Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
Epistemology
By the end of this unit you will be able to
Describe the tripartite theory of knowledge
Describe the main problems associated with the tripartite theory
Describe the key philosophical positions of rationalism, empiricism,
coherentism and scepticism
Describe Hume’s ideas on knowledge based on texts from An
Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (EHU)
Explain and analyse Hume’s theories in EHU
Quote relevant text from EHU to support your conclusions
In part 1 of this unit we are going to focus on 3 questions that are
vital in the area of Epistemology
Why knowledge claims are a problem in Philosophy?
What is knowledge?
Can knowledge claims ever be truly justified?
In part 2 of the unit we will look at David Hume’s theories regarding
knowledge and in particular
How do we acquire knowledge? Impressions and Ideas
How do we decide on the different types of knowledge? Hume’s Fork
Why knowledge claims based on past experiences are problematical
– Causation and Induction
Why knowledge claims are not specific to humans – Hume on the
Reasoning of Animals
1
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
What is Epistemology?
Epistemology comes from a Greek words episteme (“knowledge”)
and logos (“word” or “theory”) and so can be thought of as the
“theory of knowledge”. Epistemology is about how we get knowledge
and how we can be sure that knowledge is reliable. Epistemology
tries to separate true knowledge from opinion. Think about the
following examples and decide which of the following is either true
knowledge or statements of opinion. Give reasons for your choices.
Santa exists
Ben Nevis is the highest mountain in Scotland
7 x 2 is 14
Stella is the best lager in the world
God exists
Edinburgh is in Europe
Teachers have absolutely no dress sense
Blondes are stupid
Parallel lines never meet
School canteen food is really tasty
A triangle has 3 sides
A key point at this stage is that the main difference between
knowledge and opinion is that knowledge would seem more certain
than opinion – it would have some sort of evidence to support the
claim. However, this can lead to problems as the proposition ‘Santa
exists’ clearly suggests. Most children would be adamant the
proposition is certain as they have it on good authority
(parents/adults) and the evidence (presents) is real. So, although
there seems to be good evidence that Santa does exist we all know
(sorry if this comes as a shock) that Santa does not exist.
Further, how do you know your parents are really your parents? How
do you know you are not dreaming right now? How do you know
things do not disappear when you are not looking at them? How do
you know you even exist at all? For each of these questions,
complete the certainty/uncertainty table below.
2
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
Proposition and certainty
Proposition
Evidence
Santa Exists
Parents/presents
Are your parents really
your parents?
Are you dreaming right
now?
How do you know you
even exist?
Do things disappear
when we don’t look at
them?
White people are
superior to blacks
Doubt
Invented story
In Epistemology, if there is any doubt at all about the knowledge
claim then the knowledge becomes uncertain and cannot be claimed
to be true. This becomes extremely important because when beliefs
and laws are formed around uncertain knowledge claims then beliefs
and laws based on flawed knowledge can be unjust and cruel (Jim
Crow laws in USA and Apartheid in South Africa).
Key question – what is epistemology? (k/u 5)
1) Why knowledge claims are a problem in Philosophy?
As we have already seen, there is a real problem in establishing
anything that could to be said to be certain. We could even argue
that we cannot really know that 7 x 2 =14. So, does this mean that
we can never really be certain of anything?
3
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
Appearance and Reality
The first point to be made is that when philosophers talk about
appearance and reality, they have very definite terms that apply to
these distinctions. Appearance is how the world seems to be
while reality is how it really is. But what does this mean?
Film-makers constantly use this distinction and there have been
hundreds of very successful films that draw out the differences
between appearance and reality. The Matrix Trilogy is centred in a
virtual computer created world where nothing is ‘real’. The same
distinction is made in the ‘Truman Show’ where Truman’s whole life
is situated in a world which is not ‘real’. In ‘The Island’, the same
differences between what appears to be real and what is real emerge
as the characters discover all they have ever believed to be true is
false and they are nothing more than medical clones.
These films help us to understand that knowledge can appear to be
certain and beyond questioning but what happens to us if we
discover our knowledge is false and has never been ‘real’? Some
people can be happily married (or so they think) for years and then
one of them discovers their partner has been having an affair! It
could be argued that their lives only appeared to be happy but the
reality of the situation was quite different. Some children are
devastated if they discover they have been adopted and for some
this leads to a questioning of everything they thought they ‘knew’. For
many years people believed the Earth was flat and that the Earth
was the centre of the Universe. Once these theories were shown to
be false, knowledge increased and knowledge of the Earth changed
from what appeared to be true to what was actually true – reality.
So, a second point when looking at the difference between
appearance and reality is that appearance is only temporal or
temporary and it is very subjective because we rely on what we
already seem to know. Reality on the other hand is not temporal it is
eternal and objective (can be discovered). The belief that the Earth
was flat was temporal and subjective as this was never the case
4
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
although it appeared to be true. The Earth has always been circular
and therefore this truth has always been eternal and discoverable.
This leads on to the third point surrounding appearance and reality –
why does the distinction even exist? Some philosophers argue that if
we base knowledge on our senses i.e. sight, sound, touch, taste and
smell then we shouldn’t be surprised if this turns our to be false –
even if our senses tell us it is true. Even if we use more than one of
our senses to claim knowledge they can still fool us. If you hear a
plane flying overhead we can know where it is by looking and
listening. However, the plane tends to be much further ahead of our
senses due to the speed of sound and the speed sound travels
before we can hear it. If you look at the stars it is possible to see a
star that has already exploded but because it is so far away the light
of the explosion has not yet reached us – the star appears to be
there but in reality it does not exist anymore! If you see a pencil in a
glass of water it appears to be broken or an oar in the water appears
to be bent! In all these cases, the knowledge we gain through the
senses is not reliable – it only appears to be true! One of the first
philosophers to highlight this problem was Plato.
Discussion – do you think we live in a world where there is a
difference between appearance and reality?
Key Question – what is the difference between appearance and
reality? (k/u4)
5
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
Plato
Plato is one of the most famous Greek philosophers and he rejected
the sceptic position (that knowledge can never be certain) and
argued against the Sophists and their belief in cultural relativity.
The Sophists were professional philosophers and lawyers who
travelled around the Greek city states and taught people how to
argue and debate and how to win public speaking contests at all
costs. They usually demanded huge financial rewards for their
services and it is fair to say Plato hated what they stood for.
Sophistry (clever words that deceive in order to prove a point) sums
up what Plato thought these people were about and if he were alive
today he would probably see modern day sophists in many of our law
courts! Sophists taught that there was no such thing as ‘absolute
truth’ because the world was a constantly changing place in which
people change their beliefs and values then it was impossible to
establish any certain truth knowledge. To give examples of Sophist
teaching, imagine you are living around 400BC in Athens; answer the
following questions in your jotter. Give reasons for your answers.
Is it right to own a slave?
Should women be allowed to vote?
Should homosexuality be banned?
All of the above questions relate to the human condition and the
freedoms associated with being human. However, human freedom
can be entirely dependant upon answers to basic questions. If you
answered ‘yes’ to the question on owning a slave then further
questions can be asked – ‘should you physically punish a slave?’ or
‘can you rape a slave if you feel like it?’
If you answered no to owning a slave then who is going to do all the
work? Why is slavery wrong? How are you going to become rich?
The answers to these questions were different in different city states
– in Athens slavery was allowed, women were not allowed to vote
(they got half food rations and were not allowed to go out) and
6
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
homosexuality was frowned upon. In Sparta, perhaps the toughest
place in Greece, slavery was frowned upon, women had a voice and
homosexuality was encouraged – which of these societies were
right? The Sophists argued there was no such thing as ‘right’ so
ideals such as justice and rights were only arguments and the
morality of the arguments was determined by those who could argue
the best! Sophism teaches that morality is never fixed and societies
choose rules and laws based around which speakers won the
argument. This treats knowledge as being entirely subjective and
temporal but is that the case? Is it true that slavery depends only on
the culture that practices it? Equal rights for women depend on what
people think? Persecution of homosexuals is allowed if people think
it is alright to do so?
Plato thought not, knowledge is eternal and objective, so in other
words, slavery is always wrong, men and women are equal and
sexual orientation based upon choice should never be punished.
Plato hated sophistry and thought there were ‘absolutes’ and that
these principles were constant and unchanging. Plato put forward his
ideas in the Simile of the Cave in order to highlight the difference
between appearance and reality. Plato thought that reality lay outside
the cave and that those inside the cave only had an appearance or
shadow of the real world. He also thought that those chained in the
cave would not be convinced their world was only apparent
regardless of the evidence. Sometimes philosophy becomes so
abstract that it seems to lack any relevance to our everyday lives and
the ideals of the Sophists seem lost in time. Look at the following
examples and decide what you think should happen in each case.
Two women try to get into a nightclub but are refused entry because
the doormen think they are too drunk. The women get abusive with
the door staff but are moved on. They are determined to get in and
so walk around the building trying to find a back door. They come
upon a line of open windows at the side of the building and climb in.
One of the women climbed in through a window (it was the men’s
toilet) and as she was jumping down hit her head on a sink. The
other one landed badly on a wet floor and broke her ankle. They
were quickly discovered and the police were called.
7
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
An elderly Florida woman had always wanted to own a big
Winnebago motor home. When she retires from work she decides
that she is going to buy one. She chooses the model she wants and
arranges to pick it up. The salesman shows her how to operate the
vehicle and explains all the equipment in it. The woman takes the
Winnebago onto the freeway and heads home. Once she has
reached the speed limit of 55 mph she sets the cruise control
function and gets up from her drivers seat to make herself a cup of
coffee. The Winnebago, worth around $250 000 crashes and is a
complete wreck.
A robber breaks into a house armed with a knife. The family are
asleep but the robber (a heroin addict) disturbs them. The robber
threatens the family with the knife. The father of the family attacks
the robber with a poker and knocks him out. The father then calls the
police.
In all three of the above true stories we can see what Plato might
describe as modern day Sophists in action. In the first example, the
nightclub is sued by the women and they win their case. The
nightclub is found guilty because it hasn’t ensured the safety of the
women particularly because there were no ‘wet floor’ warning signs.
Both women are awarded compensation amounting to £3 000.
The woman sues Winnebago and is successful because the
salesman did not properly explain that cruise control only affected
the accelerator pedal and not the brakes or the steering. She gets a
replacement motor home and compensation for trauma. Winnebago
have to retrain all staff.
Finally, the robber sues the homeowner and wins the case as the
court decides ‘excessive force’ was used. The homeowner is ordered
to pay the robber £750 in compensation and gets a suspended jail
sentence.
8
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
In all three of these cases, lawyers used clever arguments based on
health and safety and, for most people, made a mockery out of what
is right and what is wrong. It was exactly for these reasons that Plato
fought against the Sophists as he wanted to show that there must be
standards of justice that do not change, that are timeless and real.
Plato called these changeless truths ‘forms’ i.e. there are things in
the world that are merely ‘forms’ of the perfect or original thing.
Think about all the breeds of dog there are in the world! Even if we
narrow that down to just terriers there are still many different ‘forms’
or types of terrier: West Highland, Scottish, Yorkshire etc. All of these
forms of terrier have been bred for specific purposes but they all
descend from one specific ‘form’ of terrier. The terrier is also a ‘form’
of a dog and so all dogs must be a ‘form’ of the original dog – none
of which can be seen in the world today. If this applies to dogs then it
can also apply to things such as beauty or justice and so Plato
thought there must be an ideal ‘form’ for each of these things. Plato
believed it was possible to know the ‘forms’ through logical reason
and study and that once we discovered the true forms we would live
in a world of reality and not merely appearance.
Discussion – is it possible Plato was right about appearance and
reality, reincarnation and the forms?
Key questions – who were the Sophists and what did they do?
(k/u 1)
2) Why did Plato hate the Sophists? (k/u 2)
3) What did Plato mean by the term ‘form’? (k/u 2)
4) Why did Plato believe the forms were important? (a/e 2)
9
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
2) What is knowledge?
When philosophers talk about knowledge or what it is to ‘know’
something, they are very clear that the word ‘know’ can have
different uses. I can say that I know that Battle of Bannockburn was
in 1314, that I know how to play the guitar or that I know the Algarve
region of Portugal.
In each of these examples knowledge is being claimed but the type
of knowledge is different.
Knowing that is propositional knowledge and can be factual or
theoretical
Knowing how is a skill or ability
I know is knowledge through acquaintance of a place/person or thing
Look at the table below and copy and complete in your jotter
What is knowledge
Statement
I know that the Battle of Bannockburn
took place in 1314
I know how to play the guitar
I know the Algarve region of Portugal
Type of knowledge
Propositional knowledge
Ability/skill knowledge
Knowledge through
acquaintance
I know that the square root of 81 is 9
I know Alice
I know that Alice fancies me
I know how to wind Alice up
I know that Scotland will not qualify for
the next major competition
I know that Gordon Brown was Prime
Minister
I know illegal drugs are harmful
I know this exercise is a waste of my
time
In all of the above it is fairly clear which type of knowledge is being
claimed. However, what happens if we drop the ‘that’ from the above
statements? In most cases the distinctions remain fairly clear: I know
the Battle of Bannockburn took place in 1314 is still clearly
10
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
propositional knowledge as this knowledge is not a skill and because
we cannot claim to have been there neither is it knowledge through
acquaintance. However, if we look at the last 2 examples the
distinctions become less clear as ‘I know illegal drugs are harmful’
could be either propositional knowledge or knowledge through
acquaintance. The same could be argued for the final statement.
This has led to some philosophers claiming that there are no real
distinctions as all 3 are types of knowledge and so all three are
‘knowing’.
Key Questions
1) What are the 3 definitions of the word ‘know? (k/u3)
2) What are the differences between each of these definitions?
(k/u3)
3) Give an example of each of the 3 definitions of ‘knowing’.
(k/u3)
4) Why might some argue all 3 definitions are the same? (a/e2)
The Tripartite Theory of Knowledge
Whether you accept there is a genuine division in the 3 types of
‘knowing’ they are still important as analytic tools in deciding on
validity and soundness. Plato, as we have already seen, did believe
it was possible to have knowledge that was certain. Plato argued that
for a proposition to be accepted as certain then it must fulfil 3 criteria
We must believe the proposition
We need to have supporting evidence to back up the belief
It needs to be true
These 3 strands are known as the Tripartite Theory of Knowledge or
justified, true, belief.
The 1st point is that the claim must be true – it must relate to reality
rather than appearance. We cannot ‘know’ something that is false i.e.
we cannot claim that the Earth is flat because this is simply false.
11
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
The 2nd point is that you actually have to believe the proposition. You
cannot claim to have knowledge of something unless you believe it
i.e. you cannot say you ‘know’ 2+2=5 because you do not believe
this is true.
The 3rd point is you must have sound reasons (evidence) to support
your claims. You may well believe a proposition but you need to be
able to justify this with supporting evidence. This evidence can
come from a variety of sources: empirically verifiable (evidence that
can be proved true by testing), rationally sound (we can use reason
to prove it) or it comes from a trusted authority such as a text book,
a teacher or the news. Look at the table below and copy and
complete into your jotter. State whether the following true
propositions are
 Empirically verifiable
 Rationally sound
 Trusted Authority
Types of justification
Proposition
Water boils at 100 degrees
centigrade
Square root of 81 is 9
Urdu is spoken in Afghanistan
The Sea of Tranquillity is on the
Moon
Pigs can fly
Fire is hot and can burn you
A triangle has 3 sides
You can’t steal what belongs to you
Eating yellow snow isn’t good
All bachelors are female
Stonefish are deadly
The 12 most venomous snakes in
the world live in Australia
Type of justification
Empirically verifiable
Rationally sound
Trusted Authority
Regardless of the type of verification, the proposition must meet the
criteria of the Tripartite Theory of Knowledge if it is to be counted as
justified true belief. Propositions can be proved false using the types
of verification showing that they do not meet the criteria of the TTK.
12
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
Look at the table below and copy and complete into your jotter.
Complete the relevant boxes for the conditions you believe to be
met. Pay particular attention to the ‘true/false’ and ‘justification’
columns. Write out the propositions you think meet the Tripartite
Theory of Knowledge claim that for something to be counted as
knowledge it must be justified true belief. Be prepared to justify your
claims!!!!
Justified, true, belief
Proposition
True/false
All red roses are red
True
1)All Scotsman have
False
ginger hair
2)Oranges are orange
3)The Earth is flat
4)Elvis is alive
5)God exists
6)2 + 2 = 4
7)Everest is the
highest mountain
on Earth
8)Racism is wrong
Do you
believe
it?
Yes
No
Justification
(Is the evidence
reliable?)
Yes
No
9)Strawberry ice cream
is the best!
10)Aberdeen is south
of Glasgow
11)Oban is in Europe
The key question always needs to be: is the proposition justified
true belief? If all 3 conditions are met then we can count the
proposition as certain knowledge.
It is worth noting at this stage that JTB is a working definition that
philosophers use to define ‘certain’ knowledge but it is not universally
accepted as many arguments are based upon the same evidence
but reach opposite ‘truth’ conclusions i.e. arguments between
evolutionists and creationists use the same evidence but come to
radically different conclusions!
13
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
Discussion – can the theory of evolution be treated as JTB?
So, if the Tripartite Theory of Knowledge (TTK) is met then we can
be sure that the propositions are indeed justified, true belief? Well,
no, not really.
Criticisms of the Tripartite Theory of Knowledge
Scepticism
Sceptics are usually philosophers who maintain the knowledge can
never be certain. They usually focus on the justification part of the
TTK by arguing that we can never really ‘know’ anything because we
can only justify our reasons up to a certain point. Sceptics are not
people who deny that knowledge exists only that we can never be
completely certain of the justification or evidence put forward.
Sceptics list the following arguments to support their claims.
1) Gettier type problems - The problem of accidental
correctness?
For something to count as knowledge we have to be sure that the
tripartite conditions are met but what happens if this only is true by
accident. Edmund Gettier came from obscurity in 1963 (and returned
to it in 1963) asking ‘if someone is accidentally correct does this
count as knowledge?’ The answer is obviously no because if we are
only correct accidentally or by chance, then this cannot be JTB. Look
at the following examples and decide whether the conditions of JTB
are met.
14
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
The Faulty Watch
Alison and Susan are walking, shopping and talking in a city centre
when Alison asks the Susan the time. Susan glances at her watch
and tells Alison it is exactly 2 pm, However, Susan does not realise
that her watch has stopped and it stopped 24 hours ago. Susan
believes the watch (it tells the time), she can justify her reasons (a
watch is designed to keep time) and it is true that it is 2 pm.
However, she is only correct accidentally! Does this count as JTB?
The Lucky Rabbit’s Foot
Every time Sandra puts on a bet she rubs her lucky rabbit’s foot
which is on a key ring in her pocket. Each time she does this the
horse she bets on wins. One day she loses her keys and doesn’t
find them in time to rub the rabbit foot before placing her bet. The
horse loses and she loses her bet and says to herself, ‘I knew that
horse was going to lose! I didn’t get a chance to rub my lucky
rabbit’s foot.’ Is this JTB?
The Hesitant Student
Billy is sitting daydreaming in class. They are doing Maths and he
hates Maths. Suddenly his teacher asks, ‘Billy, what is the square
root of nine?’ Suddenly woken out of his daydream Billy gathers
himself and answers, ‘Err, three?’
‘Well done Billy’, says his teacher. Is this JTB?
Key Questions
1) Why do sceptics argue we can never have ‘certain’
knowledge? (k/u1)
2) Which of the 3 above examples meet the conditions for JTB?
Explain your answer. (a/e 6)
Task
In groups, or pairs, construct your own Gettier type problem. All the
conditions for JTB must be met: it must be true, it must be believed
and it has to have supporting evidence but it must be accidentally
correct.
15
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
2) Infinite Regress of Justification - can the justification part ever be
secure?
Sceptics (philosophers that think knowledge can never be certain)
would continuously attack the justification part of JTB by asking ‘how
do you know?’ Each piece of supporting evidence needs to be
supported by other evidence and that evidence by other evidence.
This is a very powerful challenge as sooner or later, justification
(supporting evidence) becomes impossible. In groups, look at the
following JTB propositions all of which are true. 1 person needs to
play the role of the sceptic and must continually ask ‘how do you
know your evidence is reliable?’ All group members are expected to
get involved.
Lady Gaga is female
Scotland is in Europe
2+2=4
I know I exist
For all of the above examples, justification eventually becomes a
problem. If the evidence supporting a proposition cannot be justified
then the argument collapses. Eventually the answer will be ‘I don’t
know’. If this is the case the JTB fails and the sceptic wins!
3) Problems with knowledge from the senses
As we have already seen, if we base knowledge on the senses then
it is possible that our senses may be deceived. The plane in the sky,
the star that has already exploded the pencil in a glass and the oar in
water. It is possible that the knowledge we perceive to be true is
nothing more than sense deception.
16
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
Task – In pairs give some examples of problems with knowledge
based on the senses.
4) Problems with reason
Plato suggested that we can ‘reason’ or think about absolutes
through study and reflection and this will help us to identify ‘forms’.
However, Plato believed that knowledge was gained in previous lives
and that the soul was in constant flux of reincarnation (and there are
definite problems with that theory). For Plato, it was a case of
remembering previous knowledge and teasing out the knowledge we
were born with. Plato thought that we are all born with ‘innate
knowledge’, knowledge that we might now call instinct. Through
study and reflection, Plato believed, we could recover what we
already knew. However, this is problematical and not certain and his
theory of the Forms does not help us to be certain and does not help
JTB. Innate ideas (knowledge we are born with) include an inbuilt
idea of God, knowledge of right and wrong and the ability to use
language and apply maths. Innate ideas are very difficult to prove.
Task – in pairs give at least 3 examples of innate ideas
Discussion – is there a difference between innate ideas and instinct?
5) The problem of Authority
Most of the knowledge we all have has come from or does come
from some sort of Authority. We gain knowledge from books,
teachers, TV, newspapers and Internet media sources etc. Sceptics
would argue that there is always the possibility that the source of the
17
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
knowledge (authority) could be wrong and so we cannot rely on this
type of justification as reliable. Examples of this type could be people
that live in dictatorships (North Korea, Nazi Germany etc) where
history is/was taught to suit the regime, where news stories suit the
regime etc. Furthermore, thousands of children in Scotland have
grown up with knowledge based on the media, most would think
Braveheart was a name given to William Wallace but this is simply
not true – Braveheart was the name given to Robert the Bruce. To
further highlight the problem think about the following example –
William Wallace was a Scottish freedom fighter
Or
William Wallace was a savage terrorist
Discussion point – can we trust the media?
Key Questions
1) What is the Tripartite Theory of Knowledge? (k/u2)
2) What, according to sceptics, are the problems with the
Tripartite Theory of Knowledge? (k/u5)
3) Justification of knowledge claims
One of the biggest problems when faced with a proposition is: how
do we know whether the claim is true or false? According to the
Tripartite Theory of Knowledge, the claim needs to be justified
true belief. But what if we don’t know whether a claim is true or
false? Look at the following proposition
The highest mountain in the world is Mount Sagarmatha (29035 ft
or 8850 m) – is this claim true or false?
18
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
If you have never heard of Mount Sagarmatha can you make a
judgement on the proposition? The answer is no - just because we
have never heard of something this doesn’t mean that it must be
false. The English name of Mount Sagarmatha is Mount Everest!
Does this piece of knowledge make the proposition true? ‘Mount
Everest is the highest mountain in the world’ is generally accepted
as being true but it is actually false. The highest mountain on Earth
is Mauna Kea in Hawaii (33476 ft or 10333 m)
Most of us have been taught that there are 5 senses but this is
now widely regarded as false as we have around 22 different
senses i.e. a sense of balance, a sense of danger or a sense of
humour etc.
So, it may well be that before we can determine the truth of a
proposition we just need to clarify the proposition i.e. the
tip/summit of Mount Everest is the highest point of land in the
world is JTB. We know this is JTB because we can prove it to be
true – Everest was named after the first person who measured its
height – Sir George Everest in 1865. Similarly, when claiming we
have 5 senses all we have to do is state we have 5 physical
senses! Once we have clarified the proposition it becomes
possible to prove it true or false through the supporting evidence
provided. However what about propositions such as ‘God
exists/God doesn’t exist’? You may believe it/disbelieve it but can
you justify the belief and show that the proposition is true or false?
The simple answer is no as there are no conclusive arguments
either way and so neither proposition would count as JTB.
Summary of scepticism
So, have the sceptics won? Is it the case that knowledge can
never be certain? The sceptic 5 point attack seems to be very
strong.
 Gettier-type problems of accidental correctness
 Infinite regress of justification
 Sense experience unreliable
 Problems with knowledge through reason
19
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
 Problems with Authority
Key questions
1) Can knowledge claims be justified if we don’t know
whether a proposition is true or false? (k/u2)
2) Why is clarity important when assessing truth claims?
(a/e2)
However, many philosophers do believe knowledge can be certain
by claiming there are ways to discover knowledge if the knowledge
is built upon foundational truths.
Foundational Truths
In order to understand what philosophers mean by foundational
truth it can be helpful to think of how buildings are constructed.
Every building needs to be built on a solid foundation, which
usually involves digging down until stable ground (rock) is found –
only a fool would try to build a house on sand as the foundations
would give way and the whole structure would collapse.
Philosophers approach Epistemology in the same way – find a
method of acquiring knowledge that is secure and then build upon
this foundation. If the knowledge foundation is secure then the
knowledge that is built on this will also be secure. Rationalism
and Empiricism are two approaches that are regarded as being
based on foundational truths.
Rationalism
Rationalism holds that knowledge begins within the mind: we are
all born with knowledge already in the mind and this knowledge is
certain. This knowledge has not been gained through experience
and is held to be innate knowledge.
Rationalist philosophers (Plato, Augustine, Descartes, Leibniz and
to a certain extent, Kant) believe that the best way to arrive at JTB
is through the use of reason (logical thinking) and innate ideas.
20
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
Innate ideas as reflections – Plato
Plato thought that knowledge was essentially innate (knowledge
contained in the mind at birth) and through study and the use of
reason it is possible to arrive at JTB. Plato, like many Greek
philosophers, believed in reincarnation and therefore thought we
are merely trying to rediscover what we have already learned in a
previous life. Plato thought that there was a clear difference
between appearance and reality and that there must be a way to
discover the difference between the two. Plato thought that
appearance was based upon sense experience and authority
and that this was unreliable. Plato believed that reality could be
discovered only through reason (logical thinking) and that this was
certain and reliable. Plato used his theory of the forms and stories
such as the simile of the cave to illustrate how reason could be
used to arrive at certain knowledge and this would be
foundational knowledge. Plato did believe that knowledge gained
through the senses could play a role but only by confirming
knowledge gained through reason.
Innate ideas as divinely placed – Augustine
Augustine thought that innate ideas were placed in the mind by
God and were not there as a result of reincarnation. Augustine
thought this because he believed in the great chain of being as
found in the Ontological argument. Augustine argued that issues
such as God’s existence were not in doubt as we are all born with
knowledge that God does exist but how could that knowledge get
there? Augustine stated it could not get there unless it was put
there and the only being great enough to do this for all mankind
was God.
Innate ideas as being fully formed- Descartes
Rene Descartes also thought that reason (logical thinking) was the
key to foundational truths. Meditations was written by Descartes
in order to show how reason or the intellect was the only secure
21
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
way to arrive at JTB and that the sceptics could be defeated. In
Meditations, Descartes employs his ‘method of doubt’ to
everything he thinks he knows: he discards all knowledge based
on sense experience as being possibly false, he rejects all
knowledge based on authority as this also could be wrong and he
finally has to reject the obvious notion that he even has a body.
Descartes does this to show that the Infinite Regress of
Justification can reduce knowledge to an endless stream of
problems and uncertainty. Descartes finally arrives at the point
where he even doubts his own existence. Descartes believes he
solves this ultimate justification by reasoning (logical thinking) that
if he doubts his own existence then there must be something that
is doing the doubting and that the something that is doing the
doubting must exist – the Cogito or as it is better known – I think
therefore I am. Descartes believes this is certain knowledge and a
foundational truth that cannot be challenged by the sceptics.
Descartes argues that his existence is so ‘clear and distinct’ that
anything else that he perceives in this way must also be true. He
‘clearly and distinctly’ perceives that God exists and that God
would not deceive him and so God acts as a guarantee that
Descartes exists (Cartesian circle argument). Descartes then
begins to rebuild knowledge based upon this foundational
knowledge. Descartes argues that ideas surrounding his
existence, God’s existence and concepts such as maths are fully
formed in the mind at birth. Descartes only uses reason to
establish what he believes as certain knowledge although he
believes sense experience can play a role but only by confirming
knowledge gained through reason.
Innate ideas as potentialities – Leibniz
Gottfried Leibniz gives 3 reasons for the existence of innate ideas:
universal characteristics, potential and foreseeing events.
1) Ideas surrounding geometry, algebra and maths rely on
universal characteristics i.e. triangles will always be 3-sided
objects with a total of 180 degrees. We cannot get these
universal characteristics through sense experience as
triangles do not exist outside the human mind.
2) Leibniz said the mind, at birth, was like a block of marble that
contained veins running through it. The sculptor needs to see
22
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
the potential within the marble before the sculpture is begun.
Leibniz believed that the veins running through the mind
were innate ideas that had the potential to be shaped and
formed.
3) Leibniz made a distinction between people and animals by
stating people were capable of foreseeing or predicting
future events through reason while animals cannot. An
example of this could be that we know gravity exists on our
planet and that if a similar planet were discovered it would
have similar gravity – animals on the other hand have no
concept of the theory of gravity.
Kant on morality
Immanuel Kant also uses reason (logical thinking) to establish the
boundaries of human behaviour. Kant believed that morality
(choices around behaviour) should be established on reason
(logical thinking) alone and that the consequences of an action
should not play a role in determining whether the action is good or
bad. Kant thought this because he believed that we cannot control
the consequences of an action and therefore we cannot predict the
outcome of an action. And because we cannot control or predict
consequences then it is impossible to determine morality in this
way as the outcomes might be different in different situations,
which could allow for different and opposite views on the same
moral issue. Kant argued that by using reason, we could arrive at a
position that all people would recognise as being right and fair
(innate ideas) i.e. that we should treat people the way we
ourselves would like to be treated. Kant argues that no-one wants
to be lied to, no-one wants to have things stolen from them, no-one
wants to have promises broken, no-one wants to be murdered etc.
So, using reason (logical thinking), Kant believes it is possible to
establish correct moral behaviour and so creates foundational
truths, which in turn will build fairer societies.
Key Questions
1) What is meant by the term ‘foundational truth’ and why do
some philosophers believe this is important? (k/u2)
2) What is meant by the term ‘innate knowledge? (k/u1)
3) How do rationalist philosophers explain the concept of
innate ideas? (k/u4)
23
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
Rationalism and Infinite regress of justification
As we have already seen, rationalist philosophers do believe it is
possible to defeat the sceptic argument of the infinite regress of
justification through reason (logical thinking) based on
foundational truth and innate ideas (knowledge in the mind at
birth) and that knowledge that comes from this will be certain.
Rationalists would claim that truths including maths, the existence
of God, knowledge of right and wrong are all present in the mind at
birth. But how do they justify these beliefs?
1) Cognitive Predisposition
Cognitive predisposition simply means that humans are ‘hardwired’ from birth and that this is an evolutionary/hereditary
outcome. Evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins believe
we are born with inbuilt drivers that are a direct result of evolution.
The ‘selfish gene’, for example, determines transferral from one
generation to the next. It also seems that certain skills can be
passed down through the generations i.e. musical ability etc.
Rationalists believe that knowledge can be gained a priori (before
sense experience) through the use of reason alone. So, merely by
thinking rationally about something we can discover sure
foundational knowledge. Look at the following example
1+1=2.
How do we know this is true? Well, once we understand the
concept of 1 then it is possible to understand the concept of 2.
Once the concept of 2 is understood the 1+2=3 becomes purely
deductive through reason. With these concepts as foundations
very complex maths become an exercise of reason alone. But
where does the ability to do maths come from? Rationalists argue
it is from innate ideas through cognitive predisposition.
24
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
Noam Chomsky argues that language and the ability to use it is
also innate. Chomsky states that the complexity of language can
never be learned through experience and that we are all born with
abilities to process complex language which is a cognitive
predisposition.
There are also vast similarities across many different societies and
cultures about morality and behaviour. Rationalists would claim
that these agreed rules of behaviour show innatism – why do we
agree on so much? Rationalists would claim we have a cognitive
disposition towards morality from birth.
Finally and in a similar way, as we have seen in arguments for the
existence of God, once we understand the concept of God then
God must exist. Ideas of God’s existence are so widespread that
we must have a cognitive predisposition to accept it.
Key Question
1) What is cognitive predisposition? (k/u 1)
2) In what ways do rationalists believe cognitive
predisposition defeats the infinite regress of
justification? (k/u 2)
2) Deductive arguments and analytic truths
Rationalists think that the infinite regress of justification can also
be defeated through deductive arguments and by using analytic
truths.
25
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
a) Deductive disciples such as maths and geometry are the
most certain method of acquiring JTB. There seems to be
little doubt that 2+2=4 and that no amount of questioning can
change that particular outcome. Without getting silly, it is
pointless to discuss it further.
b) In a similar way, triangle is, by definition, a three-sided object
with internal angles that add up to 180 degrees – triangle
means three angles. Further, if the claim was made that all
bachelors are male, it seems daft to question the truth of this
statement because bachelor means unmarried male.
Examples such as triangles and bachelors are analytically
true (true by definition) and as such do not seem subject to
the infinite regress of justification.
Key question
a) Why do rationalists think deductive arguments can
defeat the sceptic infinite regress of justification
question? k/u1
b) Why do rationalists think analytic truths can defeat the
sceptic infinite regress of justification question? k/u1
Empiricism
Empiricism, (Greek word for ‘experience) like rationalism, is a
system that claims foundational truth. Unlike rationalism,
empiricism is not based upon reason but upon knowledge gained
through the senses – ‘empirical’ means ‘capable of being
experienced by the senses’. Empiricists such as Locke, Hume and
Berkeley reject the claim innate ideas exist; Locke claimed that the
mind of a newborn baby was ‘tabula rasa’ (blank slate) and that all
knowledge is written upon the mind as the mind starts the
experience the world. This approach to knowledge is ‘a posteriori’
i.e. knowledge comes ‘after experience’. Locke argued that this
was the only way we can acquire knowledge.
Exercise
Which of the following do you know by sense experience/could be
known through sense experience and which are a priori?
26
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
A posteriori
A priori
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Bannockburn happened in 1314
Santa exists
10 is greater than 9
Ice cream is cold
Greece is not only a country but a
musical
6. The shortest distance between 2
points is a straight line
7. How to gain attention
8. How to play the guitar
9. Psychopaths feel no emotion
10. There is life after death
Empiricist rejection of innate ideas
Locke and innate ideas
Locke agrees with Aristotle that ‘there is nothing in the mind except
what was first in the senses’. This is a complete rejection of innate
as Locke argues that if innate ideas are present then the same
ideas would exist for all.
You will recall that we started off by discussing the difference
between rationalism and Empiricism. Rationalism starts with this
central idea that some of the knowledge we have is based not on
experience – but on the operation of reason alone – it is innate.
We just know that some things are true. Rationalists do not deny
that people learn by experience, they just think that our starting
point is knowledge that is hard-wired so to speak – that is already
in our minds. However by the 17th century important philosophers
and thinkers were questioning that idea. Science was just in its
infancy, but intellectuals and thinkers were getting caught up in the
idea that the world was a place that could be studied and taken
apart and examined to see how it worked. The idea that we could
learn to better understand the world was taking hold.
A young doctor and writer called John Locke called into question
the whole notion of innate ideas. He started by trying to identify an
idea so basic, so fundamental that it had to qualify as innate
knowledge – if such a thing existed. He started with the statement
27
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
– ‘what is, is and what is not, is not’. This basic statement about
existence he argued had to be so fundamental that it must be part
of innate knowledge – if such a thing existed. So we would expect
therefore that if we asked children or people from other lands what
they understood by the statement why then – because this
knowledge is innate – they would completely understand what was
meant by it. However, if they failed to recognise the statement and
understand its meaning – it would indicate that there was no such
thing as innate knowledge.
Locke did not conduct a full-blown survey of people for this ‘test’
but he was satisfied that on the whole people did not recognise
immediately what the statement meant and that in turn meant that
there was no such thing as innate knowledge – the key idea of
rationalism. Instead, Locke argued, we are all tabula rasa – blank
slates – upon which experience writes. In other words, all
knowledge arises from experience.
In modern day language, if there are innate ideas about morality
and the existence of God etc. then why do people have such
different notions of what these things are and why do some not
share these ideas at all?
David Hume
Hume follows up on Locke’s work by agreeing that innate ideas
are not present in the mind at birth – that the mind is indeed tabula
rasa at that point. Hume claims this is because it is not possible to
have knowledge of something without first having experienced
something ‘a posteriori’. Hume calls these experiences
impressions and argues that only when we have an experience
can the mind (reason) make sense of it.
What Hume is suggesting here is that there can be no ideas
unless there have already been impressions. The man who has
been blind from birth will have no idea of the colour. A deaf person
cannot have any idea of sound but if they were somehow cured
then they would have no problem gaining knowledge of what these
28
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
things are like. Hume also argues that Laplanders or Negros would
not know what wine tasted like or that a selfish person couldn’t
understand generosity.
A modern day spin on this could be ‘could a tribesman in a remote
African country tell you what Irn Bru tasted like if they had never
tasted it themselves?’
So, for Hume, innate ideas did not exist as all knowledge present
in the mind is based on experiences through the senses.
Key question
a) Why did Locke reject the notion of innate ideas? Give 2
examples to illustrate your answer. k/u3
b) Why did Hume reject innate ideas? Give 2 examples to
illustrate your answer. k/u3
Empiricist emphasis on sense experience and a posteriori knowledge
Empiricism is based upon the foundation of knowledge through
observation and through the senses. Empiricism is the method used
by science and medicine and is responsible for most of the
technological advances made by the human race. A posteriori
knowledge is entirely inductive as it looks to gain knowledge from
things we can experience through the senses. And because it is
inductive it makes no claim of guaranteed knowledge merely that the
knowledge is probable. Think about how experiments are conducted
in a lab – things are tested and the results recorded. If the test is
repeated enough times then the results are thought of as being
reliable. When new drugs are being developed then these drugs are
tested in many different ways to ensure they are safe for use. In
many ways, scientists and specialists, need to verify results in order
to prove the conclusions are not false before they can accept the
conclusions as being true. So, through a process of testing, new
knowledge is gained but this is only possible a posteriori.
29
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
Task
In small groups, explain the process that would need to be followed if
you were going to bring a new product to the market i.e. a shampoo,
a ready meal or a ‘run flat’ tyre for a car.
Empiricists favour a posteriori knowledge over a priori knowledge as
they believe subjects such as Biology and Physics can lead to new
knowledge through testing and observation while subjects such as
Maths and Geometry are merely abstract facts that do not give us
any new knowledge. A triangle may have 3 sides with internal
degrees adding up to 180 but this isn’t really helpful in discovering
new knowledge.
The statement ‘all bachelors are unmarried males’ is definitely true
but it does not give us any new information – merely a definition. The
statement ‘it is either Monday or it is not’ is true but not very helpful if
you want to find out what is on T.V. ‘If it is Monday then EastEnders
is on at 8pm or if it is Tuesday it is on at 7.30pm’ is also true but it is
not until we know what day it is that we will be able to watch at the
correct time.
Key question
a) Why do empiricists emphasize sense experience and a
posteriori knowledge over a priori rationalism? k/u2
b) Empiricists argue that Biology and Physics are better
subjects than Maths and Geometry. Why is this the case?
k/u2
(other supermarkets are available)
The role of reason in empiricism
Empiricists argue that reason does have a role to play but only in
making sense of the experiences we have. This takes the form of
inductive reasoning.
30
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
Questions – why do we buy food days in advance? Why do
supermarkets employ weather forecasters? Why do teachers give
predicted grades for Higher pupils?
In all three cases the answer is fairly clear – past experience leads
us to believe the future will resemble the past! We shop in advance
because we know we will be hungry in the future: supermarkets
know, depending on the weather, certain items will be in more
demand i.e. salad in summer, chocolate at Easter and alcohol at
New Year! Our minds link the events through reason and come to a
conclusion.
Traffic lights in the UK follow a set sequence and through teaching
and experience we understand through reason what will happen.
However, in different countries the sequence is not exactly the same
but after experiencing the sequences our mind reasons the
differences and we adapt very quickly.
Scientists use the same method when analysing results – reason
makes the connections. If scientists were trying to find out the
greediest pupil in the room they would test it in this way. Veronica,
Amanda, Heather and Paula would have a jar of sweets placed in
front of them. Veronica scoffs the lot, Amanda doesn’t have any and
the others have three each. The basic connection reason makes is
that Veronica is the greediest. However, judgements, through
reason, could be made on hunger, health, obesity and character!
Key question
What role does reason play within empiricism? Illustrate your
answer with an example? k/u2
Problems with Empiricism
The senses, on which knowledge is based, can be deceived.
Sceptics attack empiricism for the following reasons.
31
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
Optical Illusions – see PowerPoint
If we based our knowledge on the senses then it is entirely possible
that our senses will mislead us. The plane in the sky is much further
ahead than we think, the star that has already exploded, a pencil in
water or the H.I.V virus. This knowledge is not certain!
Hallucination
This is when we think we see or hear things but they aren’t actually
there. When we have a fever we can be convinced something is real
but it is not or when we are gripped by fear we are certain someone
is looking at us!
Physical laws of the Universe
We can’t always observe what is going on in the universe! Gravity
exists but we can’t see it, infra-red and ultra-violet light cannot be
seen by the human eye. What if there are others things we don’t yet
know about and how can we be sure of a knowledge claim if we don’t
know what we are looking at.
Theory-laden assumptions
We all see things in slightly different ways and so can interpret things
in a different way – we make judgements based on what we already
know or on what we think we already know. A trained musician
looking at a musical score will have a completely different
interpretation of the dots from someone who cannot read music!
The problem of Induction
A posteriori knowledge is highly dependant on inductive reasoning –
the future will resemble the past! Hume points out that assuming the
future will resemble the past is not reliable because cause and effect
are not necessarily linked. One specific cause can produce lots of
different effects none of which are guaranteed to happen every time
32
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
the cause occurs. Think back to the examples of shopping in
advance, of supermarkets employing weather forecasters and why
teachers give predicted grades for Higher pupils? It is simply not the
case that because you have been hungry every Thursday in your
whole life that you will be hungry this Thursday. It is not true that
people always but according to the weather or seasonality and it is
entirely possible that a teacher may estimate as ‘A’ grade based on
all the previous evidence but the pupil is not guaranteed that grade.
At best, induction only gives probable knowledge not guaranteed
knowledge.
Key question
Why do sceptics dismiss empiricism as unreliable? k/u5
How do empiricists deal with the sceptics claim that knowledge
can never be certain?
The simple answer is that they cannot – well not fully. Empiricism is
based upon inductive reasoning through a posteriori experiences.
The claim is never about guaranteeing knowledge merely that the
knowledge is highly probable. By testing, measuring, recording and
repeating the process, empiricism is about exploring the boundaries
of what we know. The best defence against claims of infinite regress
are that empiricists are aware that the senses can deceive but
because they are aware of this then they can guard against it
through verification and testing.
Coherentism
Unlike Rationalism and Empiricism, which are essentially
foundationalist views of knowledge (although it is possible to argue
you can be a rational coherentist and an empirical coherentist),
Coherentism is a non-foundational approach to knowledge.
Rationalism and empiricism both try to find knowledge which is
reliable and then build links from that knowledge to other things. This
method sets up a sort of chain-linking system where one piece of
33
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
knowledge can lead directly to another e.g. Rationalist claims of
innate knowledge lead to claims about morality and the existence of
God and Empiricist claims of knowledge through a posteriori means
leads to claims that are at worst highly probable.
Foundationalism
Perhaps the chain begins with a belief that is justified, but which is
not justified by another belief. Such beliefs are called basic beliefs
or foundational beliefs..
An analogy to explain this idea compares foundationalism to a
building. Ordinary individual beliefs occupy the upper stories of the
building; basic, or foundational beliefs are down in the basement,
in the foundation of the building, holding everything else up. In a
similar way, individual beliefs, say about morality or ethics, rest on
more basic beliefs, say about the nature of human beings; and
those rest on still more basic beliefs, say about the mind; and in
the end the entire system rests on a set of beliefs, basic beliefs,
which are not justified by other beliefs, but instead by something
else. This means that there must be some statements that, for
some reason, do not need justification. For instance, rationalists
such as Descartes and developed ideas that relied on statements
that were taken to be self-evident: "I think therefore I am" is the
most famous example. Similarly, empiricists take observations as
providing the foundation for the series.
Foundationalism relies on the claim that it is not necessary to ask
for justification of certain propositions, or that they are selfjustifying. If someone makes an observational statement, such as
"it is raining", it does seem reasonable to ask how they know—did
they look out the window? Did someone else tell them? Did they
just come in shaking their umbrella? Coherentism insists that it is
always reasonable to ask for a justification for any statement.
Coherentism contends that foundationalism provides an arbitrary
spot to stop asking for justification and so that it does not provide
reasons to think that certain beliefs do not need justification.
34
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
Foundationalists support their idea by claiming that sense
experience can be a belief in itself. For example, suppose that
someone claims that they had fallen and scraped a knee as a
child. With no witnesses or other records, there is no fact which
can support this belief except that they remember it. In effect, the
belief that they scraped there knee is supported only by the
memory of having scraped the knee. Ultimately, then, this sensory
belief is justified by another belief, that the memory is reliable and
true.
Coherentism is the belief that an idea is justified if and only if it is
part of a coherent system of mutually supporting beliefs (i.e.,
beliefs that support each other). In effect Coherentism denies that
justification can only take the form of a chain. Coherentism
replaces the chain with a holistic approach.
Coherentism is a rival theory of justification to foundationalism.
Unlike foundationalists, coherentists reject the idea that individual
beliefs are justified by being inferred from other beliefs. Instead,
according to coherentism, whole systems of beliefs are justified by
their coherence.
What is Coherence?
Coherence consists of three elements. A belief-set is coherent to
the extent that it is consistent, cohesive, and comprehensive.
Consistency
A belief-set is consistent to the extent that its members do not
contradict each other. Clearly a belief-set full of contradictory
beliefs is not coherent. Consistency, however, need not be an all
or nothing affair; beliefs may be in tension with each other, without
being strictly speaking contradictory. Tensions of this kind, like
contradiction, reduces the coherence of a set of beliefs.
Think about the belief that your parents really are your parents! If
you look like one of them or have certain characteristics from your
35
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
parents then this would be consistent with the belief. However, if
both your parents were white and you were black then the
evidence may be seen as somewhat inconsistent with the belief
but not necessarily false as there may be an explanation!
Cohesiveness
Mere consistency is not enough for coherence. For a belief-set to
be coherent, the beliefs that it contains must not only be mutually
consistent, but must also be mutually supportive. A set of beliefs
that support each other, where one belief makes another more
probable, is more coherent than a set of unrelated, but consistent
beliefs.
The belief that your parents really are your parents is based upon
many factors: family, friends, upbringing and legal documents.
Each of these factors re-enforces the other and make the belief
stronger.
Comprehensiveness
Finally, coherence involves comprehensiveness.
Comprehensiveness, of course, is a not a part of the meaning of
coherence in the ordinary sense. In the context of coherentist
theories of justification, however, a belief-set increases in
coherence as it increases in scope; the more a belief-set tells us
about, the more coherent it is.
Parents again! The more evidence we have then the more
comprehensive the evidence becomes.
Objections to Coherentism: Coherent
Alternatives
Coherentism holds that beliefs are justified by belonging to
coherent belief sets. There are many possible coherent beliefs
sets, however, and coherentism provides no way of deciding
between them. Fictional worlds such as Narnia, the Matrix, and the
Discworld are as coherent (or at least could be made as coherent)
as the actual world. If coherence is the standard of justification,
36
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
therefore, then we are as justified in believing in the Discworld as
we are in believing in Earth, so long as we are willing to make the
necessary adjustments to our other beliefs. This, though, is
absurd.
Moreover, many of these belief sets contradict each other; there
are coherent belief sets that contain the belief that the world is
round, and there are other equally coherent belief sets that contain
the belief that the world is flat. In order to decide whether the world
is round or flat, therefore, I must use some other standard of
justification than coherence. In fact, for every belief there is a
coherent belief set that contains it, and so coherentism fails to
recommend any belief over any other. It can’t help us at all in
deciding what to believe.
A belief-set can be coherent even if all of its members are false.
The belief that your parents are aliens coheres very well with the
belief that they keep a flying saucer in the garage, which coheres
very well with the belief that the FBI have dispatched agents to
investigate, etc. Despite the coherence of this belief set, however,
none of these beliefs is true.
Justified beliefs, because they are justified, are more likely to be
true; the whole point of seeking justification for our beliefs is that
justification is truth-conducive. The mere fact that a set of beliefs is
coherent does not imply that its members are true. In fact, there
are more false coherent belief sets than there are true coherent
belief sets.
Key questions
a) Explain the difference between foundational claims and
non-foundational claims in Epistemology? Give
examples to illustrate your answer. k/u5
b) What are the objections to Coherentism? k/u5
37
Higher/Intermediate 2 Philosophy
38