"Theory of knowledge" redirects here: for other uses, see theory of knowledge (disambiguation)

According to Plato, knowledge is a subset of that which is both true and believed. A related article is titled Uncertainty. For statistical certainty see Probability. Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing is a philosophical position that argues that Existence is without objective meaning Purpose Agnosticism ( Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the Uncertainty is a term used in subtly different ways in a number of fields including Philosophy, Statistics, Economics, Finance, Insurance Probability is the likelihood or chance that something is the case or will happen An approximation (represented by the symbol ≈ is an inexact representation of something that is still close enough to be useful Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a Proposition or Premise to be true A related article is titled Uncertainty. For statistical certainty see Probability. Determinism is the philosophical Proposition that every event including human cognition and behaviour decision and action is causally determined Biography Early life Birth and family Plato was born in Athens Greece

Epistemology (from Greek επιστήμη - episteme, "knowledge" + λόγος, "logos") or theory of knowledge is a branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. Greek (el ελληνική γλώσσα or simply el ελληνικά — "Hellenic" is an Indo-European language, spoken today by 15-22 million people mainly grc-Latn Logos (ˈloʊːgɒs ( Greek, logos) is an important term in Philosophy, Analytical psychology, Rhetoric and Religion Philosophy is the study of general problems concerning matters such as existence knowledge truth beauty justice validity mind and language Knowledge is defined ( Oxford English Dictionary) variously as (i expertise and skills acquired by a person through experience or education the theoretical or practical understanding ^[1] The term was introduced into English by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808-1864). James Frederick Ferrier ( June 16, 1808 – June 11, 1864) Scottish metaphysical Writer, was born in ^[2]

Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. Philosophical analysis is a general term for techniques typically used by philosophers in the analytic tradition that involve "breaking down" (i The meaning of the word truth extends from Honesty, Good faith, and Sincerity in general to agreement with Fact or Reality Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a Proposition or Premise to be true Theory of justification is a part of Epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of Propositions and Beliefs Epistemologists are concerned It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. In other words, epistemology primarily addresses the following questions: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "What do people know?"

Knowledge

The primary question that epistemology addresses is "What is knowledge?" This question is several millennia old.

Distinguishing knowing that from knowing how

In this article, and in epistemology in general, the kind of knowledge usually discussed is propositional knowledge, also known as "knowledge-that" as opposed to "knowledge-how. Descriptive knowledge, also declarative knowledge or propositional knowledge, is the species of Knowledge that is by its very nature expressed in " For example: in mathematics, it is known that 2 + 2 = 4, but there is also knowing how to add two numbers. Many (but not all) philosophers thus think there is an important distinction between "knowing that" and "knowing how", with epistemology primarily interested in the former. This distinction is recognised linguistically in many languages, though not in modern English except as dialect (see verbs "ken" and "wit" in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary). ^[3] In Personal Knowledge, Michael Polanyi articulates a case for the epistemological relevance of both forms of knowledge; using the example of the act of balance involved in riding a bicycle, he suggests that the theoretical knowledge of the physics involved in maintaining a state of balance cannot substitute for the practical knowledge of how to ride, and that it is important to understand how both are established and grounded. Michael Polanyi (born Polányi Mihály) ( March 11, 1891, Budapest – February 22, 1976) was a Hungarian – The bicycle, cycle, or bike is a pedal-driven, human-powered vehicle with two wheels attached to a frame, one behind Physics (Greek Physis - φύσις in everyday terms is the Science of Matter and its motion. It is worth pointing out that in recent times, some epistemologists (see Sosa, Greco, Kvanvig, Zagzebski) have argued that we should not think of knowledge this way; Epistemology should evaluate people's properties (i. e. ,intellectual virtues) instead of propositions' properties. This is, in short, because higher forms of cognitive success (i. e. , understanding) involve non 'veritic' features which can't be evaluated from a justified true belief view of knowledge.

Belief

Main article: Belief

Often, statements of "belief" mean that the speaker predicts something that will prove to be useful or successful in some sense — perhaps the speaker might "believe in" his or her favorite football team. Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a Proposition or Premise to be true This is not the kind of belief usually addressed within epistemology. The kind that is dealt with is when "to believe something" simply means any cognitive content held as true. For example, to believe that the sky is blue is to think that the proposition, "The sky is blue," is true.

Knowledge implies belief. The statement "I know P, but I don't believe that P is true" is contradictory. To know P is, among other things, to believe that P is true, or to believe in P. (See the article on Moore's paradox. G E Moore remarked once in a lecture on the absurdity involved in saying something like "It's raining outside but I don't believe that it is ) Knowing That and Knowing How are just two aspects of knowledge proper.

Truth

Main article: Truth

See also: Criteria of truth

If someone believes something, he or she thinks that it is true but may be mistaken. The meaning of the word truth extends from Honesty, Good faith, and Sincerity in general to agreement with Fact or Reality In Epistemology, criteria of truth (or tests of truth) are standards and rules used to judge the accuracy of statements and claims This is not the case with knowledge. For example, a man thinks that a particular bridge is safe enough to support him, and he attempts to cross it; unfortunately, the bridge collapses under his weight. It could be said that the man believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. By contrast, if the bridge actually supported his weight then he would be justified in subsequently holding that he knew the bridge had been safe enough for his passage, at least at that particular time. For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true.

The Aristotelian definition of truth states:

"To say of something which is that it is not, or to say of something which is not that it is, is false. However, to say of something which is that it is, or of something which is not that it is not, is true. "

Justification

Plato

Main article: Theaetetus (dialogue)

In Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, Socrates considers a number of theories as to what knowledge is, the last being that knowledge is true belief that has been "given an account of" — meaning explained or defined in some way. The Theætetus ( Greek: Θεαίτητος is one of Plato 's dialogues concerning the nature of knowledge. Biography Early life Birth and family Plato was born in Athens Greece The Theætetus ( Greek: Θεαίτητος is one of Plato 's dialogues concerning the nature of knowledge. SOCRATES is the European Community action programme in the field of Education. According to the theory that knowledge is justified true belief, in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but one must also have a good reason for doing so. One implication of this would be that no one would gain knowledge just by believing something that happened to be true. For example, an ill person with no medical training, but a generally optimistic attitude, might believe that he/she will recover from his/her illness quickly. Nevertheless, even if this belief turned out to be true, the patient would not have known that he/she would get well since his/her belief lacked justification. The definition of knowledge as justified true belief was widely accepted until the 1960s. At this time, a paper written by the American philosopher Edmund Gettier provoked widespread discussion. Edmund L Gettier III (born 1927 in Baltimore, Maryland) is an American Philosopher and Professor Emeritus at the University See theories of justification for other views on the idea. Theory of justification is a part of Epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of Propositions and Beliefs Epistemologists are concerned

The Gettier problem

Main article: Gettier problem

In 1963 Edmund Gettier called into question the theory of knowledge that had been dominant among philosophers for thousands of years^[4]. The Gettier problem is considered a problem in modern Epistemology issuing from counter-examples to the definition of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB Edmund L Gettier III (born 1927 in Baltimore, Maryland) is an American Philosopher and Professor Emeritus at the University In a few pages, Gettier argued that there are situations in which one's belief may be justified and true, yet fail to count as knowledge. That is, Gettier contended that while justified belief in a proposition is necessary for that proposition to be known, it is not sufficient. As in the diagram above, a true proposition can be believed by an individual but still not fall within the "knowledge" category (purple region).

According to Gettier, there are certain circumstances in which one does not have knowledge, even when all of the above conditions are met. Gettier proposed two thought experiments, which have come to be known as "Gettier cases", as counterexamples to the classical account of knowledge. A thought experiment (from the German Gedankenexperiment) is a proposal for an Experiment that would test a Hypothesis or Theory In Logic, and especially in its applications to Mathematics and Philosophy, a counterexample is an exception to a proposed general rule i One of the cases involves two men, Smith and Jones, who are awaiting the results of their applications for the same job. Each man has ten coins in his pocket. Smith has excellent reasons to believe that Jones will get the job and, furthermore, knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket (he recently counted them). From this Smith infers, "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. " However, Smith is unaware that he has ten coins in his own pocket. Furthermore, Smith, not Jones, is going to get the job. While Smith has strong evidence to believe that Jones will get the job, he is wrong. Smith has a justified true belief that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job; however, according to Gettier, Smith does not know that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job, because Smith's belief is ". . . true by virtue of the number of coins in Smith's pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his belief. . . on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he falsely believes to be the man who will get the job. "(see ^[4] p. 122. ) These cases fail to be knowledge because the subject's belief is justified, but only happens to be true in virtue of luck.

Responses to Gettier

The responses to Gettier have been varied. Usually, they have involved substantive attempts to provide a definition of knowledge different from the classical one, either by recasting knowledge as justified true belief with some additional fourth condition, or as something else altogether.

Infallibilism, indefeasibility

In one response to Gettier, the American philosopher Richard Kirkham has argued that the only definition of knowledge that could ever be immune to all counterexamples is the infallibilist one. Richard Ladd Kirkham, American Philosopher, was born 18 June 1955. Infallibilism most commonly refers to a view in Epistemology (a branch of Philosophy dealing primarily with the nature and conditions of knowledge which states To qualify as an item of knowledge, so the theory goes, a belief must not only be true and justified, the justification of the belief must necessitate its truth. In other words, the justification for the belief must be infallible. (See Fallibilism, below, for more information. )

Yet another possible candidate for the fourth condition of knowledge is indefeasibility. Defeasibility theory maintains that there should be no overriding or defeating truths for the reasons that justify one's belief. For example, suppose that person S believes they saw Tom Grabit steal a book from the library and uses this to justify the claim that Tom Grabit stole a book from the library. A possible defeater or overriding proposition for such a claim could be a true proposition like, "Tom Grabit's identical twin Sam is currently in the same town as Tom. " So long as no defeaters of one's justification exist, a subject would be epistemically justified.

The Indian philosopher B K Matilal has drawn on the Navya-Nyaya fallibilism tradition to respond to the Gettier problem. Bimal Krishna Matilal (1935-1991 was an Indian Philosopher whose influential writings present the Indian philosophical tradition as being concerned with The Navya-Nyāya or Neo-Logical darśana (view system or school of Indian Philosophy was founded in the 13th century CE Nyaya theory distinguishes between know p and know that one knows p - these are different events, with different causal conditions. The second level is a sort of implicit inference that usually follows immediately the episode of knowing p (knowledge simpliciter). The Gettier case is analyzed by referring to a view of Gangesha (13th c. Gangesha Upadhyaya (or Gangeśa Upādhyāya) was a 13th century Indian Mathematician and Philosopher from the kingdom of ), who takes any true belief to be knowledge; thus a true belief acquired through a wrong route may just be regarded as knowledge simpliciter on this view. The question of justification arises only at the second level, when one considers the knowledgehood of the acquired belief. Initially, there is lack of uncertainty, so it becomes a true belief. But at the very next moment, when the hearer is about to embark upon the venture of knowing whether he knows p, doubts may arise. "If, in some Gettier-like cases, I am wrong in my inference about the knowledgehood of the given occurrent belief (for the evidence may be pseudo-evidence), then I am mistaken about the truth of my belief -- and this is in accord with Nyaya fallibilism: not all knowledge-claims can be sustained. " ^[5]

Reliabilism

Main article: Reliabilism

Reliabilism is a theory advanced by philosophers such as Alvin Goldman according to which a belief is justified (or otherwise supported in such a way as to count towards knowledge) only if it is produced by processes that typically yield a sufficiently high ratio of true to false beliefs. Reliabilism a category of theories in the philosophical discipline of Epistemology, has been advanced both as a theory of Knowledge and of justified Alvin Ira Goldman (born 1938 is an American professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University in New Jersey. In other words, this theory states that a true belief counts as knowledge only if it is produced by a reliable belief-forming process.

Reliabilism has been challenged by Gettier cases. Another argument that challenges reliabilism, like the Gettier cases (although it was not presented in the same short article as the Gettier cases), is the case of Henry and the barn façades. In the thought experiment, a man, Henry, is driving along and sees a number of buildings that resemble barns. Based on his perception of one of these, he concludes that he has just seen barns. While he has seen one, and the perception he based his belief on was of a real barn, all the other barn-like buildings he saw were façades. A barn is an agricultural building used for storage and as a covered workplace Theoretically, Henry doesn't know that he has seen a barn, despite both his belief that he has seen one being true and his belief being formed on the basis of a reliable process (i. e. his vision), since he only acquired his true belief by accident.

Other responses

The American philosopher Robert Nozick has offered the following definition of knowledge:

S knows that P if and only if:

• P;
• S believes that P;
• if P were false, S would not believe that P;
• if P is true, S will believe that P. Robert Nozick ( November 16, 1938  &ndash January 23, 2002) was an American Philosopher and Pellegrino University ^[6]

Nozick believed that the third subjunctive condition served to address cases of the sort described by Gettier. Nozick further claims this condition addresses a case of the sort described by D. M. Armstrong^[7]: A father believes his son innocent of committing a particular crime, both because of faith in his son and (now) because he has seen presented in the courtroom a conclusive demonstration of his son's innocence. David Malet Armstrong (born July 8, 1926) often D M Armstrong, is an Australian Philosopher. His belief via the method of the courtroom satisfies the four subjunctive conditions, but his faith-based belief does not. If his son were guilty, he would still believe him innocent, on the basis of faith in his son; this would violate the third subjunctive condition.

The British philosopher Simon Blackburn has criticized this formulation by suggesting that we do not want to accept as knowledge beliefs which, while they "track the truth" (as Nozick's account requires), are not held for appropriate reasons. Simon Blackburn (born 1944 is a British academic Philosopher known for his efforts to popularise Philosophy. He says that "we do not want to award the title of knowing something to someone who is only meeting the conditions through a defect, flaw, or failure, compared with someone else who is not meeting the conditions. "

Timothy Williamson, has advanced a theory of knowledge according to which knowledge is not justified true belief plus some extra condition(s). Timothy Williamson (born Uppsala, Sweden, 6 August 1955) is a distinguished British Philosopher whose main research interests are In his book Knowledge and its Limits, Williamson argues that the concept of knowledge cannot be analyzed into a set of other concepts—instead, it is sui generis. Author and theorist Timothy Williamson writes in his book Knowledge and its Limits, the concept of knowledge cannot be analyzed into a set of other concepts instead Sui generis (English pronunciation ( IPA) /ˌsuːiˈdʒɛnərɪs/ roughly "SOO-ee JEN-a-ris" Latin pronunciation /ˌsuːiˈgeneris/ is a Neo-Latin Thus, though knowledge requires justification, truth, and belief, the word "knowledge" can't be, according to Williamson's theory, accurately regarded as simply shorthand for "justified true belief".

Externalism and internalism

Main article: Internalism and externalism

Part of the debate over the nature of knowledge is a debate between epistemological externalists on the one hand, and epistemological internalists on the other. Internalism and externalism are now part of the standard jargon of philosophical discourse and are central to important debates Externalists think that factors deemed "external", meaning outside of the psychological states of those who gain knowledge, can be conditions of knowledge. For example, an externalist response to the Gettier problem is to say that, in order for a justified, true belief to count as knowledge, it must be caused, in the right sort of way, by relevant facts. Such causation, to the extent that it is "outside" the mind, would count as an external, knowledge-yielding condition. Internalists, contrariwise, claim that all knowledge-yielding conditions are within the psychological states of those who gain knowledge.

René Descartes, prominent philosopher and supporter of internalism wrote that, since the only method by which we perceive the external world is through our senses, and that, since the senses are not infallible, we should not consider our concept of knowledge to be infallible. The only way to find anything that could be described as "infallibly true," he advocates, would be to pretend that an omnipotent, deceitful being is tampering with one's perception of the universe, and that the logical thing to do is to question anything that involves the senses. "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) is commonly associated with Descartes' theory, because he postulated that the only thing that he could not logically bring himself to doubt is his own existence: "I do not exist" is a contradiction in terms; the act of saying that one does not exist assumes that someone must be making the statement in the first place. Though Descartes could doubt his senses, his body and the world around him, he could not deny his own existence, because he was able to doubt and must exist in order to do so. Even if some "evil genius" were to be deceiving him, he would have to exist in order to be deceived. However from this Descartes did not go as far as to define what he was. This was pointed out by the materialist philosopher Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655) who accused Descartes of saying that he was "not this and not that," while never saying what exactly was existing. One could argue that this is not an edifying question, because it doesn't matter what exactly exists, it only matters that it does indeed exist.

Acquiring knowledge

The second question that will be dealt with is the question of how knowledge is acquired. This area of epistemology covers what is called "the regress problem", issues concerning epistemic distinctions such as that between experience and apriority as means of creating knowledge. "A priori" redirects here For other uses see A priori. Further that between synthesis and analysis used as a means of proof, and debates such as the one between empiricists and rationalists.

The regress problem

Main article: Regress argument

Suppose we make a point of asking for a justification for every belief. The regress argument (also known as the diallelus) is a problem in Epistemology and in general a problem in any situation where a statement has to be justified Any given justification will itself depend on another belief for its justification, so one can also reasonably ask for this to be justified, and so forth. This appears to lead to an infinite regress, with each belief justified by some further belief. The apparent impossibility of completing an infinite chain of reasoning is thought by some to support skepticism. In ordinary usage skepticism or scepticism ( Greek 'σκέπτομαι' skeptomai, to look about to consider see also spelling differences The skeptic will argue that since no one can complete such a chain, ultimately no beliefs are justified and, therefore, no one knows anything. "The only thing I know for sure is that I do not know for sure. "

Response to the regress problem

Many epistemologists studying justification have attempted to argue for various types of chains of reasoning that can escape the regress problem.

Infinitism

Some philosophers, notably Peter Klein in his "Human Knowledge and the Infinite Regress of Reasons", have argued that it's not impossible for an infinite justificatory series to exist. Peter Klein may refer to Peter Klein (born 1959 West German sprinter Peter Klein (tenor (born 1907 * Peter D This position is known as "infinitism". Infinitism is the view that knowledge may be justified by an infinite chain of reasons Infinitists typically take the infinite series to be merely potential, in the sense that an individual may have indefinitely many reasons available to him, without having consciously thought through all of these reasons. The individual need only have the ability to bring forth the relevant reasons when the need arises. This position is motivated in part by the desire to avoid what is seen as the arbitrariness and circularity of its chief competitors, foundationalism and coherentism.

Foundationalism

Foundationalists respond to the regress problem by claiming that some beliefs that support other beliefs do not themselves require justification by other beliefs. Foundationalism is any theory in Epistemology (typically theories of justification, but also of Knowledge) that holds that beliefs are justified (known Sometimes, these beliefs, labeled "foundational", are characterized as beliefs that one is directly aware of the truth of, or as beliefs that are self-justifying, or as beliefs that are infallible. According to one particularly permissive form of foundationalism, a belief may count as foundational, in the sense that it may be presumed true until defeating evidence appears, as long as the belief seems to its believer to be true. Others have argued that a belief is justified if it is based on perception or certain a priori considerations.

Criticism of Foundationalism

The chief criticism of foundationalism is that it allegedly leads to the arbitrary or unjustified acceptance of certain beliefs.

Coherentism

Another response to the regress problem is coherentism, which is the rejection of the assumption that the regress proceeds according to a pattern of linear justification. There are two distinct types of coherentism. One refers to the Coherence theory of truth. To avoid the charge of circularity, coherentists hold that an individual belief is justified circularly by the way it fits together (coheres) with the rest of the belief system of which it is a part. There are two distinct types of coherentism. One refers to the Coherence theory of truth. This theory has the advantage of avoiding the infinite regress without claiming special, possibly arbitrary status for some particular class of beliefs. Yet, since a system can be coherent while also being wrong, coherentists face the difficulty in ensuring that the whole system corresponds to reality. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i

Foundherentism

There is also a position known as "foundherentism". In Epistemology, foundherentism is a theory of justification that combines elements from the two rival theories addressing Infinite regress, Foundationalism Susan Haack is the philosopher who conceived it, and it is meant to be a unification of foundationalism and coherentism. Susan Haack (born 1945 England) is an English professor of Philosophy and Law at the University of Miami in the United One component of this theory is what is called the "analogy of the crossword puzzle". Whereas, say, infinists regard the regress of reasons as "shaped" like a single line, Susan Haack has argued that it is more like a crossword puzzle, with multiple lines mutually supporting each other.

A priori and a posteriori knowledge

Main article: A priori and a posteriori (philosophy)

The nature of this distinction has been disputed by various philosophers; however, the terms may be roughly defined as follows:

• A priori knowledge is knowledge that is known independently of experience (that is, it is non-empirical). "A priori" redirects here For other uses see A priori.

• A posteriori knowledge is knowledge that is known by experience (that is, it is empirical).

Analytic/synthetic distinction

Main article: Analytic/synthetic distinction

Some propositions are such that we appear to be justified in believing them just so far as we understand their meaning. The analytic-synthetic distinction is a conceptual distinction used primarily in Philosophy to distinguish propositions into two types analytic propositions and For example, consider, "My father's brother is my uncle. " We seem to be justified in believing it to be true by virtue of our knowledge of what its terms mean. Philosophers call such propositions "analytic". Synthetic propositions, on the other hand, have distinct subjects and predicates. An example of a synthetic proposition would be, "My father's brother has black hair. " Kant held that all mathematical propositions are synthetic. Immanuel Kant (ɪmanuəl kant 22 April 1724 12 February 1804 was an 18th-century German Philosopher from the Prussian city of Königsberg

The American philosopher W. V. O. Quine, in his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", famously challenged the distinction, arguing that the two have a blurry boundary. Willard Van Orman Quine (June 25 1908 Akron, Ohio &ndash December 25 2000 (known to intimates as "Van" W V O Quine's paper " Two Dogmas of Empiricism " published in 1951, is one of the most celebrated papers of Twentieth century Philosophy

Specific theories of knowledge acquisition

Empiricism

Main article: Empiricism

In philosophy, empiricism is generally a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience, especially experience based on perceptual observations by the five senses. In Philosophy, empiricism is a theory of Knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from Experience. In Psychology and the Cognitive sciences perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory Information. Senses are the physiological methods of Perception. The senses and their operation classification and theory are overlapping topics studied by a variety of fields Certain forms treat all knowledge as empirical, while some regard disciplines such as mathematics and logic as exceptions. Mathematics is the body of Knowledge and Academic discipline that studies such concepts as Quantity, Structure, Space and Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and Inference.

Rationalism

Main article: Rationalism

Rationalists believe that knowledge is primarily (at least in some areas) acquired by a priori processes or is innate—e. In Epistemology and in its broadest sense rationalism is "any view appealing to Reason as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey 286 Innatism is a philosophical doctrine that holds that the mind is born with ideas/knowledge and that therefore the mind is not a ' Blank slate ' at birth as early empiricists g. , in the form of concepts not derived from experience. The relevant theoretical processes often go by the name "intuition". The relevant theoretical concepts may purportedly be part of the structure of the human mind (as in Kant's theory of transcendental idealism), or they may be said to exist independently of the mind (as in Plato's theory of Forms). MIND ( Moving In New Directions) (est 1975 is an alternative education high school in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Immanuel Kant (ɪmanuəl kant 22 April 1724 12 February 1804 was an 18th-century German Philosopher from the Prussian city of Königsberg Transcendental idealism is a doctrine founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century. Plato 's Theory of Forms asserts that Forms (or Ideas) and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess

The extent to which this innate human knowledge is emphasized over experience as a means to acquire knowledge varies from rationalist to rationalist. Some hold that knowledge of any kind can only be gained a priori, while others claim that some knowledge can also be gained a posteriori. Consequently, the borderline between rationalist epistemologies and others can be vague.

Constructivism

Main article: Constructivist epistemology

Constructivism is a view in philosophy according to which all knowledge is "constructed" in as much as it is contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. Constructivist epistemology is an epistemological perspective in Philosophy about the nature of scientific knowledge held by many philosophers of science Constructivism proposes new definitions for knowledge and truth that forms a new paradigm, based on inter-subjectivity instead of the classical objectivity and viability instead of truth. Knowledge is defined ( Oxford English Dictionary) variously as (i expertise and skills acquired by a person through experience or education the theoretical or practical understanding The meaning of the word truth extends from Honesty, Good faith, and Sincerity in general to agreement with Fact or Reality The word paradigm ( Greek:παράδειγμα (paradigmacomposite from para- and the verb δείχνυμι "to show" as a whole -roughly- meaning "example" Piagetian constructivism, however, believes in objectivity as constructs can be validated through experimentation. The constructivist point of view is pragmatic as Vico said: "the truth is to have made it". Giambattista Vico, Giambattista Vigo or Giovanni Battista Vico ( June 23, 1668 – January 23, 1744) was an Italian

It originated in sociology under the term "social constructionism" and has been given the name "constructivism" when referring to philosophical epistemology, though "constructionism" and "constructivism" are often used interchangeably. Constructivism has also emerged in the field of International Relations, of which the writings of Alexander Wendt are most popular. Describing the characteristic nature of International reality marked by 'anarchy' he says, "anarchy is what states make of it. "

What do people know?

The last question that will be dealt with is the question of what people know. At the heart of this area of study is skepticism, with many approaches involved trying to disprove some particular form of it. In ordinary usage skepticism or scepticism ( Greek 'σκέπτομαι' skeptomai, to look about to consider see also spelling differences

Skepticism

Main article: Philosophical skepticism

Skepticism is related to the question of whether certain knowledge is possible. For a general discussion of skepticism see Skepticism. Philosophical skepticism (from Greek σκέψις - skepsis meaning Skeptics argue that the belief in something does not necessarily justify an assertion of knowledge of it. In this skeptics oppose foundationalism, which states that there have to be some basic beliefs that are justified without reference to others. Foundationalism is any theory in Epistemology (typically theories of justification, but also of Knowledge) that holds that beliefs are justified (known The skeptical response to this can take several approaches. First, claiming that "basic beliefs" must exist, amounts to the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance combined with the slippery slope. The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance") or argument by lack of imagination, is a Logical fallacy Slippery Slope is a 2006 independent film starring Tony Award -winning actor Dan Fogler. While a foundationalist would use Münchhausen Trilemma as a justification for demanding the validity of basic beliefs, a skeptic would see no problem with admitting the result. The Münchhausen-Trilemma, also called Agrippa's Trilemma (after the eponymous Greek Skeptic) is a philosophical term coined to stress the purported impossibility

Developments from skepticism

Fallibilism

Main article: Fallibilism

For most of philosophical history, "knowledge" was taken to mean belief that was true and justified to an absolute certainty. A related article is titled Uncertainty. For statistical certainty see Probability. Early in the 20th century, however, the notion that belief had to be justified as such to count as knowledge lost favour. Fallibilism is the view that knowing something does not entail certainty regarding it.

Practical applications

Far from being purely academic, the study of epistemology is useful for a great many applications. It is particularly commonly employed in issues of law where proof of guilt or innocence may be required, or when it must be determined whether a person knew a particular fact before taking a specific action (e. g. , whether an action was premeditated).

Other common applications of epistemology include:

• Mathematics and science
• History and archaeology
• Medicine (diagnosis of disease)
• Product testing (How can we know that the product will not fail?)
• Intelligence (information) gathering
• Religion and Apologetics
• Cognitive Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Psychology
• Linguistics
• Literature
• Philosophy
• Knowledge Management
• Testimony
• Sociology
• Cultural Anthropology (Do different cultures have different systems of knowledge?)

See also

Notes

References and further reading

• The London Philosophy Study Guide offers many suggestions on what to read, depending on the student's familiarity with the subject: Epistemology & Methodology

External links and references

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles:

• Bayesian Epistemology by William Talbott.
• Epistemology by Matthias Steup.
• Evolutionary Epistemology by Michael Bradie & William Harms.
• Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science by Elizabeth Anderson.
• Naturalized Epistemology by Richard Feldman.
• Social Epistemology by Alvin Goldman.
• Virtue Epistemology by John Greco.

Other links:

• What Is Epistemology? — a brief introduction to the topic by Keith DeRose.
• Certain Doubts — a group blog run by Jonathan Kvanvig, with many leading epistemologists as contributors.
• The Epistemological Lifeboat by Birger Hjørland & Jeppe Nicolaisen (eds. )
• The Epistemology Page by Keith DeRose.
• Justified True Belief and Critical Rationalism by Mathew Toll
• Epistemology Papers a collection of Michael Huemer's.
• Epistemology Introduction, Part 1 and Part 2 by Paul Newall at the Galilean Library.
• Teaching Theory of Knowledge (1986) — Marjorie Clay (ed. ), an electronic publication from The Council for Philosophical Studies.
• Epistemology: The Philosophy of Knowledge — an introduction at Groovyweb.
• Introduction to Theory of Knowledge — from PhilosophyOnline.
• The Peripatetic A practical introduction to the theory of knowledge
• Theory of Knowledge — an introduction to epistemology, exploring the various theories of knowledge, justification, and belief.
• A Theory of Knowledge by Clóvis Juarez Kemmerich, on the Social Science Research Network, 2006.
• An Introduction to Epistemology by Paul Newall, aimed at beginners.
• David Speaks Live — A lecture on Ontological Epistemology
• Knowledge is the eye of all - Knowledge in the Upanishads
• On a Critical Epistemology
• Language Perception and Action: Philosophical Issues