Topic 1: "According to standard reliabilist models, knowledge is true belief that is the
output of reliable belief-forming processes or faculties. But the reliability of the source of a
belief cannot explain the difference in value between knowledge and true belief. One reason
it cannot do so is that reliability per se has no value or disvalue. A reliable espresso maker is
good because espresso is good. A reliable water-dripping faucet is not good because dripping
water is not good. The good of the product makes the reliability of the source that produces
it good, but the reliability of the source does not then give the product an additional boost of
value. The liquid in this cup is not improved by the fact that it comes from a reliable espresso
maker. If the espresso tastes good, it makes no difference if it comes from an unreliable
machine. If the flower garden is beautiful, it makes no difference if it was planted by an
unreliable gardener. If the book is fascinating, it makes no difference if it was written by an
unreliable author. If the belief is true, it makes no difference if it comes from an unreliable
belief-producing source."
Zagzebski, Linda. (2003). The search for the source of the epistemic good. Metaphilosophy,
34(1/2), 12–28, p. 13.
Text:
During a part of human history, knowledge is based on the reliabilist
model, which means something only can be right if coming from a reliable source.
An example of this, is in the medieval era, at that time the only way to get the
truth is by the church, everything else is wrong. Another example is the problem
that Aristoteles made unconsciously, at his time he is the most brilliant person
alive, so everything he wrote everyone considered right, although he make some
true knowledge, some things he wrote is wrong, like "If two bodies of different
weights are thrown from the same height at the same time will fall at different
times" even if are easy to test this and conclude that is wrong, no one does until
Galileu. This is just because Aristoteles is a reliable source. Therefore, I
completely agree with topic 1 of Linda Zagzebski, and I will explain in the
following paragraphs why we have to separate the author from his work, why the
reliabilist model is flawed to get true knowledge, and why the work of someone
have to be analyzed by themself.
First, let's see Aristoteles, he is one of the most important people in history,
but he is a slaveholder, and this is completely wrong, so should we invalidate
everything that he does only because he has some bad ideas? No, this is absurd,
without Aristoteles's ideas we can't make the progress that we have nowadays.
Aristoteles is a reliable source, but that doesn't means everything that he does are
correct or true. As stated by Zagzebski: "The good of the product makes the
reliability of the source that produces it good, but the reliability of the source does
not then give the product an additional boost of value. The liquid in this cup is
not improved by the fact that it comes from a reliable espresso maker. If the
espresso tastes good, it makes no difference if it comes from an unreliable
machine. If the flower garden is beautiful, it makes no difference if it was planted
by an unreliable gardener." therefore, in Aristoteles's case, for example, he did
good or bad things, and made good or bad things, don't affect other things or her
work.
In this sense, to be clear I will tell another example. Let's imagine a
scientist very racist who wrote two books, in the first book he defends white
people are superior to black people and say every black people have to die, this
is absurd and completely wrong, but it's wrong because what the author says in
his book is wrong not because the author is racist. However, in the second book,
this same author, writes very important search and considerations about some
diseases, for example, aids, and with this book, we can make a cure for aids, ergo
it's important to judge a work based on itself, not based on his author or another
work of this author because if in the example we don't give attention for the
second book of this author because he's unreliable we will lose one important
contribution for the humanity. To complete, one more example, imagine we have
a highly regarded chef, and this chef makes food who don't tastes good. The fact
of this chef is very regarded matter with the food it's bad? Not, that doesn't change
this last fact. Work is work, the author is the author. Therefore, the work has to
be analyzed by themself, and not based on the author or another author's work.
Then don't separate the author from his work, it's the same as being on a
plane and not giving the direction of a plane to a competent pilot because he is
racist if the pilot is competent doesn't have a relation with the fact he is racist, it's
different things. So it's necessary to separate a bad person from her good work.
The ideal it has a good person with good work, but in reality, things are not like
that. However, although we have to separate the work from the author, we have
to pay attention to her ideologies and take care to don't suffer "brainwashed"
because everything we produce has any of us ideology. In the work, the author
put her abstractions of reality, the author put herself in his work. So, it's important
to understand what kind of person the author is to understand his ideas and some
things that he says it's wrong. For example, H.P. Lovecraft is racist and he put in
his books some racist ideas. Ergo to understand this, we have to know in what
time Lovecraft is in and who he is, which means separating the wrong author's
ideologies from his work.
To sum up, unreliable sources can make reliable knowledge and works
which can help us, therefore, we have to separate the work from the author, but
this taking care of her ideologies to don't suffer a kind of brainwashing. In all of
history, unreliable sources made reliable work, also reliable sources made
unreliable work. To conclude, we must not use any more reliabilist models or take
so much care to use them due to everything I say in the text. Ergo, the best way
to get progress and knowledge is by using skepticism, which means, don't have
preconceptions about something just because the source is unreliable. Every work
has to be analyzed for themself.