. Using your imagination, think of another counter-example that likewise challenges Ayer’s claim that K=JTB. Explain your own counter-example and explain how it makes Ayer’s argument fail. Include at least one quotation from either Ayer or Gettier, with page #.
b) Nozick (or any of us) could become a skeptic about knowledge after Gettier’s attack on Ayer’s definition of knowledge, but instead he tries to save the account by adding something to the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge. What does he add? Do you think Nozick abides well by the Code of Intellectual Conduct? Why or why not? Provide an example of knowledge based on Nozick’s revamped version of K=JTB, which I’m going to call K=JXTB; how does it differ from K=JTB while avoiding Gettier’s concern?