NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS CURRICULUM SUPPORT
Philosophy
Introduction to Epistemology
[HIGHER]
The Scottish Qualifications Authority regularly reviews
the arrangements for National Qualifications. Users of
all NQ support materials, whether published by
Learning and Teaching Scotland or others, are
reminded that it is their responsibility to check that the
support materials correspond to the requirements of the
current arrangements.
Acknowledgement
Learning and Teaching Scotland gratefully acknowledges this contribution to the National
Qualifications support programme for Philosophy.
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
This resource may be reproduced in whole or in part for educational purposes by educational
establishments in Scotland provided that no profit accrues at any stage.
2
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
Contents
Teacher’s notes
4
Introduction
5
Section 1:
Section 2:
Section 3:
What is knowledge?
Propositional knowledge claims
The tripartite theory of knowledge
Problems with the tripartite theory of knowledge
Summary: What is knowledge?
7
7
10
12
How is knowledge acquired?
Rationalism
Empiricism
Innate ideas
Coherentism
Summary: How is knowledge acquired?
13
15
16
21
23
Can knowledge claims be justified?
Problems with foundationalist responses (rationalism and
empiricism)
Problems with rationalism
Problems with empiricism
Problems with coherentism
Summary: Can knowledge claims be justified?
25
25
27
29
30
Course summary (self-evaluation)
32
Glossary
34
Bibliography
36
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
3
TEACHER’S NOTES
Teacher’s notes
These notes are designed to provide teachers/lecturers with an accurate and
detailed course content for the 10-mark mandatory unit Introduction to
Epistemology. Given the lack of student textbooks for philosophy, it is hoped
that these notes will help teachers/lecturers to provide their students with
resources that cover the course requirements. However, they should not be
used as the sole resource for students. Students will benefit from a variety of
reading resources and so it is advised that the notes are used in conjunction
with other resources.
In order to prepare students for the required summative assessments, schools
and colleges will need to plan their courses carefully, incorporating suitable
formative assessment tasks. The activities in these notes are largely
discussion based and are designed to encourage students to participate in
philosophical enquiry. Teachers/lecturers are encouraged to use these
activities as a basis for developing their own t asks. Some of the questions
might be useful for thinking- and discussion-based exercises. Others could be
adapted into a form that requires the students to present their own written
reflections. Schools and colleges also need to add further written tasks a nd
activities that deliberately build towards the unit and final assessments.
The notes also include a reflective summary of the course that is designed for
students to refer to as they work through the unit. The aim is to encourage
students to participate in the process of self-evaluation. It should be noted
that this summary is the writer’s own attempt to interpret the SQA
Arrangement documents so schools and colleges should take care to ensure
that they are satisfied with this particular interpretation .
Many students benefit from materials that contain interesting images and
graphics. Although some are included in this pack, teachers/lecturers are
encouraged to take time to add their own graphics to the resource to help
make them as appealing as possible for the students.
The glossary at the end of the notes is based on the recently published revised
Arrangements document.
4
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
The word epistemology comes from two Greek words:
episteme = knowledge
logos = theory (or sometimes translated word)
Epistemology is most simply defined as the theory of knowledge.
This may sound a bit dull but it is actually a fascinating area of philosophy.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature and limits of
knowledge.
Epistemology is concerned with the structure and origin of knowledge , and
whether claims to have found knowledge are true or false.
Which, if any, of our beliefs are true and which are false?
Activity
Think, pair, share
On your own, think about things that you would call knowledge. Think also
about things that you would call belief.
Make a list of things you would be happy to call knowledge.
Make a list of things you would be happy to call belief.
Discuss your views in pairs.
In groups try to persuade each other that what has been identified as
knowledge is actually just belief. Is there anything that everyone agrees
should still be called knowledge?
Now make a list of what your group concludes can be called knowledge.
Try to put together a definition of knowledge.
‘We believe that the conditions of any knowledge claim are … ’
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
5
INTRODUCTION
In this introduction to epistemology, you will be thinking about three key
questions:
1.
2.
3.
What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
Can knowledge claims be justified?
6
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
SECTION 1: WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?
Section 1: What is knowledge?
Propositional knowledge claims
We use the word ‘knowledge’ regularly in everyday language. Look at the
following examples:
 I know that Ghana is in Africa.
 I know how to get to Ghana.
 I know a lot about Ghana.
The English word ‘know’ is used here in three different ways. First of all , we
have ‘propositional’ knowledge (knowing that something is true). Secondly,
we have knowledge of ‘how to’ do something. Finally, we have personal
experience of something (knowledge by acquaintance) .
The knowledge that the Higher Philosophy course is concerned with is
‘propositional’ or factual knowledge. A ‘proposition’ is a statement that
asserts or denies the truth about something.
Activity
What ‘propositional’ knowledge claims have you learn ed about at school or
college over the past week?
In which subjects did you learn about these propositional knowledge claims?
How can you be sure that these propositional knowledge claims are true?
The tripartite theory of knowledge
One of the earliest references to a clear definition of
knowledge is recorded by Plato (428/427BC–348/347BC) in
a dialogue between two characters, Socrates and Meno. The
discussion that takes place concerns the difference between
a true belief and a knowledge claim.
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
7
SECTION 1: WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?
In Plato’s 2500-year-old dialogue, Socrates says: ‘True beliefs are a fine
thing and do all sorts of good so long as they stay in their place; but they will
not stay long. They run away from a man’s mind, so they are not worth much
…’
Socrates goes on to say that in order to stop your true beliefs from drifting
from your mind you must ‘tether them’. Your beliefs need to be ‘tied down’
by something.
Activity
In pairs, discuss what is required for you to ‘tie down’ your true beliefs .
Socrates’ answer to the question above is simple. In order for you to keep
your true beliefs from slipping from your grasp you must ‘tether them by
working out the reason’. The key difference between a true belief and
knowledge is that any knowledge claim needs to be backed up with reasons.
Knowledge is more valuable than true beliefs because a knowledge claim
includes the essential condition of justification. Plato’s point is simple. To
have knowledge is to have true beliefs that are secured by reasons. These
simple observations led to what has become known as the tripartite theory of
knowledge.
The standard definition of knowledge has been summarised into the phrase
‘justified, true belief’.
The three conditions below form what is called the ‘tripartite theory of
knowledge, or knowledge as justified, true, belief.
1.
The statement has to be true or correspond with a reality outside itself.
The first mark of knowledge must be that your propositional statement
is true. You can never have knowledge if what you think you know is
actually false. For example, I cannot ‘know’ that Glasgow is the capital
of Scotland, because it isn’t.
2.
The statement has to be believed. For someone to ‘know’ that
something is true he/she must have confidence in his/her knowledge
claim. Knowledge requires a feeling of confidence about being right. If
someone hesitates to offer an answer to a question because they lack
confidence, even though they have the right answer, it seems reasonable
that they don’t really know the answer at all.
8
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
SECTION 1: WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?
Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland … or is it
Falkirk … no it’s Edinburgh … no it’s …
3.
The statement has to be backed up or justified with evidence to support
it. This means that while I can occasionally stumble across a true
statement, lucky guesses do not count as knowledge. Plato and others
after him wished to stress that knowledge is not simply a matter of
holding a true belief with some degree of confidence. Philosophers
think that in order to have knowledge, you must be able to justify what
you claim to know.
The tripartite theory of knowledge is making a double claim. F irst, it is
saying that in order to have knowledge you must be able to satisfy these three
conditions. Second, it is making a further claim that these three conditions
are all that are needed. In other words, no further conditions must be met. The
tripartite theory of knowledge is, therefore, making the claim that the three
criteria (justified, true, belief) are individually necessary and jointly
sufficient.
Individually necessary …
To say that the tripartite theory is individually necessary simply means that
for us to have knowledge, we must satisfy each condition. Any knowledge
claim that cannot do this cannot be a knowledge claim at all. We simply
cannot do without any of the three conditions.
Jointly sufficient …
This simply means that the three conditions are all that is needed. If it is true
that the tripartite theory is ‘jointly sufficient’ and we can show that we have
satisfied all three conditions then we can guarantee the success of a
propositional knowledge claim. In other words, if you have satisfied all three
conditions then you can say with certainty that you have knowledge.
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
9
SECTION 1: WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?
Problems with the tripartite theory of knowledge
On the face of it the tripartite theory sounds reasonable. However,
philosophers have identified some problems wit h it.
The Gettier problem (a problem with the theory itself)
This is a problem with the definition itself. In the 1960s , a philosopher called
Edmund Gettier came up with some questions and examples that undermined
the tripartite theory. In 1967 he published a paper simply entitled ‘Is
Justified, True Belief knowledge?’ His paper was based around a number of
examples in which he attempted to show that it is possible to satisfy all the
conditions and yet still be unable to say conclusively that you had know ledge.
Gettier was questioning whether the tripartite theory was jointly sufficient.
The examples he and others have subsequently used are known as Gettier type counter-examples.
Here are some Gettier-type examples:
Example 1
Your teacher has an identical twin. The twin enters the room and you form
the justified, true belief: ‘My teacher is in the room’. As it happens, she’s
sitting at the back of the room where you hadn’t seen her. But, do you have
‘knowledge’?
Example 2
What appears to be a window is really a TV screen relaying recorded images
of the outside from a week ago. You look, and form the justified belief : ‘It is
raining’. As a matter of fact this is also true. But, do you have ‘knowledge’?
These examples illustrate what Gettier called the pr oblem of accidental
correctness. The connection between my justification and my belief being
true is accidental. The worrying thing about the Gettier examples is that every
condition of the tripartite theory has been met and yet we still wouldn’t want
to count it as knowledge. What Gettier was getting at was the possibility that
the tripartite theory itself is wrong.
There have been some attempts to respond to Gettier’s criticism by simply
attempting to add further clauses to the tripartite theory of know ledge.
However, the extent to which additional clauses are truly successful is a
further cause of debate amongst philosophers.
10
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
SECTION 1: WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?
Activity
Try to come up with a fourth criterion of knowledge that removes the Gettier
problem. Test your new clause with others in the class.
Do you agree with Gettier that maybe the tripartite theory is not ‘jointly
sufficient’ after all?
The challenge of scepticism (the infinite regress argument)
This problem relates to one condition of the tripartite theory. Some
philosophers have argued that the ‘justification condition’ can never be fully
satisfied. If they are right then the whole idea of finding true knowledge isn’t
possible. These philosophers are known as sceptics.
Scepticism comes in a variety of formats.
1.
Local scepticism is scepticism about some particular type of knowledge
claim. For example, the atheist is sceptical about claims to have
knowledge of God. Others are sceptical about claims to have knowledge
of the supernatural, or of right and wrong.
2.
Global sceptics have claimed that the only thing that we can know is
that knowledge is impossible. This is extreme scepticism. Some extreme
sceptics – also called solipsists – go so far as doubting that we can
know anything at all outside our own minds. All we ca n have certain
knowledge of is the content of our own minds.
Philosophers such as René Descartes and David Hume both recognised that
what we may take to be justification may in fact not be justification after all.
Think of the people who thought that the Earth was stationary. What more
justification would you need than the fact that you can see it and feel it to be
stationary? The history of humanity is to a great extent a history of humans
discovering that we have got things wrong – that what we had thought was
knowledge (sometimes with great confidence and apparent justification) was
in fact wrong. Clearly our false knowledge claims were caused by mistaken
justifications. So, in order to avoid making errors we need to be careful to
justify our justifications.
This, however, leads us into a problem that is very hard to solve. Whatever
evidence I bring forward to support a propositional knowledge claim is in as
much need of support as the proposition itself. I need a justification for my
justification, and then a further justification and so on and so on … This
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
11
SECTION 1: WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?
endless search for justification is called the infinite regress argument. The
point is that the sceptic claims that since an infinite regress never comes to an
end, the original propositional knowledge claim can never be justified at all.
Activity
In pairs, try to come up with a way to overcome the infinite regress argument.
If the infinite regress argument cannot be overcome , can we really say that
the tripartite theory of knowledge is individually necessary?
The infinite regress argument is difficult to overcome. However, the history
of philosophy is filled with attempts to do just that. In fact, most philosophers
appear happy with the tripartite theory and would not want to say that
knowledge claims are impossible. Most think that this argument can be
overcome.
The next section will look at some famous attempts to acquire propositional
knowledge that survives even the infinite regress argument.
Summary: What is knowledge?
 Epistemology is the theory of knowledge.
 The conditions required to satisfy any knowledge claim are thought to be
justified, true belief (the tripartite theory of knowledge) .
 The tripartite theory makes the claim that the three conditions are
individually necessary and jointly sufficient.
 Some philosophers have suggested that the tripartite theory of knowledge
hasn’t adequately defined knowledge. The two main problems you will
need to know about are:
– the Gettier problem (if it’s possible to satisfy all three conditions and
still not have knowledge then the tripartite theory is not jointly
sufficient)
– the challenge of scepticism (i.e. if the justification condition cannot
ever be satisfied then for knowledge claims to be possible the tripartite
theory is not individually necessary).
12
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
SECTION 2: HOW IS KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED?
Section 2: How is knowledge acquired?
Rather than adopting a sceptical view or attempting to revise the tripartite
theory, most philosophers have preferred to find ways to justify knowledge
claims.
Philosophy’s search for ‘certain knowledge’ has been dominated by two
distinct groups of philosophers. They are called the rationalists and the
empiricists. Both are keen to find a foundation of knowledge that we can
know with certainty. Rationalists and empiricists are known as foundational
theories of knowledge? They will argue that the infinite regress argument can
be defeated if we can find a foundation for all our knowledge claims. This
foundation will need to be self-evidently true so that it will make no sense for
someone to ask you to justify your foundation.
Other philosophers have decided that the search for a certain foundation isn’t
a realistic goal. They believe that foundational truths can’t ever be found.
They prefer, as you might expect, a non-foundationalist approach to
knowledge. For example, coherentists argue that you can call something
knowledge if the propositions cohere to a unified body of beliefs about the
world. They argue that we can call something ‘knowledge’ if it is ‘highly
likely’ that the claim is true.
Rationalism
Truths of reason are the bedrock on which we build the whole of
human knowledge 1
The term ‘rationalism’ comes from the Latin word ratio, which means reason.
Rationalism has its roots in ancient Greece with the writings of Plato. In the
modern era it was largely a continental philosophical movement, Ren é
Descartes (1596–1650) and Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) being two of the
most influential rationalists.
1
Cardinal, Hayward and Jones, p41
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
13
SECTION 2: HOW IS KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED?
Foundationalism
Rationalism is considered a foundationalist approach to knowledge.
Rationalists say that human reason is the key foundation of knowledge.
According to rationalists, reason is the primary source of justification.
Human reason should therefore form the basis of any attempt to satisfy the
justification clause of the tripartite theory.
A priori truths
According to rationalists, truths can be known a priori. A priori truths are
known to be true without any reference to experience. We can check the truth
of a claim just by thinking about it.
So a priori knowledge is knowledge that we gain just by thinking. Often this
means that the justification condition is met merely by reflecting mentally on
the meanings of words and symbols. For example:




All bachelors are unmarried males.
A cat is a feline creature.
2 + 2 = 4.
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
If I am asked ‘How do you know?’ my response will be that we just need to
think about the statement to grasp its truth. So it is justifiable a priori.
These types of truths are said to be necessarily tr ue. This term is used to
describe all those statements which, when you think about it, cannot be
anything other than true.
Necessary, a priori truth
2+2=4
As was said earlier, rationalists believe that the foundation of any knowledge
claim lies in the human mind alone. This means that a significant mark of the
rationalist approach to knowledge is through the use of a priori truths. These
give the rationalists the certain foundation they are looking for.
14
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
SECTION 2: HOW IS KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED?
Empiricism
We are born knowing nothing and that everything we know must come
from our senses 2
The term ‘empiricism’ comes from the Latin word experientia, which means
experience. Empiricism can be traced back to the early Greek philosopher
Aristotle. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries , the main empiricists
were three British philosophers John Locke (1632–1704), George Berkeley
(1685–1753) and David Hume (1711–1776).
Foundationalism
Empiricism, like rationalism, is also considered to be a foundationalist
approach to knowledge. This means that empiricists have come to think of
sense experience as the key foundation of knowledge. According to the
empiricists, experience, as opposed to reason, is the primary source of
justification. At its simplest, empiricism is the view that everything that we
can call knowledge is sourced in our sense experience s. Sense experience
should therefore form the basis of any attempt to satisfy the justification
clause of the tripartite theory.
An empiricist may want to point out that much of our knowledge c laims are
inferred from other sources, eg books, teachers etc. However, our sense
experiences are immediate and so not inferred from anything else. This
means, they argue, that sense experience should be the bedrock or foundation
on which all other knowledge must be based.
A posteriori truths
If experience and not reason is the primary source of any knowledge claim
then empiricism will focus its attention on a posteriori rather than a priori
truths. A posteriori statements are known to be true (or false) as a result of
experience. For example, I know, a posteriori, that the cat is black. After my
experience of looking at the cat I can say confidently what colour it is. Unlike
a priori truths, the a posteriori truth that the cat is black is not necessarily
true. A posteriori truths are only contingently true. A contingent truth is a
truth ‘that could have been otherwise’, or a truth ‘that might not have been
true and only happens to be true’.
Contingent, a posteriori truth
2
The cat is black.
Cardinal, Hayward and Jones, p51
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
15
SECTION 2: HOW IS KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED?
Activity
Make a list of four or five a posteriori truths. Are they all contingent truths?
Make a list of four or five a priori truths. Are they all necessary truths?
Why might someone say that a posteriori truths defeat the infinite regress
argument?
Why might someone say that a priori truths defeat the infinite regress
argument?
What truths do you think are ‘superior’: necessary truths or contingent truths?
What do you think forms the better foundation for any knowledge claim, a
priori or a posteriori truths?
Innate ideas
The debate concerning the existence of innate ideas is
sometimes thought of as the key belief that distinguis hes
rationalism from empiricism (traditionally, rationalists
being the philosophers who supported the belief in innate
ideas).
Activity
Before we look closely at the belief in innate ideas take time to think a little
about your ‘mind’.
What exactly is your mind?
Is your mind a physical or non-physical thing?
Is your mind just a complicated computer?
Is your mind different from the rest of your body?
If you were born without senses would there be some facts that you could still
know?
16
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
SECTION 2: HOW IS KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED?
Rationalists have traditionally argued that any claim to know something
ultimately stems from certain innate truths of the human mind that are
unaffected by the senses. Innate truths are ideas believed to be natural to the
human mind, ideas that humans have within them from birth. In other words
we are born knowing certain things.
A common mistake people often make is to confuse innate ideas with
instincts. The instinct (sometimes called an innate disposition) that a baby
has to cry when it’s hungry is not an innate idea. Animals are also born with
instincts, eg some birds clearly have an instinct to fly south in the winter. An
innate idea is, if true, something unique to humans.
Philosophers like Plato, St Augustine and Descartes have all argued that we
are born with certain pieces of knowledge inside us. They support this view
because we seem to have knowledge of some facts that go be yond experience.
For example, they may say that we have an innate idea of morality. This
belief in innate ideas is often associated with rationalists because
traditionally they have argued that reason can reveal this knowledge that we
have been born with.
Possible candidates for innate ideas have included:
 mathematical and geometrical truths, eg Plato’s view that knowledge is
remembered
 religious truths, eg the existence of a perfect being ‘God’ (Descartes)
 moral truths, eg St Augustine believed that i deas like ‘murder is wrong’
must be innate
 language, eg the contemporary American linguist Noam Chomsky argued
that humans are born with an innate capacity to learn to communicate
through the use of words.
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
17
SECTION 2: HOW IS KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED?
Activity
Split the class into four groups. Each group should discuss one of the words
below and attempt to come up with a definition or explanation of the meaning
of the word. The group must then present their explanation to the rest of the
class.
Justice
Beauty
Good
Perfection
Is everyone in the class happy with the definitions and explanations?
What needs to be added to make the definitions better?
Is it possible to explain fully the meaning of these words?
Does the class agree with the view that we all have a similar grasp of the
meaning of these words?
Why is it that we know what these words mean but can’t agree on how best to
define them?
Some rationalists may argue that our instinctive grasp of the meaning of
concepts like beauty mean that they must somehow be innate in us. Plato
believed that concepts like beauty and justice are not things that can ever be
perceived by the senses. He pointed out that we encounter beautiful things but
we can’t ever see beauty in itself. Yet, we all know what beauty is.
Another example of innate ideas often cited concerns mathematics. In a
similar way to concepts like beauty and justice Plato argued that we can come
across a pair of things but never the number ‘two’ itself. The claim that
mathematical truths were somehow innate and could therefore pro vide us with
certainty became the ideal model of all knowledge for the French rationalist
René Descartes.
An argument against innate ideas (John Locke)
An empiricist will argue simply that my knowledge of
anything comes only after I experience it. For example,
I know what chocolate is because I have seen it, smelt
it, touched it and, most importantly, tasted it. After my
experience of chocolate, my knowledge of chocolate
gets into my mind. An empiricist will argue that all
knowledge comes after experience. This means that
empiricists reject any belief in innate ideas. They argue
18
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
SECTION 2: HOW IS KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED?
that our minds contain no knowledge at all when we are born and that
everything we know comes after experience.
John Locke (1632–1704) is often portrayed as the founder of mo dern
empiricism. When discussing human knowledge he explained that our senses
first produce mental representations of the world which are then interpreted
by our brain. He believed strongly that when babies are born there is no
knowledge innate in their minds. Our minds at birth should be considered
completely empty of any concepts and beliefs. Locke said that we should
think of a newborn baby’s mind as being like a blank piece of paper. The
mind at birth is a tabula rasa or blank slate. As our lives develop the mind is
stimulated by sensations and experiences which, therefore, form the basis of
our knowledge claims.
Locke argued in his book An Essay Concerning Human Understanding that
there are no such things as innate ideas. His arguments against innate ideas
include the following:
A child knows not that three and four are equal to seven, till he comes to
be able to count to seven, and has got the name and idea of equality…But
neither does he readily assent because it is an innate truth…the truth
appears to him, as soon as he has settled in his mind the clear and distinct
ideas that these names stand for. And then he knows the truth of that
proposition [3 + 4 = 7] upon the same grounds, and by the same means,
that he knew before that a rod and a cherry ar e not the same thing (Book
1, ch. 2, sec. 16)
But alas, amongst children, idiots, savages and the grossly illiterate what
general maxims are to be found? What universal principles of knowledge?
Their notions are few and narrow, borrowed only from those ob jects they
have had most to do with, and which have made upon their senses the
frequentest and strongest impressions. (Book 1, ch. 2, sec. 27)
Instances of enormities practised without remorse. But I cannot see how
any men should ever transgress those moral rules, with confidence and
serenity, were they innate, and stamped upon their minds. View but an
army at the sacking of a town, and see what observation or sense of moral
principles, or what touch of conscience for all the outrages they do. (Book
1, ch. 3, sec. 9)
If we attentively consider new born children we shall have little reason to
think that they bring many ideas into the world with them. For besides
some faint ideas of hunger and thirst and warmth, and some pains which
they may have felt in the womb, there is not the least appearance of any
settled ideas in them. (Book 1, ch. 4, sec. 2)
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
19
SECTION 2: HOW IS KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED?
Activity
Organise the class into groups of four.
Each member of the group should read carefully one of Locke’s arguments
against innate ideas. They should then try to produce a simple diagram that
will help them explain the argument to the others in the group.
One member of the group will then attempt to explain the argument to the
class.
An argument for innate ideas (Gottfried Leibniz)
Leibniz presented a famous argument for the existence
of innate ideas. He was responding to Locke’s argument
that children show no knowledge of innate concepts.
Leibniz was attempting to make the point that innate
ideas require work to uncover them. It should be no
surprise then that there is little evidence of universal
principles demonstrated by children.
Leibniz believed that humans are born with knowledge of mathematical
truisms. He argued that at a particular moment in time we can see two sticks
and then know that 1 + 1 = 2. However, he argued that without an innate idea
of these mathematical concepts we could only know this at that particular
moment. He believed that we are aware of the mathematical truism that 1 + 1
= 2 without the need of empirical evidence: ‘The senses, then, only bring to
our attention the innate mathematical truism that we are born with ’ 3. Our
minds are naturally ready to understand these truths.
Leibniz used an analogy of the mind being like a veined block of marble. A
piece of marble has veins that indicate shapes that a skilful sculptor can draw
out. 4 Without these ‘veins’ it would be impossible to draw out any clear
shape. Leibniz explained that a block of marble may be veined in such a way
as to have a sculpture of Hercules ready to be shape d from it. Where the
block of marble has the potential to be carved into a particular shape, the
mind has a ‘special affinity’ for grasping necessary truths. Leibniz was
arguing that ideas and truths are therefore innate in us as a natural
potentiality. If our minds did not have the potential to understand
mathematics, for example, then all the sense experience in the world could
3
4
G. W. Leibniz, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2009.
G. W. Leibniz, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2009.
20
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
SECTION 2: HOW IS KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED?
not bring us to the truth that 1 + 1 always equals 2. Leibniz believed that the
senses can explain the source of contingent tru ths. However, they can’t
explain the origin of necessary truths. These necessary truths can only be
explained if there are ideas that are innate in us from birth.
Activity
Do you think it is possible for a blind person to ‘know’ what colour is? Is it
possible for a deaf person to ‘know’ what music is?
Do you think that humans have a ‘natural potentiality’ for colour?
Do you think that humans have a ‘natural potentiality’ for music?
Activity
Draw a diagram that illustrates the different views that e xist about innate
ideas.
You should focus your attention on Leibniz’s metaphor of the veined block of
marble and Locke’s view that at birth the mind is tabula rasa.
Try to use pictures and symbols to help you explain your diagram to others in
the class.
Coherentism
The justification of a belief consists of the way it fits or coheres with the
rest of the beliefs that one holds 5
Coherentism is in many ways a response to and rejection of the
foundationalist approach to epistemology. Coherentism has be en attributed to
the writing of Spinoza (1632–1677), Kant (1724–1804) and Hegel (1770–
1831). More recently, coherentism has been developed into a clearly defined
view by writers like F.H. Bradley (1846–1924) and the American philosopher
Brand Blanshard (1892–1987).
5
Cardinal, Hayward and Jones, p73
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
21
SECTION 2: HOW IS KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED?
Non-foundationalism
Foundationalism is the belief that our knowledge claims depend on some
basic support or foundation. Coherentists reject this idea. They would argue
that this search for certain foundational truths is impossible. Knowledge in
the real world is not actually dependent on some absolute self -evident fact.
Rather than try to find a certain foundational truth, coherentists accept that
the search for a complete justification is impossible. The search for absolute
certainty is an impossible task. However, the coherentist argues that this
apparent need for certainty (a full justification) is not actually necessary. The
proper response to the infinite regress argument is to look for a set of beliefs
that cohere with the rest of your firmly held beliefs.
A coherent set of beliefs is a set of ideas that do not contradict or conflict
with each other. If our knowledge claim doesn’t fit well with our other
knowledge claims then we can say that it is not knowledge at all. If, however,
it does fit well then it is reasonable to conclude that it is knowledge. This
means that coherentists are not looking for certain knowledge. Rather, they
say we should be satisfied with highly probable knowledge claims.
Where foundationalists look for a set of certain beliefs that are built upon a
certain foundation, coherentists look for a web of interlocking beliefs.
Coherentists expect this coherent web will need to be adjusted as new beliefs
are added to it. The new beliefs are only added or old ones remov ed if there is
strong evidence that the web needs adjusting.
A priori beliefs will therefore play an important part in the building of the
web. The belief that the Sun is the centre of the solar system didn’t appear to
cohere with many other knowledge claims that existed in the fifteenth
century. However, as more knowledge was acquired, particularly the
mathematical a priori understanding of how the solar system worked, this
radical view could be accepted as other beliefs were rejected.
A posteriori beliefs also play an important part in the building of the web .
Brand Blanshard argues strongly that a coherent set of beliefs should be
grounded primarily in empirical data. The c oherentist, according to
Blanshard, is trying to form a systematic ordering of our experience.
22
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
SECTION 2: HOW IS KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED?
Activity
Imagine you are a 6-year-old child.
What coherent body of knowledge would lead you to say that you know Santa
Clause exists?
What body of knowledge would lead you to revise your knowledge claim as
you experience different things as you grow older?
Activity
Which beliefs do you hold that you’d say are at the centre of your coherent
web of beliefs, ie which beliefs do you hold are most certain and unlikely
ever to be removed?
Which beliefs do you hold that you’d say are at the edges of your coherent
web of beliefs, ie which beliefs do you hold are least certain and therefore
most likely at some point to be removed?
Summary: How is knowledge acquired?
 Rationalists attempt to overcome the problem of the justification c lause by
suggesting that the foundation of all certain knowledge claims lie s in
human reason.
– Rationalists often focus their attention on a priori truths, truths that are
necessarily true and discovered just by thinking.
– Traditionally, rationalists believe in innate ideas (eg Leibniz’s
metaphor of the mind being like a veined block of marble) .
 Empiricists attempt to overcome the problem of the justification clause by
suggesting that the foundation of all certain knowledge claims lie s in sense
experience.
– Empiricists have focused their attention on a posteriori truths, truths
that are contingent.
– Empiricists reject the idea of innate ideas (eg Locke’s metaphor of the
mind being tabula rasa and his arguments against innate ideas).
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
23
SECTION 2: HOW IS KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED?
 Coherentists attempt to overcome the problem of the justification clause
by presenting a non-foundationalist approach to knowledge claims.
– Knowledge only needs to be ‘highly probable’.
– A statement can be called knowledge if it can fit within a coherent body
of accepted beliefs.
– A priori and a posteriori knowledge claims are thought to play an
important part in any claim to have a coherent set of beliefs .
– All current knowledge claims could potentially be revised if new
information comes to light.
24
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
SECTION 3: CAN KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS BE JUSTIFIED?
Section 3: Can knowledge claims be justified?
You know that the infinite regress argument suggests that it is impossible to
ever justify fully any knowledge claim. If this argument succeeds then the
justification clause of the tripartite theory of knowledge can never be
satisfied. We then looked at some famous responses to this sceptical
argument: rationalism, empiricism and coherentism.
But are these approaches successful?
Problems with foundationalist responses (rationalism and
empiricism)
The foundational approaches tried to find self-evident truths that make the
demand for further justification unnecessary. If someone asked you ‘How do
you know that a bachelor is an unmarried male ?’ or ‘How do you know that 2
+ 2 = 4?’ you would probably ignore the question or at best thin k of it as
being silly. These a priori truths are necessarily true so the need for further
justification isn’t required. In the same way if someone asked you ‘How do
you know the cat is black?’ you would probably also want to ignore the
question as your senses clearly can confirm the truth of this self -evident
proposition.
Problems with rationalism
Problem 1: How can we know that there are innate ideas?
The belief that humans are born with certain innate ideas in their minds has
been a traditional mark of rationalism, but how can you really know with
certainty that there are innate ideas? Does Leibniz’s argument prove beyond
doubt that innate ideas exist? Locke’s presentation of his famous arguments
against innate ideas at least suggests that it is difficult to say with certainty
that innate ideas exist. You may be willing to say that Leibniz’s argument is
persuasive and that you believe in innate ideas, but can you really ever say
that you know with certainty that they exist?
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
25
SECTION 3: CAN KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS BE JUSTIFIED?
Problem 2: A priori truths tell us nothing important
Rationalists have traditionally also focused their attention on a priori rather
than a posteriori truths. The certainty provided by a priori truths is clearly
very appealing. However, a simple response to this approach is to point out
that they may provide certainty but when you take a moment to think about it,
they don’t provide you with much else. The a priori truth that a cat is indeed
a feline creature is hardly ground-breaking knowledge. ‘Nothing is bigger
than itself’ is also clearly true a priori, but it is really a useless and trivial
piece of knowledge. Does this or any other a priori statement really help us
to find answers to the great philosophical questions that have occupied the
minds of humans for thousands of years?
Many philosophers would wish to point out that a posteriori truths, although
less certain, are clearly much more useful in the real world.
Problem 3: A priori truths can only ever give us indirect knowledge about
the world
Even mathematical a priori concepts aren’t safe from problems.
Activity
2+2=5
Take a moment to discuss this with others in your class. Try to work out why
it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the simple sum above is true!!
If there are no innate ideas of mathematical concepts then maths is simply a
human invention, full of symbols that are invented to represent what we see
going on in the universe. Mathematics, therefore, can be anything we want it
to be. We have agreed at some point in history that the symbol ‘5’ represents
I I I I I or * * * * *. If we had decided that the symbol ‘5’ represents I I I I or
* * * * then it would actually be true to say that 2 + 2 = 5. So it could be
argued that mathematical a priori truths only ever give us indirect or
symbolic knowledge of the world.
26
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
SECTION 3: CAN KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS BE JUSTIFIED?
Activity
Some philosophers argue that maybe Descartes and Leibniz were right when
they proposed that mathematical concepts are innate.
Use the web to investigate modern views that argue that our understanding of
mathematics is innate.
Even if Descartes and Leibniz were wrong about innate ideas it could easily
be pointed out that maths still works. Maths has provided an essential
foundation of much scientific certainty. The symbols also, very usefully,
allow us to work out the power required to keep planes in the sky and
buildings from falling down.
Is it really fair to say that a priori truths tell us nothing important about the
world?
Do you agree with the claim that a priori truths are ultimately trivial?
Problems with empiricism
If empiricists are right then everything in your mind ultimately comes from
moments of sense experience. Although this sounds like a sensible, justified
belief, philosophers have presented many problems with this idea.
Problem 1: The difference between appearance and reality
Most of the time, people take a commonsense realist view that things are , in
reality, what their appearance suggests them to be. This view assumes that
because we have mental pictures of books, chairs, desks, stairs and tables,
then there necessarily exists a physical world where these objects exist apart
from our own mental pictures of them. The commonsense realist view also
assumes that the physical world continues to exist when we stop directly
perceiving the world through our senses, for example when we are asleep or
unconscious. It also assumes that this world is knowable to us through our
five senses – sight, touch, hearing, taste and smell.
But the distinction between the way things are in reality and the way things
appear to be is one of the first things philosophers will want to insist upon.
Consequently, we have to ask: is the commonsense realist view of the world
reliable? Can we trust the evidence of our five senses? Is there a difference
between appearance and reality?
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
27
SECTION 3: CAN KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS BE JUSTIFIED?
The key problem for empiricists to consider, then, is:
How can we know for certain that the mental representations produced by
our senses and interpreted by our brain, do in fact correspond to reality?
Problem 2: Are some ideas innate?
There are many beliefs that dominate human thought, beliefs like justice,
beauty, goodness etc. If empiricism is right then it is difficult to explain
where these concepts come from. Rationalists often argue that without innate
ideas there can be no real explanation for where these strongly held beliefs
come from. As mentioned earlier, Plato pointed out that we can never
perceive ‘beauty’. So, if empiricism is right, we have a problem of trying to
explain where this idea came from. The same could be said for our strongly
held convictions about morality. If empiricism is right then does this mean
that there can be no knowledge of morality? We can’t perceive ‘goodness’ so
if empiricism is right then maybe we can’t ever say that we know that an
action is good. Many people are uncomfortable with these conclusions.
Problem 3: The trap of solipsism
If empiricism is right then all my knowledge claims are based on sense
experience. However, if we take this to its natural ending then what we’re
actually saying is all my knowledge claims are based on my sense experience.
Knowledge claims become essentially subjective. I know what my senses tell
me and I know how my mind interprets that sense data, but I cannot know
what you are experiencing. The idea that all we can really be cert ain of is the
content of our own mind is called solipsism. Empiricism is an attempt to
overcome sceptical arguments like the infinite regress argument. However, it
could be argued that if we adopt empiricism then we are actually going to end
up with the frustrating and radically sceptical conclusion that we can’t know
anything beyond our own subjective experiences.
Activity
In groups, list examples of occasions where our senses don’t give us an
accurate picture of reality, eg hallucinations etc.
Do these examples mean that we can’t ever trust our senses?
28
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
SECTION 3: CAN KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS BE JUSTIFIED?
Activity
Humans can see in colour whereas dogs can only see in black and white.
Find out about some examples of visual perception limitations that humans
may have, ie what can humans not see?
Activity
2500 years ago Plato presented a famous allegory called the cave. In it he
suggested that there is a difference between appearance and reality.
Investigate Plato’s allegory of the cave.
Do you agree with him that humans live in a world of ‘shadows ’?
Activity
Do you agree with the view that sense experience alone cannot lead us out of
the trap of solipsism?
Can sense experience confirm that innate ideas don’t exist?
Do you think that your understanding of beauty is innate?
Problems with coherentism
One of the advantages of a non-foundational approach to knowledge is that
the difficult search for ‘certainty’ is replaced with a search for ‘highly
probable’ knowledge. This makes knowledge a more realistic goal and
something that is a bit more workable in the real world.
Problem 1: Some beliefs do appear ‘foundational’
Coherentism suggests that knowledge claims need only be ‘highly probable’.
This means that we should, in theory, be open to the idea of revising any of
our knowledge claims if new evidence arises. However, many people suggest
that the rationalist claim that the certainty of a priori truths like mathematics
is beyond doubt. If this is the case then the need to potentially revise all
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
29
SECTION 3: CAN KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS BE JUSTIFIED?
beliefs seems unnecessary. Whether or not mathematical concepts are only
‘symbols’ of reality, they are nevertheless certain and necessarily true. The
empiricists may also want to argue that some a posteriori truths are also
beyond dispute. For example, I can know with certainty that my hand hurts
when I put it into a fire. It could easily be argued that I simply don’t need any
other beliefs to confirm these foundational knowledge claims.
Problem 2: How can I know that my current set of coherent knowledge
claims are actually true?
If knowledge can only ever be ‘highly probable’ then is it really knowledge at
all? A few hundred years ago people had a coherent knowledge claim that the
Earth was the centre of the solar system. The knowledge claim was revised
and today your science teacher will tell you that we know that the Sun is the
centre of the solar system. But, if we need to be open to the claim that
knowledge may need to be revised at some point then can we ever really say
that we know that the Sun is the centre of the solar system? After all, you
only really know this because people have told you it at various points in
your life.
Task
Do you agree with the view that ‘highly probable’ beliefs can be called
knowledge?
Do you think the advantages of coherentism outweigh the problems?
So, who is right? The sceptics, who argue that ‘knowledge’ of anything is
impossible? The rationalists, who base their knowledge claims on innate
ideas and a priori truths? The empiricists, who base their knowledge claims
on self-evident a posteriori truths? The coherentists, who base their
knowledge claims on sets of highly probable coherent beliefs? Or, maybe a
mixture of some or all of these approaches is the best way ahead?
Summary: Can knowledge claims be justified?
 Some philosophers suggest that there are some problems with the
rationalist’s approach to finding a foundation of knowledge .
– Can we know that there are such things as innate ideas?
30
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
SECTION 3: CAN KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS BE JUSTIFIED?
– A priori truths may well be certain, but do they tell us anything
important?
– A priori truths can only give us indirect knowledge.
 Some philosophers suggest that there are some problems with the
empiricist’s approach to finding a foundation of knowledge .
– Is there a difference between how things appear in our senses and how
they are in reality?
– Is there some evidence for the existence of innate ideas?
– If empiricism is the foundation of knowledge then do we fall into the
trap of solipsism?
 Some philosophers suggest that there are some problems with the
coherentist’s approach to knowledge.
– It is hard to deny the foundational quality of some beliefs, eg a priori
truths.
– If I cannot know with certainty that my current set of coherent beliefs
are true then can I really say that I have knowledge?
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
31
COURSE SUMMARY (SELF EVALUATION)
Course summary (self-evaluation)
Unit title: Introduction to Epistemology
Student self-assessment summary
Number of marks available in exam:
1.
Topic: What is knowledge?
10 marks
a.
Propositional knowledge claims
b.
The tripartite theory of knowledge:
Justified, true, belief.
The criteria are taken to be individually necessary and
jointly sufficient.
c.
Problems with the tripartite theory:
The Gettier problem (a problem with the theory itself) .
Scepticism (a problem with any attempt to satisfy the
justification clause).
Dates
Self-assess,emt
I initially found this topic: very hard, hard, OK, easy, very
easy
Areas I found most difficult were:
2.
32
‘I can confidently answer exam questions on this topic .’
Date:
Topic: How is knowledge acquired?
Dates
a.
Rationalism: some useful knowledge can be acquired
through reason alone.
b.
Empiricism: all useful knowledge is gained through the
senses.
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
COURSE SUMMARY (SELF EVALUATION)
c.
Innate ideas: arguments for and against:
Leibniz’s claim that ideas are innate as potentialities and
his metaphor of the veiled block of marble.
Locke’s metaphor of the mind as a blank sheet of paper
and his arguments against innate ideas.
Self-assessment
I initially found this topic: very hard, hard, OK, easy, very
easy
Areas I found most difficult were:
3.
‘I can confidently answer exam questions on this topic.’
Date:
Topic: Can knowledge claims be justified?
Dates
a.
The infinite regress argument:
Foundationalist responses (a priori and a posteriori
truths).
Non-foundationalist response (coherentism).
b.
Empiricism (foundationalist sources of justification):
Marks of empiricism.
Problems with empiricism.
c.
Rationalism (foundationalist sources of justification):
Marks of rationalism.
Problems with rationalism.
Self-assessment
I initially found this topic: very hard, hard, OK, easy, very
easy
Areas I found most difficult were:
‘I can confidently answer exam questions on this topic .’
Date:
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
33
GLOSSARY
Glossary
Key term
Definition
(Try to add at least one other piece of
information about the term in the space
below each. This may be a further
comment that defines the term in more
detail, or it may be an example that helps
explain it, or ideally both.)
A posteriori
A knowledge claim that is knowable or
justified from experience.
A priori
A knowledge claim that is knowable or
justified independently of experience.
Coherentist
theory of
justification
The view that justification depends on
how a particular set of beliefs relate to
one another rather than on whether a
chain of reasoning rests on
foundational beliefs.
Contingent
A reference to something that could
have been otherwise.
Empirical
knowledge
Knowledge that is gained through
sense experience.
Empiricism
An approach to philosophy which
claims that knowledge is based on
sense experience, that knowledge is not
innate and that knowledge cannot be
discovered by reason alone.
Epistemology
The study of knowledge, its nature and
how it is acquired.
Foundationalism
A position in epistemology which
claims that there are some selfjustifying beliefs that ultimately
provide the justification for all other
true beliefs.
34
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
Tick box
( When fully
confident that you
know, understand
and can use this
term)
GLOSSARY
Gettier
problem
A problem in epistemology first clearly
set out by Edmund Gettier. The Gettier
problem challenges the claim that the
criteria in the tripartite theory of
knowledge are jointly sufficient.
Innate idea
An idea that is inborn and not the
product of experience.
Necessary
A reference to something that could
not have been otherwise.
Rationalism
An approach to philosophy which
claims that some knowledge of the
external world can be established by
correct reasoning and without the use
of sense experience.
Scepticism
The view that knowledge is impossible
to attain because it is not possible for
any knowledge claim to be properly
justified.
Tabula
rasa/blank
slate
A reference to Locke’s claim that there
are no innate ideas and his metaphor of
the mind as a blank sheet of paper.
The infinite
regress of
justification
The problem that knowledge claims
can never be justified as any attempt at
supplying a justification merely makes
another claim that in turn also needs to
be justified.
Tripartite
theory of
knowledge
The theory that knowledge consists of
justified, true beliefs and that these
criteria are individually necessary and
jointly sufficient for knowledge.
Veined block
of marble
Leibniz’s argument that ideas are
innate as potentialities.
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010
35
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bibliography
Cardinal, D, Hayward, J. and Jones G, Epistemology, the theory of
knowledge: Philosophy in focus, Hodder Murray, 2004.
Lacewing, M. and Pascal, J, Revise Philosophy for AS Level, Routledge,
2007.
Popkin, R and Stroll, A, Philosophy, 3rd edition, Made Simple Books, 1993.
Warburton, N, Philosophy: the basics, 4th edition, Routledge, 2004.
Warburton, N, Philosophy: the classics, Routledge, 1998.
36
INTRODUCTION TO EPISTEMOLOGY (H, PHILOSOPHY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2010