Knowledge Tree
knowledge
Also known as: knowledge how
synthesized from dimensionsKnowledge is the central subject of inquiry in epistemology, the branch of philosophy dedicated to understanding the nature, origin, scope, and limits of human belief the study of knowledge. At its core, knowledge is widely accepted as "factive," meaning that one cannot know something that is false knowledge is factive. While traditionally conceptualized as "Justified True Belief" (JTB)—a framework dating back to Plato—this model has been famously challenged by the Gettier problem, which demonstrates that a belief can be both true and justified by luck, yet still fail to qualify as genuine knowledge Gettier case insufficiency.
Because of the limitations of the JTB model, contemporary epistemologists have proposed various alternative conditions to define knowledge. These include causal reliabilism, which requires that beliefs be produced by reliable cognitive processes Causal reliabilism, and virtue epistemology, which defines knowledge as a non-accidental true belief arising from an agent’s intellectual character or virtues virtue epistemology definition. Virtue theorists, such as Ernest Sosa and John Greco, often characterize knowledge as "apt belief"—a success that is not merely lucky but attributable to the agent's own cognitive ability knowledge as apt belief.
Debates regarding the sources of knowledge remain a primary divide in the field. Empiricists argue that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience and observation comes from sensory experiences, while rationalists maintain that reason and innate intellectual perception provide a path to knowledge independent of the senses reason alone provides certainty. Additionally, testimony is recognized as a fundamental, albeit complex, source of knowledge, raising questions about the conditions under which one can justifiably rely on the information provided by others source of knowledge.
Skepticism serves as a persistent challenge to these definitions, with some skeptics questioning whether human beings can possess knowledge at all skepticism challenges knowledge. Responses to skepticism include contextualism, which posits that the standards for what counts as "knowledge" vary depending on the context—shifting between high and low epistemic requirements Contextualist standard variation—and fallibilism, which acknowledges that knowledge may be possible even if absolute certainty cannot be achieved possible to have knowledge.
Beyond individual cognition, the study of knowledge has expanded into social and collective dimensions. Social epistemology investigates how knowledge is produced, distributed, and validated within groups and cultural contexts social epistemology dimension. This includes examining how power dynamics, collaborative research, and digital information systems shape our understanding of what is known how knowledge is produced. Naturalized epistemology further seeks to bridge these philosophical inquiries with scientific methods, treating the acquisition of knowledge as a process that can be studied as a branch of science studied as a branch of science.
Ultimately, knowledge is significant not only as a mental state but as a practical and social achievement. The "value problem"—the question of why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief—continues to drive research, emphasizing that knowledge represents a form of intellectual success that carries inherent value for the knower and their community why knowledge is more valuable. Whether viewed through the lens of individual virtue, reliable processes, or social transmission, knowledge remains the essential framework through which human beings navigate and interpret reality.
Model Perspectives (21)
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 100% confidence
Knowledge is a central subject of inquiry in epistemology, the branch of philosophy concerned with how it is created and disseminated [58]. While traditionally defined by the Justified True Belief (JTB) model—consisting of justification, truth, and belief [13, 18]—this framework faces challenges regarding the necessity of absolute certainty [20, 56]. Knowledge is conceptualized as a mental state residing within a person's mind, precluding unthinking entities from possessing it [3], although some epistemologists argue that external factors, such as information-processing in other minds, contribute to knowledge acquisition in children [60].
Debates persist regarding the sources and nature of knowledge. Empiricists argue that all knowledge is acquired through sensory experience [23, 41] and validated by correspondence to the world [37], while rationalists maintain that reason is the exclusive source of general and necessary truths [52]. Testimony is also considered a fundamental source of knowledge [2], illustrated by everyday acts like learning news [16] or the time of day [59] from others. Perspectives on testimony range from internalist requirements for evidence of reliability [45] to non-reductionist views that equate it with perception and memory [2].
Skepticism remains a primary challenge, particularly the Cartesian argument that massive deception cannot be ruled out [25]. The Brain-in-a-Vat (BIV) scenario illustrates how the salience of error possibilities can raise the standards required to claim knowledge [1, 28, 39]. Responses to such skepticism include contextualism, which posits that the standards for 'knowledge' vary by situation [49], and the ambiguity response, which suggests that knowledge-attributing sentences are ambiguous unless specified as fallible or infallible [9]. Furthermore, Virtue Epistemology offers a distinct perspective, arguing that knowledge is more valuable than true belief because the agent deserves credit for achieving truth through epistemic virtues [33, 30].
openrouter/x-ai/grok-4.1-fast definitive 78% confidence
Knowledge is centrally examined in epistemology, which begins with doubting its nature and possibility, questioning if beliefs can be known as true (OpenStax) (epistemological doubting method). Jaegwon Kim (Wikipedia) argues modern epistemology hinges on justification and reliability as defining knowledge's common sense meaning (justification and reliability define knowledge). Timothy Williamson proposes knowledge as the norm of assertion (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy), disputed by Jennifer Lackey who contends reliable testifiers can assert without knowing or believing (Williamson-Lackey debate on assertion). It requires more than true belief, excluding those from desires, biases, or wishful thinking even if accurate (Stanford Encyclopedia; Rebus Community) (psychological sources disqualify knowledge), and demands proper intellectual faculties (Wikipedia) (valid knowledge from correct faculties). Acquisition varies: a priori via reasoning or intuition (OpenStax; Internet Encyclopedia) (a priori square root knowledge); testimony transmits it per Robert Audi, though justification differs (Stanford Encyclopedia) (testimony transmits knowledge); empirically via conditioning (Britannica) (Skinner on conditioned knowledge); stored as dynamic schemas (arXiv) (schema theory stores knowledge). Naturalized views integrate sciences, like cognitive science revealing deviant belief chains (Stanford Encyclopedia) (naturalism relevant to knowledge judgments). Debates include its superior value to true opinion (Wikipedia) (knowledge vs mere true opinion) and intrinsic worth (intrinsic value of knowledge).
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 100% confidence
Knowledge is primarily studied within the field of epistemology, which examines its nature, scope, possibility, and limits study of knowledge. A foundational, albeit contested, definition is the tripartite account of knowledge as Justified True Belief (JTB); however, this is widely considered insufficient due to counterexamples developed by Edmund Gettier Gettier's counterexamples. Consequently, many virtue epistemologists, such as Linda Zagzebski and John Greco, define knowledge as a non-accidental true belief that arises from intellectual virtue or achievement, where the knower deserves credit for their belief virtue epistemology definition.
Debates regarding the acquisition of knowledge often center on the divide between empiricism—which prioritizes experience and experimentation empiricism definition—and rationalism, which maintains that knowledge can be accessed through reasoning independent of experience rationalist perspective. Furthermore, naturalized epistemologists like W.V.O. Quine argue that traditional philosophical analysis has failed, advocating instead for the integration of natural scientific methods into the study of knowledge naturalized epistemology.
Skepticism remains a significant challenge to these theories; global skeptics deny the existence of knowledge entirely, though critics argue this position is self-refuting global skepticism critique. Additionally, the social dimension of knowledge is increasingly recognized, with some scholars exploring how testimony acts as a mechanism for transmission testimony and knowledge and how epistemic communities influence an individual's capacity to achieve knowledge epistemic communities.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 95% confidence
In philosophy, knowledge is traditionally conceptualized as "justified true belief" justified true belief consensus, though this framework faces significant challenges, such as the Gettier problem, which leads some to seek alternatives rather than mere additions to the definition Gettier problem challenges. Epistemology, the study of knowledge, generally assumes it is "factive," requiring an underlying truth knowledge is factive.
Debates regarding the origin and nature of knowledge often divide into two main camps: rationalism, which emphasizes innate ideas and deductive reasoning rationalism innate ideas, and empiricism, which posits that knowledge derives from sensory experience empiricism sensory experience. Scholars like Hegel rejected the idea that sensory intake alone constitutes knowledge, arguing that it must be actively structured by the knowing subject Hegel on knowledge.
Modern approaches have expanded the scope of inquiry. Virtue epistemology, championed by figures like Ernest Sosa and Linda Zagzebski, moves away from purely propositional evaluation to focus on the character and cognitive faculties of the knower virtue epistemology focus, Zagzebski's virtue theory. This approach often defines knowledge as "apt belief," where success is not merely a matter of luck knowledge as apt belief, knowledge inconsistent with luck. Furthermore, social and collective epistemologies investigate how community structures, testimony, and shared beliefs influence the validation of knowledge social epistemology dimension, collective epistemology. Skepticism remains a fundamental challenge, questioning whether human beings can truly possess knowledge at all skepticism challenges knowledge.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 100% confidence
Knowledge is a central subject of epistemology, defined broadly as the study of the creation and dissemination of information, and narrowly as the investigation into the nature of justified belief Epistemology definition. While traditionally associated with justified true belief (JTB), the field has grappled with the 'Gettier problem,' which illustrates that justified true beliefs can still fail to be knowledge if their truth is a matter of luck Gettier case insufficiency. Consequently, various theories have emerged to define the conditions for knowledge.
Causal reliabilism, championed by Alvin Goldman, posits that knowledge requires beliefs to be caused by reliable processes Causal reliabilism, while virtue epistemology focuses on the intellectual character of the agent, with John Greco arguing that knowledge arises when one believes the truth out of intellectual virtue Virtue-based knowledge definition. In contrast, some non-traditional theorists suggest bypassing the justification condition entirely in favor of focusing on reliably produced true beliefs Non-traditional knowledge theories.
Debates persist regarding the standards of knowledge. Contextualists argue that knowledge ascriptions vary based on whether a context demands 'high' or 'low' epistemic standards Contextualist standard variation. Furthermore, the role of testimony is contested; while some believe it can transmit knowledge, others argue that recipients must confirm the reliability of the testifier to truly know Epistemology of testimony. Beyond individual epistemology, the field also encompasses the anthropology of knowledge, which studies social and cultural reproduction Anthropology of knowledge, and group epistemology, which examines knowledge shared by collective entities Group epistemology.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 100% confidence
Knowledge is a central subject of epistemology, traditionally defined as justified true belief (JTB) defined as justified true belief. This framework requires that a belief be true and supported by appropriate justification to be considered knowledge key components of knowledge. However, this traditional account has been challenged by counterexamples developed by Edmund Gettier counterexamples to the traditional account, leading to ongoing debates regarding the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge seeking individually necessary conditions.
Key philosophical perspectives on the nature and source of knowledge include:
* Empiricism vs. Rationalism: Empiricists, such as those discussed by the Rebus Community, argue that knowledge is derived from sensory experience and observation theory that all knowledge is derived. Conversely, rationalists contend that knowledge is grounded in reason grounded upon reason or experience.
* Naturalism: Moderate naturalistic epistemology seeks to bridge the gap between conceptual analysis and empirical methods, aiming to anchor knowledge in the natural world anchored in the natural world. W.V.O. Quine famously proposed treating knowledge as a branch of science studied as a branch of science.
* Virtue Epistemology: This field focuses on intellectual traits, such as humility or open-mindedness, and their role in acquiring knowledge character traits helping individuals form. It seeks to address foundational questions by examining the relationship between epistemic virtue and knowledge relations among epistemic virtue.
* Social Epistemology: This subfield addresses how knowledge is transmitted between individuals, such as through testimony focus on the transmission of truth, and how groups or collective bodies acquire it groups or collective bodies acquire.
Additionally, debates persist over whether absolute certainty is required for knowledge certainty is a necessary component or if fallibilism—the view that knowledge is possible even if a belief could have been false—is correct possible to have knowledge. The 'value problem,' dating back to Plato, continues to ask why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief why knowledge is more valuable.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 100% confidence
Knowledge is a central subject of epistemology, a field that explores what knowledge is, its sources, and how it differs from wisdom or opinion epistemology field definition. Traditionally, knowledge is understood as a belief that is both true and justified traditional knowledge requirements, with justification serving to ensure that a correct belief is not merely the result of luck traditional justification role. Philosophers generally treat 'knowledge' as factive, meaning one cannot know something that is false factive nature of knowledge.
Modern perspectives on knowledge have diverged into several frameworks:
* Virtue Epistemology: Scholars like John Greco and Ernest Sosa define knowledge as an intellectual achievement—success derived from an agent's ability knowledge as achievement. This approach addresses the 'value problem,' which asks why knowledge is inherently more valuable than mere true belief value problem explanation, by emphasizing the internal agency and reliable cognitive character of the knower internal agency focus.
* Reliabilism and Contextualism: Reliabilism posits that knowledge must be the product of a reliable method reliable method requirement. Contextualists argue that standards for knowledge vary; in 'low-standard' contexts, one may ignore skeptical possibilities like being a Brain in a Vat, whereas 'high-standard' contexts make the ascription of knowledge more difficult context-dependent standards.
* Skepticism: Skeptics challenge the possibility of knowledge, often using two-step arguments that start with an unknown premise to invalidate knowledge of other propositions skeptical two-step argument. While some radical skeptics argue knowledge does not exist at all radical skepticism definition, many contemporary epistemologists prefer to define knowledge while assuming the skeptic is incorrect skepticism vs definition.
Other notable views include the 'ability' response to the knowledge argument, which distinguishes propositional knowledge from 'knowledge how' knowledge how distinction, and social epistemology, which views knowledge within its social and historical context social epistemology context.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 95% confidence
Knowledge is a multifaceted concept in philosophy and cognitive science, analyzed through diverse lenses including epistemology, pragmatism, and technology. Traditional epistemology, as characterized by Jonathan Kvanvig, often adopts an 'individualistic' and 'synchronic' approach, focusing on the conditions under which an individual knows a proposition at a specific time individualistic and synchronic conception. The Standard View holds that justification is a necessary component for knowledge justification is a necessary component, though some thinkers, such as those advocating for 'understanding'—a 'knowledge+' state involving the grasping of causes or differences understanding as knowledge plus—argue that understanding is more valuable than mere justified true belief understanding is more valuable.
Debates persist regarding the sources and nature of knowledge. Empiricists, following John Locke, generally emphasize experience, though Locke acknowledged some non-experiential knowledge as 'trifling' Locke and non-experiential knowledge. In contrast, rationalists argue that knowledge derived from reasoning is eternal knowledge accessed through reasoning. Pragmatic approaches, such as those proposed by Mozi, validate beliefs through historical records, sensory evidence, and practical outcomes Mozi's pragmatic approach, an idea echoed in modern pragmatic epistemology which views knowledge as a fallible, self-correcting process knowledge as a process.
Social and testimonial dimensions are also critical. The 'Transmission View' suggests that testimonial knowledge requires the speaker to possess the knowledge themselves Transmission View necessity condition, though some scholars argue that testifiers can support knowledge in hearers even without conscious phenomenology testifier supporting knowledge. Furthermore, in the realm of modern technology, tools like Q-KGR are utilized to improve the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models by filtering irrelevant data Q-KGR improves reasoning.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 100% confidence
Knowledge is a central subject of study within epistemology, a branch of philosophy named by James Frederick Ferrier in 1856 to distinguish it from ontology study of knowledge. Philosophers have historically struggled to define the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge. While it is commonly held that a belief must be both true and justified to constitute knowledge belief must be, this 'justified true belief' (JTB) model is famously challenged by the Gettier problem, which demonstrates that JTB is insufficient Gettier problem demonstrates. Researchers like Rescher (2003) argue that knowledge requires 'appropriate' justification appropriately justified, and various theorists have proposed additional criteria, such as the 'no-false-belief' condition no-false-belief condition or the requirement of intellectual virtue virtue epistemology.
Disputes over knowledge often stem from fundamental disagreements regarding source and scope. Empiricists assert that all knowledge originates from sensory experience all knowledge comes, whereas rationalists maintain that some knowledge can be acquired a priori, independent of the senses acquired a priori. Virtue-based approaches, such as virtue reliabilism, focus on an agent's reality-tracking ability reality-tracking ability, often classifying these accounts as forms of epistemological externalism because they do not require factors to be accessible from an internal perspective epistemological externalism.
Modern discussions also address the social and linguistic dimensions of knowledge. Contextualists apply 'semantic ascent' to suggest that the term 'know' possesses different standards in different contexts distinguishing high-standards, while others explore how testimony functions as a source of knowledge testimony is a, noting that knowledge in group settings, such as large team science, may be distributed rather than held by a single individual group as a.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 100% confidence
Epistemology, as a field, investigates the nature and limits of knowledge, seeking to define the conditions—both necessary and sufficient—required for a true belief to qualify as knowledge investigating necessary and sufficient conditions. A central debate in this field concerns the origins of knowledge, pitting rationalism against empiricism. Rationalists argue that knowledge is innate and accessed through immediate intellectual perception and abstract-logical thought rationalism and immediate intellectual perception, whereas empiricists maintain that knowledge is grounded in sensory experience and observation empiricism and sensory experience. Logical positivists, such as A. J. Ayer, further restricted the scope of knowledge to empirical or analytic claims, rejecting metaphysical knowledge logical positivism and empirical/analytic knowledge.
Historically, Socrates introduced the foundational definition of knowledge in Plato's *Meno* as "true belief plus an account of the reason why" Socrates' definition of knowledge. Modern inquiries continue to refine this, with many philosophers emphasizing the requirement of epistemic justification to avoid cases where true belief is merely the result of luck, such as the famous "stopped clock" example justified true belief and luck. Virtue epistemology offers an alternative, suggesting that knowledge is a true belief that manifests intellectual virtue virtue epistemology definition, though some argue that knowledge can be acquired through automatic processes without the need for virtuous character traits knowledge through automatic cognitive faculties.
Beyond traditional inquiry, knowledge is also studied as a social and practical phenomenon. This includes the exploration of testimony as a source of knowledge epistemologists investigate sources of justification, the role of collaborative research in knowledge production joint achievement in knowledge production, and the impact of digital data on how knowledge is structured and understood impact of big data.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 95% confidence
Knowledge is a central concept in epistemology—the branch of philosophy dedicated to studying the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge 41—derived from the Greek words *episteme* (knowledge) and *logos* (study) 59. While mainstream epistemologists agree that knowledge is factive (implying truth) 30 and requires belief 60, there is no consensus on the correct modification of the traditional "justified true belief" (JTB) analysis 6, 44.
Philosophical debates regarding knowledge often center on:
* Justification and Skepticism: The problem of justification is highlighted by Agrippa’s trilemma 3 and the risk of relying on false justifications 58. Skeptics challenge the possibility of knowledge by proposing hypotheses that cannot be proven false 2, leading some to adopt fallibilism—the acknowledgment that doubt can never be fully excluded 19.
* Sources of Knowledge: Rationalism emphasizes reasoning 9, 33, whereas empiricism prioritizes sensory experience and experimentation 16. Testimony is also a significant, albeit debated, source; some externalists argue it is valid only if the source is reliable 20, while others explore whether knowledge can be transmitted from a testifier who lacks knowledge themselves 23, 46.
* Virtue Epistemology: Some theorists define knowledge as true belief manifesting intellectual virtue 54. However, this is contested; for instance, Jennifer Lackey argues that the "credit thesis" is false, suggesting virtue epistemology may not adequately explain the value of knowledge 13.
Beyond traditional philosophy, knowledge is viewed through social, scientific, and organizational lenses. Social epistemology examines how knowledge manifests in groups 18, 42, while naturalistic approaches seek integration with scientific understandings 5.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 100% confidence
Knowledge is a central subject of study in epistemology, which evaluates the extent, limits, and principles of what humans can know [fact:d5168ea0-3a85-43df-9423-071f5972e90b, de721555-7ab1-46bc-a9f2-9f90e8bdf07d]. Traditionally, knowledge is analyzed as a justified true belief (JTB) [fact:d4efdfea-138e-4ebb-856a-a63be7c37152, d5d13fe1-3c0f-413f-b5cb-9d5307037faf]. In this framework, 'truth' acts as a modifier to exclude false statements [fact:e00ca431-93b5-4e08-974a-5db664ce5c66], while justification—or forming a belief in the 'right way'—is required to make the belief rational [fact:d1fa3092-20eb-4249-96e0-d2b33322212d, e870c193-5363-4bbb-b2e5-0cf04121bb14].
This traditional model has been challenged by 'Gettier cases,' which describe scenarios where a belief is justified and true but fails to count as knowledge due to elements of luck [fact:d15eb4ad-fab6-4e58-8c27-543716ae1058, e55972c7-565f-4e19-8128-bcd585089f13]. In response, various theories have emerged:
* Virtue Epistemology: Linda Zagzebski proposes that knowledge arises from 'acts of intellectual virtue' [fact:cf07fe78-e912-46e7-9f18-954d343ca4c9]. Some theorists, such as John Greco and John Turri, argue for a 'credit thesis,' asserting that an agent knows a proposition only if they deserve credit for believing the truth [fact:e2f256d3-0b59-4fca-9296-12bfddebe016]. However, this thesis faces criticism, as some argue that evolutionary mechanisms or natural selection may be more salient explanations for a belief's truth than the agent’s own efforts [fact:e0a788cb-f14d-4740-8db8-dcde25dfd6eb].
* Reliabilism: This view holds that reliably produced true belief is sufficient for knowledge, often bypassing traditional justification [fact:e2e41cde-f1f4-43bf-a6fc-680d5a5356c8]. Notably, John Turri has argued that the necessity of reliability is often assumed without serious argumentative support [fact:e84fd088-075c-43e0-b28e-562c8683afbf].
* Alternative Perspectives: Other frameworks include rationalism, which prioritizes reason as the source of knowledge [fact:e543671c-e3d2-4fac-9b9a-c45beca3ed57], and social approaches, such as Richard Rorty’s proposal to replace 'accuracy of representation' with 'social justification of belief' [fact:d3b9ed56-1648-4da7-be88-d8c532adcd6b].
Epistemologists often employ the method of reflection on possible cases, using intuition to test analyses of knowledge [fact:e3352600-b541-4600-a519-9f2f4fcbda75]. Furthermore, contemporary debates consider whether knowledge requirements vary based on the subject's needs or stakes, as suggested by John Hawthorne and Jason Stanley [fact:d7e36cd9-27e6-41a9-a039-0a76cbabbf7b].
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 100% confidence
Knowledge is a central focus of epistemology, a field of study dedicated to understanding the nature, types, and justification of beliefs the study of knowledge. Traditionally, knowledge has been defined as 'Justified True Belief' (JTB) the Standard View, which posits that for a belief to constitute knowledge, it must be true a necessary condition and justified. However, this definition was famously challenged by Edmund Gettier in 1963 challenged the traditional definition, leading many philosophers to propose alternative requirements to account for counterexamples alternative definitions of knowledge.
Debates regarding knowledge often center on the sources of belief, such as sensory experience—a cornerstone of empiricism comes from sensory experiences—or reason, which René Descartes argued could provide certainty independently reason alone provides certainty. Additionally, testimony remains a critical source, though it presents puzzles regarding how individuals acquire knowledge from others source of knowledge. Contemporary perspectives also incorporate social, feminist, and AI-driven dimensions, examining how power dynamics, gender, and technological systems influence the production and distribution of knowledge how knowledge is produced.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 95% confidence
Knowledge is a central subject of epistemological inquiry, defined by various philosophical perspectives regarding its nature, acquisition, and validity. At its core, epistemology investigates the criteria for knowledge meta-epistemology studies criteria and distinguishes it from mere true opinion investigating value of knowledge. While traditional methods often rely on a priori reasoning to address skeptical challenges a priorists evaluate arguments, other approaches like Cooperative Naturalism suggest that empirical data from natural sciences are relevant to understanding how humans acquire knowledge in practice Cooperative Naturalism defined.
The requirements for knowledge are contested. Some scholars, such as Jaegwon Kim, argue that modern epistemology is fundamentally tied to normative concepts of justification and reliability modern epistemology defined, whereas others like Jonathan Kvanvig suggest that true belief alone may be sufficient true belief suggested sufficient. Furthermore, the role of the agent is debated; while virtue responsibilists emphasize the character of the inquirer, some argue that knowledge can be acquired passively virtue responsibilism difficulty. Externalist perspectives posit that factors outside the individual, such as the reliability of a source or mechanism, are critical to determining knowledge externalism defined.
Knowledge is also examined in social and practical contexts. Testimony is a major source of belief, though its status as knowledge is debated epistemology of testimonially-based belief, with scholars like Robert Audi distinguishing between the transmission of knowledge and the generation of justification testimony transmits knowledge. Additionally, knowledge is viewed as a dynamic, structured representation in humans Schema Theory and a necessary component for decision-making in business intelligence knowledge leads to decisions.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 95% confidence
Knowledge is a multifaceted concept that has been subject to diverse interpretations across history, philosophy, and cognitive science. At its core, epistemology—the study of knowledge—seeks to define its nature, value, and sources Edelheim (2014), Epistemology examines the relationship.
### Historical and Philosophical Perspectives
Philosophical inquiries have long debated the criteria for knowledge. Neoplatonists, for instance, argued that knowledge is infallible and confined to immaterial forms, distinguishing it from mere true belief Neoplatonism distinguished knowledge. This tension between true belief and knowledge is famously illustrated in Plato's Meno. Other historical figures like the Indian philosopher Kanada and Mencius categorized knowledge through perception, inference, and analogical reasoning. In contrast, modern thinkers like W.V.O. Quine focused on foundationalism and the scientific basis of knowledge, sometimes accepting circularity as a pragmatic necessity Quine argues for circularity.
### Virtue and Reliability
Virtue epistemology represents a significant shift, attempting to ground knowledge in character or cognitive faculties. Linda Zagzebski and John Greco emphasize that knowledge arises from intellectual virtues or reliable dispositions. This approach contrasts with traditional debates Traditional epistemologists debate regarding whether knowledge requires conclusive reasons or causal connectedness.
### Contemporary Challenges
Modern discourse addresses the acquisition and transmission of knowledge through testimony and technology. While Goldberg argues that testimony can generate knowledge via reliability clues, others like Graham suggest that communication conveys information rather than knowledge itself. Furthermore, cognitive science challenges traditional views by exploring how neural and social levels interact to produce cognition Cognitive science explores levels. In professional contexts, knowledge is often defined pragmatically as information synthesized with organizational wisdom to drive strategy Knowledge is defined as.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview definitive 95% confidence
Knowledge is a central subject of study in epistemology, which evaluates the nature, extent, and limits of what can be known epistemology evaluates knowledge claims. Traditionally, knowledge has been defined as justified true belief traditional analysis of knowledge, though this framework faces significant challenges. The 'Gettier problem'—identified by thought experiments showing that justified true beliefs can arise through luck—has prompted alternative accounts, such as Virtue Epistemology, which argues that knowledge requires a belief to be true because of an agent's intellectual virtues virtue epistemology solves Gettier, Gettier case construction.
Debates persist regarding the necessary conditions for knowledge. While many assume reliability is required, some scholars like John Turri argue that this has been asserted without strong proof no serious argument for reliability. Furthermore, empirical research suggests that ordinary concepts of knowledge may not treat reliability as a necessary condition ordinary concept of knowledge. Other approaches, such as interest-sensitive theories proposed by John Hawthorne and Jason Stanley, suggest that the level of certainty required for knowledge shifts based on the subject's stakes interest-sensitive approaches to knowledge.
Sources of knowledge are also varied and debated. These include perception, which involves the five senses perception defined by senses, and testimony, which Michael Dummett describes as the transmission of knowledge between individuals rather than a source of knowledge itself testimony as transmission. Rationalism posits that reason is the primary source rationalism as knowledge source, while philosophical skepticism challenges the human ability to attain knowledge entirely philosophical skepticism questions ability.
openrouter/google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview 95% confidence
The concept of knowledge is multifaceted, spanning philosophical inquiry, cognitive modeling, and normative evaluation. Philosophically, knowledge is often examined through the Justified True Belief (JTB) framework, where truth refers to epistemic or factive accuracy epistemic truth refers. Debates persist regarding its definition; for instance, scholars such as Axtell, Carter, McDowell, and Roberts argue that terms like 'knowledge' and 'justification' cannot be defined using purely non-normative language epistemological terms are normative. Furthermore, the value of knowledge is distinguished from mere true opinion, with the former held as always valuable knowledge is always valuable.
Epistemological perspectives on knowledge vary significantly. Historical epistemology investigates how our understanding of the term shifts over time understanding changes over time, while strict context sensitivity suggests the meaning of 'know' fluctuates based on the salience of potential errors meaning is context sensitive. Skeptical challenges are often met with the argument that the premises of such skepticism are less certain than the knowledge they deny rational to reject skepticism. Additionally, empirical research suggests that non-philosophers often attribute knowledge in scenarios that philosophers might debate, such as 'fake-barn' cases non-philosophers attribute knowledge.
Beyond traditional philosophy, modern computational approaches use knowledge as a metric for intelligence, where compression efficiency correlates with performance in reasoning tasks compression efficiency correlates. Techniques such as linking reasoning steps to graph structures are employed to improve the interpretability of how AI models navigate this knowledge graph structures improve interpretability.
openrouter/x-ai/grok-4.1-fast 75% confidence
Knowledge is a core concept in epistemology, often characterized in relation to justified true belief (JTB), where 'what is true' pertains to epistemic or factive knowledge according to the JTB account JTB epistemic truth. Philosophers debate its sources, including testimony, where a hearer's belief is grounded in trust that the speaker possesses knowledge, as stated by Fricker (2006b) on testimony; perception, requiring experiential foundationalists to embrace externalism or brute necessity to avoid circularity perception foundationalism dilemma; inference, which qualifies as knowledge if logical laws are not violated inferential belief logic; and memory, needing non-memorial epistemic support for justification memory belief support. Plato argued in the Meno that knowledge of abstract concepts is recollected from prior soul existence Plato's recollection theory, while its value is deemed always present unlike transient true opinion knowledge's inherent value. Key disputes involve normativity, with Axtell & Carter (2008), McDowell (1994), and others claiming terms like 'knowledge' resist non-normative definition epistemic terms normativity; context-sensitivity, where 'know' shifts by error salience strict context sensitivity; and virtue epistemology, as John Turri argues knowledge lacks need for situationist-challenged dispositions Turri on dispositions. Experimental philosophy shows non-philosophers attribute knowledge in fake-barn cases fake-barn knowledge attribution, countering some intuitions. Skeptical arguments fail as knowledge certainty exceeds premise doubt skepticism premise rejection. Relatedly, epistemology studies meta-epistemology on knowledge-about-knowledge meta-epistemology study, and historical epistemology tracks concept evolution historical epistemology overview.
openrouter/x-ai/grok-4.1-fast definitive 85% confidence
Knowledge is primarily explored in epistemology as distinct from true belief, with Neoplatonism arguing it is infallible and tied to immaterial forms (Wikipedia) Neoplatonism on infallible knowledge. Plato's Meno thought experiment, per Cooper (1997) via MIT Press, questions if true belief suffices for reliability without knowledge Plato's Meno on reliability. Socrates emphasized dialogic methods to define terms, viewing virtues as obtainable only through knowledge (The Collector) Socrates on virtues via knowledge. Ancient sources include Kanada's perception and inference (BYJU'S) Kanada's knowledge sources and Plato's soul recollection (The Collector) Plato's recollection theory. Modern theories feature virtue epistemology's contextual virtues (Wikipedia) virtue epistemology on relativism, Quine's reconstruction of scientific beliefs (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Quine on epistemology question, and debates on testimony transmission (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) testimony and knowledge research. Knowledge types include propositional, procedural, and acquaintance (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) kinds of knowledge distinguished, with ongoing disputes like innate versus acquired (Britannica) innate vs acquired debate. Critics like Hilary Kornblith question weakened standards (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Kornblith on knowledge standards.
openrouter/x-ai/grok-4.1-fast definitive 88% confidence
Epistemology, as the study of knowledge epistemology studies knowledge (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy), traditionally analyzes knowledge as justified true belief (JTB) traditional JTB analysis (Wikipedia), requiring true belief formed correctly or justified true belief formation (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and truth tied to objective reality knowledge requires truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Matthias Steup, Ram Neta). This view faces challenges from Gettier cases, constructed with justified true beliefs undermined by luck Gettier case construction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), prompting alternatives like virtue epistemology, where knowledge stems from intellectual virtues Zagzebski virtue belief (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Linda Zagzebski) and solves Gettier problems virtue solves Gettier (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Reliabilism counters by deeming reliably produced true beliefs as knowledge without traditional justification reliabilism sufficient (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Matthias Steup, Ram Neta), while the credit thesis in virtue epistemology requires agents deserve credit for true beliefs credit thesis definition (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; John Greco, John Turri). Knowledge is a species of belief, absent without belief knowledge as belief (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and contrasted with ignorance knowledge vs ignorance (Wikipedia); fallibilism allows it despite uncertainty fallibilism on certainty (Wikipedia), though Richard Rorty rejected representational accuracy for social justification Rorty social justification (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Empirical studies suggest ordinary concepts omit reliability ordinary concept reliability (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
openrouter/x-ai/grok-4.1-fast definitive 92% confidence
Knowledge is a central concept in epistemology, traditionally characterized by conditions such as justification, truth, belief, and absence of defeaters, with Vedala's classical definition diagram illustrating this view as per the Cambodian Education Forum. The Standard View, per Reddit discussions, requires justification as necessary for knowledge Standard View justification. Many epistemologists, according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, endorse a 'no-defeaters' condition as characterizing knowledge no-defeaters condition. Virtue epistemology, as detailed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP; John Greco, John Turri), solves the value problem by linking knowledge to intellectual virtues virtue epistemology solution, with virtues conceptualized as traits facilitating knowledge acquisition (MIT Press) virtues for epistemic goods. Sources of knowledge vary: empiricists like John Stuart Mill (Wikipedia) defend inductive reasoning for general truths Mill's empiricism, while rationalists claim reasoning yields eternal knowledge (Rebus Community) rationalist eternal knowledge; testimony involves the Transmission View necessity condition from SEP transmission necessity (TV-N), motivated by memory analogies transmission motivation. Understanding is often 'knowledge+' involving causes or difference-makers (MIT Press) understanding as knowledge+. Knowledge holds instrumental value for goal achievement (Wikipedia) instrumental value, with Jonathan Kvanvig (SEP; Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) critiquing individualistic traditional epistemology Kvanvig on traditional epistemology and prioritizing understanding over knowledge. Relativists reject fact-existence for knowledge (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) relativism on facts, and factive knowledge requires existent facts factive knowledge requires facts. In AI, Q-KGR (Zhang et al., 2024c; arXiv) filters irrelevant knowledge for LLM reasoning Q-KGR improves reasoning. Philosophers assess knowledge via coherence and inference principles (SEP) principles for assessment.
Facts (661)
Sources
Epistemology - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org 91 facts
referencePeter D. Klein authored the entry 'Knowledge, Concept of' for the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, published by Routledge in 1998.
claimJohn Stuart Mill defended a wide-sweeping form of empiricism and explained knowledge of general truths through the use of inductive reasoning.
claimMozi (470–391 BCE) proposed a pragmatic approach to knowledge using historical records, sensory evidence, and practical outcomes to validate beliefs.
claimRené Descartes' foundationalist epistemology attempts to find a secure foundation for all knowledge.
claimKnowledge has instrumental value when it helps a person achieve their goals, such as a doctor using medical knowledge to cure a patient.
claimPersonal epistemology refers to the beliefs students hold about knowledge, which influence their intellectual development and learning success.
claimSkeptics in Hellenistic philosophy questioned the possibility of knowledge and recommended the suspension of judgment to attain a state of tranquility.
claimGlobal skepticism is the broadest form of skepticism, asserting that knowledge does not exist in any domain.
claimAl-Ghazali (c. 1056–1111) criticized many core teachings of previous Islamic philosophers, arguing that they relied on unproven assumptions that did not amount to knowledge.
perspectiveCritics argue that global skepticism is self-refuting because the act of denying the existence of knowledge constitutes a knowledge claim itself.
claimEdmund Gettier developed counterexamples challenging the traditional philosophical definition of knowledge as justified true belief, which led philosophers to propose alternative definitions.
claimEpistemologists study the concepts of belief, truth, and justification to understand the nature of knowledge.
claimDavid Hume argued that knowledge of facts is never certain, while knowledge of relations between ideas, such as mathematical truths, can be certain but provides no information about the world.
claimGeorg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel rejected empiricism by arguing that sensory impressions alone cannot constitute knowledge because all knowledge is actively structured by the knowing subject.
claimEpistemologists typically understand knowledge as a cognitive mental state of individuals that helps them understand, interpret, and interact with the world.
claimEducation focuses on the transmission of knowledge and the roles of the learner and teacher, whereas epistemology focuses on the nature of knowledge itself.
claimSocial epistemology focuses on the social dimension of knowledge.
claimThe Upanishads, composed in ancient India between 700 and 300 BCE, examined how people acquire knowledge through introspection, comparison, and deduction.
claimReliabilism, developed by philosophers such as Alvin Goldman, asserts that knowledge requires reliable sources and shifts the focus of epistemology away from justification.
claimEpistemologists of ignorance focus on epistemic faults and gaps in knowledge.
claimLinda Zagzebski authored the chapter 'What Is Knowledge?' in 'The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology', published by Blackwell in 1999.
claimEpistemologists investigate whether knowledge is more valuable than a mere true opinion, given that both can accurately represent reality and provide similar usefulness, such as guiding a person to a destination like Larissa.
claimSome philosophers argue that knowledge possesses intrinsic value in addition to its instrumental value.
claimThe epistemology of groups examines knowledge as a characteristic of a group of people who share ideas.
claimThe school of Nyaya, emerging around 200 CE, asserted that knowledge is possible.
claimImmanuel Kant sought a middle ground between rationalism and empiricism by identifying knowledge pertaining to principles that underlie and structure all experience, such as spatial and temporal relations and fundamental categories of understanding.
claimRené Descartes (1596–1650) aimed to find absolutely certain knowledge by encountering truths that cannot be doubted, inspired by skepticism.
claimEpistemologists of metaphysics investigate whether knowledge of the basic structure of reality is possible and identify the potential sources of such knowledge.
claimExternalism asserts that at least some factors relevant to knowledge are external to the individual.
claimNaturalized epistemology relies on the methods and theories of natural sciences to examine knowledge, arguing that epistemological theories should be based on empirical observation rather than a priori reasoning.
claimThe anthropology of knowledge examines how knowledge is acquired, stored, retrieved, and communicated, while studying the social and cultural circumstances that affect how knowledge is reproduced and changes.
claimNeoplatonism, emerging in the 3rd century CE, distinguished knowledge from true belief by arguing that knowledge is infallible and limited to the realm of immaterial forms.
claimAfrican epistemology defines knowledge as a holistic phenomenon that includes sensory, emotional, intuitive, and rational aspects, extending beyond the limits of the physical domain.
claimEpistemologists often identify justification as a key component of knowledge.
claimPlato proposed that knowledge is more valuable than a mere true opinion because knowledge is more stable.
claimEpistemologists disagree on the requirements for knowledge, specifically whether fallible beliefs can constitute knowledge or if absolute certainty is a necessary condition.
claimCharles Peirce argued that all knowledge is fallible and that knowledge seekers should remain open to revising their beliefs in light of new evidence, using this to argue against Cartesian foundationalism.
claimEpistemic virtues are character traits, such as open-mindedness and conscientiousness, that help individuals form true beliefs and acquire knowledge.
claimThe sociology of knowledge examines the sociohistorical contexts in which knowledge emerges and its effects on people, such as the relationship between socioeconomic conditions and dominant ideology.
claimEpistemic logic uses formal logical devices to study epistemological concepts such as knowledge and belief.
referenceNico Stehr and Marian T. Adolf authored 'The Price of Knowledge' in 2016, published in the journal 'Social Epistemology'.
claimMencius (c. 372–289 BCE) explored analogical reasoning as a source of knowledge and employed this method to criticize Mozi.
claimEpistemologists in the 20th century examined the components, structure, and value of knowledge while integrating insights from the natural sciences and linguistics.
claimFred Wilson authored the book 'The External World and Our Knowledge of It: Hume's Critical Realism, an Exposition and a Defence', published by the University of Toronto Press in 2008.
perspectiveRadical skeptics argue that knowledge does not exist at all.
claimDeclarative knowledge and descriptive knowledge are synonyms for knowledge.
claimPlato (427–347 BCE) examined the nature of knowledge in ancient Greek philosophy, distinguishing it from true opinion by asserting that knowledge is based on good reasons.
claimFallibilism is a philosophical response to skepticism that agrees with skeptics that absolute certainty is impossible, but rejects the assumption that knowledge requires absolute certainty, thereby concluding that fallible knowledge exists.
perspectivePostmodern epistemology critiques the conditions of knowledge in advanced societies, specifically challenging the metanarrative that scientific knowledge constantly progresses toward a universal and foundational understanding of reality.
claimThe school of skepticism questions the human ability to attain knowledge.
claimAssessing the value of knowledge influences decisions regarding what information to acquire and share, such as determining school curricula and allocating research funding.
claimEpistemological disagreements often stem from disputes about the nature and function of foundational concepts, such as the definition of knowledge and the role of justification.
claimLearning theory examines how people acquire knowledge, with behavioral learning theories explaining the process through behavior changes (such as associating a response with a stimulus) and cognitive learning theories studying how cognitive processes transform information.
claimThe epistemic approach to fallacies defines fallacies as faulty arguments based on incorrect reasoning and asserts that an argument is a fallacy if it fails to expand knowledge.
referenceBruce Russell authored the entry 'A Priori Justification and Knowledge' for The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, published by the Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University in 2020.
claimRationalists believe that some knowledge does not depend on sense experience.
claimEmpiricists hold that all knowledge comes from sense experience.
claimSome forms of extreme rationalism found in ancient Greek philosophy assert that reason is the sole source of knowledge.
claimWang Yangming (1472–1529) explored the unity of knowledge and action, holding that moral knowledge is inborn and can be attained by overcoming self-interest.
claimEpistemology explores how people should acquire beliefs and evaluates which beliefs or forms of belief acquisition meet the standards or epistemic goals of knowledge.
claimEpistemologists investigate sources of justification, including perception, introspection, memory, reason, and testimony, to discover how knowledge arises.
claimLogical positivists, such as A. J. Ayer, asserted that all knowledge is either empirical or analytic, rejecting any form of metaphysical knowledge.
claimThe term 'knowledge' can refer to information stored in documents and computers.
claimFormal epistemology employs formal tools from logic and mathematics to investigate the nature of knowledge.
claimSome philosophers argue that knowledge has greater value than true opinion because people rely more on knowledge than on mere true opinions when engaging in practical reasoning and decision-making.
claimIndian epistemologists typically emphasize the relationship between knowledge and spiritual progress, viewing the acquisition of knowledge as a component of the soteriological process.
claimRené Descartes (1596–1650) stated that philosophy must begin from a position of indubitable knowledge of first principles.
claimThere is no consensus among philosophers regarding which proposed modification or reconceptualization of the traditional analysis of knowledge is correct.
perspectiveFallibilists emphasize the necessity of maintaining an open and inquisitive mind, acknowledging that doubt can never be fully excluded, even for well-established knowledge claims such as thoroughly tested scientific theories.
claimIn the 'fake barn' thought experiment, a person forms a justified true belief that an object is a real barn by coincidence, which many epistemologists argue does not constitute knowledge because the justification is not directly relevant to the truth.
claimAncient Chinese philosophers understood knowledge as an interconnected phenomenon fundamentally linked to ethical behavior and social involvement.
claimEpistemology is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge.
claimBuddhist philosopher Dharmakirti (6th or 7th century CE) analyzed the process of knowing as a series of causally related events.
claimThe term 'epistemology' is derived from the Greek words 'episteme,' meaning 'knowledge,' and 'logos,' meaning 'study' or 'science.'
claimEpistemology explores the principles of how various disciplines, including other branches of philosophy and the sciences, may arrive at knowledge.
claimKnowledge is often defined as the contrast to ignorance, which is the absence of knowledge.
claimFallibilism is the philosophical position that knowledge is never certain.
claimThe traditional analysis of knowledge posits that knowledge consists of three components: a belief that is both justified and true.
claimNyāya epistemology identifies perception as the primary source of knowledge and emphasizes its importance for successful action.
claimEpistemology addresses the extent and limits of knowledge, specifically focusing on what people can and cannot know.
claimThe school of Ajñana, emerging in the 6th century BCE, developed a radical skepticism that questioned the possibility and usefulness of knowledge.
claimPhilosophical skepticism questions the human ability to attain knowledge by challenging the foundations upon which knowledge claims rest.
claimContemporary epistemology includes methods that aim to extract philosophical insights from ordinary language or examine the role of knowledge in making assertions and guiding actions.
claimIn the second half of the 20th century, the traditional analysis of knowledge as justified true belief was challenged by thought experiments aiming to show that some justified true beliefs do not constitute knowledge.
claimComputational epistemology is a field that examines the interrelation between knowledge and computational processes.
claimWhether an inferential belief amounts to knowledge depends on the form of reasoning used, specifically that the process does not violate the laws of logic.
perspectiveFeminist epistemology explores how gender preconceptions influence who has access to knowledge, how knowledge is produced, and which types of knowledge are valued in society.
claimKnowledge is always valuable, whereas true opinion is only valuable in circumstances where it is useful.
claimPhilosophers have proposed various alternative definitions of knowledge to address counterexamples, including requirements that the known fact must cause the belief in the right way, that the belief must be the product of a reliable belief formation process, that the person would not have the belief if it were false, that the belief is not inferred from a falsehood, that the justification cannot be undermined, or that the belief is infallible.
claimHistorical epistemology examines how the understanding of knowledge and related concepts changes over time, questioning whether epistemological issues are perennial and assessing the relevance of past theories to contemporary debates.
claimKnowledge is defined as an awareness, familiarity, understanding, or skill, involving a cognitive success through which a person establishes epistemic contact with reality.
Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Dec 14, 2005 78 facts
claimWhen the possibility of being a Brain in a Vat (BIV) becomes salient, an individual's standards of knowledge rise, requiring the individual to be able to eliminate the error possibility of being a BIV to claim knowledge of having hands.
claimExternalists argue that animals and small children possess knowledge and justified beliefs, which they claim cannot be justified in the way evidentialists conceive of justification.
claimThe ambiguity response posits that a 'knowledge'-attributing sentence is ambiguous unless the speaker specifies whether 'know' refers to fallible or infallible knowledge.
claimThe Brain-in-a-Vat (BIV) argument posits that if an individual cannot distinguish between being a brain-in-a-vat and not being one, they cannot distinguish between having hands and not having hands, leading to the conclusion that one cannot know they have hands.
claimThe Brain-in-a-Vat (BIV) argument posits that a person knows they have hands only if they can discriminate between the state of actually having hands and the alternative state of being a handless brain in a vat.
claimWhen the meaning of 'know' is fixed by high standards, humans know neither that they have hands nor that they are not Brains in a Vat (BIVs).
claimContextualism posits that the word 'know' is context-sensitive, meaning its meaning and the standards required to possess knowledge vary depending on the situation or context.
claimMemory is defined as the capacity to retain knowledge acquired in the past, which can encompass present facts, such as a telephone number, or future events, such as the date of an election.
claimEpistemology, when understood broadly, concerns issues related to the creation and dissemination of knowledge in specific areas of inquiry.
claimIndirect realism posits that humans acquire knowledge of external objects by perceiving something else, such as appearances or sense-data, rather than the objects themselves.
claimLoose context sensitivity is the claim that people do not always mean the same thing when they use the word 'know', which is considered an innocuous interpretation of the thesis that the meaning of 'know' varies with context.
claimEpistemology as the study of knowledge addresses the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge, its sources, its structure, and its limits.
claimThe tripartite analysis of knowledge as Justified True Belief (JTB) is considered incomplete because there are cases of JTB that do not qualify as knowledge, meaning JTB is not sufficient for knowledge.
claimEvidentialist anti-skepticism posits that individuals can know that the propositions regarding the existence of intergalactic spaceships and the technology to build them are false based on their knowledge of how the world works or by consulting experts.
claimThe "replacement objection" against the "ambiguity response" claims that the response focuses on the word "know" rather than on knowledge itself.
claimEpistemology is defined narrowly as the study of knowledge and justified belief.
claimThe Moorean response to the Brain in a Vat (BIV) argument is considered insufficient by many philosophers because it merely asserts knowledge of not being a BIV based on knowledge of one's hands, rather than explaining how such knowledge is possible.
formulaThe application of the closure principle to the BIV argument is: If I know that I have hands, and I know that my having hands entails my not being a brain-in-a-vat, then I know that I'm not a brain-in-a-vat.
claimTraditional epistemology focuses on assessing the epistemic quality of a subject's beliefs to determine if they are justified or instances of knowledge.
claimThe skeptical conclusion that one does not know they have hands is reached by applying the closure principle to the BIV argument, where the antecedent of the closure principle is considered false because the individual cannot know they are not a brain-in-a-vat.
formulaThe closure principle states that if an individual knows a proposition 'p', and they know that 'p' entails 'q', then they know that 'q'.
accountIn the 'barn-facades' thought experiment, Henry drives through a rural area filled with barn facades that look like real barns, but he happens to look at the one and only real barn and forms the belief that there is a barn there. While his belief is justified by his visual experience (according to TK) or by the reliable cognitive process of vision (according to NTK), it is widely agreed by epistemologists that Henry's belief does not qualify as knowledge because it is true merely by luck; had he looked at a facade, he would have formed the same belief.
perspectiveProponents of the view that social epistemology is an extension of traditional epistemology believe that knowledge and justified belief are linked to truth and that objective norms of rationality exist.
claimRelevant alternatives theorists are committed to the claim that the closure principle is false because they assert that one can know they have hands and know that having hands entails not being a BIV, while simultaneously not knowing that they are not a BIV.
referenceLinda Trinkaus Zagzebski authored the book 'Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge', published by Cambridge University Press in 1996.
claimAccording to contextualism, the closure principle remains true regardless of whether the meaning of 'know' is fixed by high or low standards.
claimSome Non-traditional knowledge (NTK) theorists bypass the justification condition entirely by conceiving of knowledge as reliably produced true belief, rendering justification unnecessary.
claimBeliefs can arise from psychological factors such as desires, emotional needs, prejudice, and biases, but beliefs originating from these sources do not qualify as knowledge even if they are true.
formulaThe BIV Argument is structured as follows: (1) I don't know that I'm not a brain-in-a-vat. (2) If I don't know that I'm not a brain-in-a-vat, then I don't know that I have hands. Therefore: (3) I don't know that I have hands.
claimContextualists resolve the paradox of the Brain in a Vat (BIV) argument by asserting that in low-standard contexts, the first premise and the conclusion of the BIV argument are false because we meet low standards of knowledge, whereas in high-standard contexts, the first premise and the conclusion are true because our epistemic position is not strong enough to meet high standards.
claimGettier-cases are instances of Justified True Belief (JTB) that do not qualify as knowledge because neither the possession of evidence nor origination in reliable faculties is sufficient to ensure that a belief is not true merely because of luck.
claimContextualists distinguish between 'high' and 'low' standards of knowledge, where low standards are easy to meet and lead to liberal ascriptions of knowledge, while high standards are difficult to meet and lead to reluctant ascriptions of knowledge.
claimModerate naturalistic epistemology advocates for cooperation between traditional conceptual analysis and empirical methods, using conceptual analysis to link knowledge and reliability, and empirical methods to determine which cognitive processes are reliable.
claimA moderate version of naturalistic epistemology aims to identify how knowledge and justification are anchored in the natural world, similar to how physics explains natural phenomena like heat or thunder.
formulaThe traditional approach to knowledge (TK) defines knowledge that p as justified true belief (JTB), where S knows that p if and only if p is true and S is justified in believing that p.
claimThe 'Counter BIV' argument proposed as a Moorean response consists of three parts: (1) I know that I have hands. (2) If I don't know that I'm not a BIV, then I don't know that I have hands. Therefore: (3) I know that I am not a BIV.
claimAmbiguity theorists assert that in the fallibilist sense of the word 'know', an individual can know that they are not a Brain in a Vat.
claimAccording to contextualists, the salience of error-possibilities is the factor that changes the meaning of the word 'know' and shifts the standards of knowledge.
claimThe traditional approach to knowledge (TK) asserts that knowledge requires justification to ensure that a subject's correct belief is not merely a matter of luck.
claimAn 'abominable conjunction' is a statement generated by denying the closure principle, exemplified by the assertion: 'I know that I have hands but I do not know that I am not a (handless) BIV.'
procedureSkeptics use a two-step argument to challenge knowledge: first, they identify a proposition the subject admits they do not know; second, they argue that because the subject does not know that second proposition, they cannot know the first proposition.
claimThe necessary truth approach to justifying testimony faces the difficulty that one cannot acquire knowledge from sources whose reliability is unknown.
claimCoherentism characterizes knowledge and justification as a structure resembling a web, where the strength of any specific area depends on the strength of the surrounding areas.
claimIn a low-standard context, the condition for knowing one has hands is simply the ability to discriminate between having hands and having stumps, hooks, or prosthetic hands, as the possibility of being a Brain in a Vat (BIV) is ignored.
claimSocial epistemology is defined as the study of knowledge and justified belief as they are positioned within a particular social and historical context.
claimRelevant alternatives theorists maintain that one can know they have hands if they can discriminate between having hands and other relevant alternatives, such as having arms ending in stumps, hooks, or prosthetic hands.
claimCritics of deontological justification (DJ) argue that beliefs formed through unreliable methods cannot qualify as knowledge, even if they are true, which leads to the rejection of DJ.
claimThe 'replacement objection' against the ambiguity response—which claims the response focuses on the word 'know' rather than knowledge itself—is misguided because the ambiguity response shifts focus to non-linguistic entities like concepts and propositions after the initial stage.
claimThe 'semantic ascent' element of contextualism posits that a satisfactory response to skepticism and the Brain in a Vat (BIV) argument requires distinguishing between high-standards and low-standards meanings of 'knowledge'.
claimFoundationalism characterizes knowledge and justification as a structure resembling a building, where a superstructure rests upon a foundation of basic beliefs.
claimTestimony is a source of knowledge that is not distinguished by having its own cognitive faculty; rather, acquiring knowledge through testimony involves coming to know a proposition on the basis of someone else stating that proposition.
claimThe Gettier problem refers to the challenge of identifying what further element must be added to Justified True Belief (JTB) to create conditions that are jointly sufficient for knowledge.
claimFor true beliefs to qualify as knowledge, they must originate from sources considered reliable, which include perception, introspection, memory, reason, and testimony.
claimThe ambiguity response to the BIV (Brain in a Vat) argument posits that a 'knowledge'-attributing sentence expresses a proposition that depends on whether the speaker is using a high-standards or low-standards concept of knowledge.
claimFor a belief to qualify as knowledge, it must originate from sources considered reliable, such as perception, introspection, memory, reason, and testimony, rather than psychological factors like desires, emotional needs, prejudice, or biases.
claimThe ambiguity response to the BIV argument identifies three versions of the argument based on how the word 'know' is interpreted: the mixed version (infallible in premises, fallible in conclusion), the high-standards version (infallible in both), and the low-standards version (fallible in both).
claimSkeptics argue that for any skeptical hypothesis, a person cannot know that the hypothesis is false.
claimMany epistemologists argue that the conjunction of knowing one has hands while not knowing one is not a Brain in a Vat (BIV) is abominable because it violates the intuition that one cannot know they have hands without knowing they are not a BIV.
claimThe 'replacement objection' against contextualism argues that contextualism incorrectly replaces an interest in knowledge itself with a focus on the word 'know'.
perspectiveExternalists argue that testimony is a valid source of knowledge if and only if the information comes from a reliable source.
claimBoth contextualism and the ambiguity response share the 'semantic ascent' element, which requires distinguishing between various meanings of the word 'know' to provide a satisfactory response to skepticism.
claimIndirect realists argue that knowledge of external objects is indirect because it is derived from foundational knowledge of one's own mind and sense data.
claimThe reliability of memory as a source of knowledge about the past is questioned because the subjective experience of remembering does not logically entail that the remembered event actually occurred.
claimThe traditional approach to knowledge (TK) asserts that knowledge requires belief because a subject cannot know a proposition they do not believe.
claimKnowledge requires truth and objective reality.
claimDirect realism posits that humans acquire knowledge of external objects because they can directly perceive those objects themselves.
claimPerception, as a source of knowledge, is defined by the five human senses: sight, touch, hearing, smelling, and tasting.
claimReliabilism asserts that justification is not necessary for knowledge, and that reliably produced true belief is sufficient for knowledge, provided the notion of reliability is refined to rule out Gettier cases.
claimContextualists assert that relative to the standards of knowledge operational in low-standards contexts, an individual can know that they are not a Brain in a Vat.
claimTo avoid circularity when justifying perception as a source of knowledge, experiential foundationalists must choose between externalism or an appeal to brute necessity.
perspectiveRelevant alternatives theorists argue that an inability to discriminate between having hands and being a brain in a vat (BIV) does not prevent knowledge of having hands, because being a BIV is not a relevant alternative to having hands.
claimBecause the evidence available to a normal person and a brain-in-a-vat is identical, skeptics argue that a person cannot know they are not a brain-in-a-vat.
claimExternalists assert that justification requires external conditions because those conditions provide the objective probability necessary for knowledge.
claimStrict context sensitivity asserts that the meaning of the word 'know' is determined by the salience or non-salience of error possibilities.
claimEdmund Gettier published the paper "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" in the journal Analysis in 1963, which challenged the traditional definition of knowledge as justified true belief.
claimReliabilism exists in two forms: as a theory of justification, which views justification as an important ingredient of knowledge grounded in reliability, and as a theory of knowledge, which defines knowledge as reliably produced true belief without requiring justification.
claimWhen the meaning of 'know' is fixed by low standards, humans know both that they have hands and that they are not Brains in a Vat (BIVs).
claimThe traditional approach to knowledge (TK) asserts that knowledge requires truth because false propositions cannot be known.
Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 57 facts
claimKnowledge is a mental state that exists within a person's mind, meaning unthinking entities cannot possess knowledge.
claimMemory allows individuals to retain knowledge from the past even if the original justification for that knowledge is forgotten.
perspectiveSome proponents of relativism reject the assumption that knowledge requires the existence of facts.
claimMany epistemologists believe that the 'no-defeaters' condition provides a correct characterization of knowledge.
claimKnowledge in the factive sense requires the existence of facts to be known; if there are no facts of the matter, there is nothing to know.
claimKnowledge is a specific type of belief; if a person has no beliefs about a particular matter, they cannot have knowledge about it.
claimEpistemology is defined as the study of knowledge.
claimEpistemology is defined as the study of knowledge.
claimAll knowledge requires reasoning, as data must be analyzed and inferences must be drawn from sensory input.
claimEpistemology assumes that knowledge is factive, meaning that for someone to know something, there must be a fact of the matter to be known.
claimExternalism posits that considering factors other than an individual's existing beliefs is necessary to avoid the isolation objection and to ensure that knowledge does not include luck.
claimSome epistemologists argue that the Gettier problem necessitates seeking a substantially different alternative to the Justified True Belief (JTB) account of knowledge, rather than simply adding a fourth condition.
claimIntuition is often believed to provide direct access to knowledge of the a priori.
claimCausal accounts of knowledge maintain that for someone to know a proposition, there must be a causal connection between the person's belief in that proposition and the fact that the proposition encapsulates.
claimThe 'no-false-belief' condition is insufficient to define knowledge because an individual can hold a justified, true belief that is not based on false beliefs but still fails to qualify as knowledge.
claimThe study of epistemology includes meta-epistemology, which is the study of what can be known about knowledge itself, with the goal of determining the criteria for knowledge.
claimThe Gettier problem demonstrates that it is possible for a belief to be both justified and true, yet still fail to constitute knowledge because the truth of the belief relies on luck.
claimThe Cartesian skepticism argument asserts that because there are no signs to distinguish between accurate beliefs and those caused by an evil demon, all beliefs are unjustified, leading to the conclusion that we cannot know anything.
claimIf a specific domain contains no truths, knowledge cannot exist within that domain.
claimFallibilism is the epistemological view that it is possible to have knowledge even when a true belief might have turned out to be false.
claimThe justification condition in the JTB account was intended to ensure that knowledge is based on solid evidence rather than luck or misinformation.
claimIn typical instances of knowledge, the factors responsible for the justification of a belief are also responsible for its truth, such as when a properly functioning clock provides both justification and truth for a belief about the time.
claimEpistemologists typically define knowledge by seeking a set of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions that determine whether a person knows a proposition.
claimKnowledge can be transmitted between individuals through testimony, where a person's justification for a belief is based on a trusted source confirming its truth.
perspectiveRationalists believe that all knowledge is ultimately grounded upon reason, while empiricists believe that all knowledge is ultimately grounded upon experience.
claimSocial epistemology is a subfield of epistemology that addresses how groups, institutions, or other collective bodies acquire knowledge.
claimPhilosophers typically use the word 'know' in a factive sense, meaning that it is impossible to know something that is not true.
claimIn epistemology, a belief must be both true and justified to constitute knowledge.
claimBeliefs about subjective matters, such as beauty, cannot be true or false and therefore cannot constitute knowledge.
claimIn domains where there are no objective truths, such as subjective aesthetic judgments like beauty, beliefs cannot be true or false and therefore cannot constitute knowledge.
claimThe majority of an individual's knowledge is non-occurrent, or background knowledge, meaning only a small portion of knowledge is actively on one's mind at any given time.
claimThe 'no-false-belief' condition proposes that for a belief to constitute knowledge, it must be true, justified, and formed without relying on any false beliefs.
claimTo constitute knowledge, a belief must be both true and justified.
claimA satisfactory response to the Cartesian skepticism argument must demonstrate either that humans can distinguish between true and false beliefs or that such a distinction is not necessary for knowledge.
claimRoderick Chisholm was one of the first authors to provide a systematic analysis of knowledge, and his account of justification is classified as foundationalist.
claimEpistemologists categorize their tasks into two main areas: determining the nature of knowledge (what it means to know something) and determining the extent of human knowledge (how much we can know and the limits of that knowledge).
claimKnowledge of empirical facts about the physical world requires perception through the use of the senses.
accountIn the clock example provided by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, an individual forms a justified belief about the time by looking at a stopped clock that happens to show the correct time, illustrating that justified true belief can involve luck and fall short of knowledge.
claimA belief can constitute knowledge if it is based on a sufficient, defeasible reason, even if there is a possibility the belief could have been false.
claimThe 'no-defeaters' condition defines knowledge as a belief that is true, justified, and lacks any 'defeaters' to that justification.
claimTrue beliefs arrived at through luck, misinformation, or faulty reasoning do not constitute knowledge.
claimRationalists believe that all knowledge is ultimately grounded upon reason, while empiricists believe that all knowledge is ultimately grounded upon experience.
claimKnowledge of abstract or non-empirical facts relies exclusively on reasoning.
claimBelief is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowledge, because individuals can hold false beliefs.
claimDavid Hume argues that even if human perceptions are accurate, skepticism remains because humans perceive only a small part of the universe at any moment, yet claim knowledge of the world beyond current perceptions.
claimKnowledge requires both true belief and the formation of that belief in the correct way.
claimEpistemology is the study of knowledge and involves evaluating knowledge claims to determine whether they indeed constitute knowledge, which requires understanding what knowledge is and how much knowledge is possible.
claimKnowledge is a specific kind of belief; if a person has no beliefs about a particular matter, they cannot have knowledge about it.
claimLocal skepticism is the view that knowledge is limited in specific domains like mathematics, morality, or the external world, whereas global skepticism is the view that humans cannot know anything at all.
claimKnowledge requires not only true belief but also that the belief be formed in the 'right way', which is referred to as justification.
claimFallibilism is the epistemological view that it is possible to possess knowledge even when a true belief might have turned out to be false.
claimThe requirement for justification in knowledge does not necessitate absolute certainty, as humans are fallible beings.
claimTruth is a necessary condition for knowledge, meaning that if a belief is not true, it cannot constitute knowledge.
claimEpistemology includes the study of meta-epistemology, which is the study of what can be known about knowledge itself.
claimBelief is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowledge, as individuals can hold false beliefs.
claimTruth is a necessary condition for knowledge, meaning a belief that is not true cannot constitute knowledge.
claimEdmund Gettier published a short but influential article in 1963 that challenged the widely accepted justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge.
Epistemology of Testimony | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 52 facts
quoteJennifer Lackey (2005) states: “non–reductionists maintain that testimony is just as basic a source of justification (knowledge, warrant, entitlement, and so forth) as sense-perception, memory, inference, and the like”.
claimTestimonial liberals who require evidence of reliability for knowledge or justification face an argument that they must also concede that lacking evidence of reliability results in a lack of knowledge or justification.
perspectiveBergmann (2006a) argues that while a no-defeater requirement for knowledge seems intuitively obvious, an awareness requirement does not.
referenceGreen (2006) argues that a testifier can support knowledge in a hearer even if the testifier lacks conscious phenomenology, such as in the case of a zombie or a machine.
claimGoldberg argues that the factors that make a young child's testimonial belief amount to knowledge include information-processing that occurs in minds other than the child's own.
claimSome epistemologists view testimony as a mechanism for spreading knowledge rather than creating it, contrasting it with perception, which is viewed as a source of knowledge for the epistemic community as a whole.
claimIf a testifier is seriously worried about their own reliability, such as fearing they are a brain in a vat, a hearer cannot reasonably gain knowledge by relying on that testifier's testimony.
claimLaurence BonJour (1980, 2003) argues that if one accepts that knowledge or justification is defeated by evidence of unreliability or contrary evidence, one must also accept that it is defeated by a lack of evidence regarding the reliability of the source.
claimTimothy Williamson proposed the account of knowledge as the norm of assertion.
claimThe epistemology of testimonially-based belief concerns the epistemic status of a subject's belief, specifically evaluating whether the belief is justified, rational, warranted, supported by evidence, or constitutes knowledge.
perspectiveJennifer Lackey disputes the account of knowledge as the norm of assertion, as proposed by Timothy Williamson, by arguing that it is proper for a testifier to assert a proposition even if they do not know or believe it, provided the testimony is reliable.
claimThe epistemology of testimony involves analyzing the external conditions required for a recipient (S) to gain knowledge from a testifier (T), specifically questioning whether the testifier must know the proposition (p) herself, whether the testimony must be true, and whether the testifier must reliably testify.
claimRobert Audi (1997) is demanding regarding testimonially-based justification but lenient regarding testimonially-based knowledge because he does not consider justification a requirement for knowledge.
claimEpistemology involves assigning statuses such as 'knowledge' or 'justification' to beliefs based on whether those beliefs meet specific epistemic standards.
claimA common objection to imposing high epistemic demands on testimonially-based beliefs is that such demands would disqualify many cases that are intuitively considered knowledge or justified belief.
claimThe epistemology of testimony investigates whether a testifier must possess knowledge of a statement for the recipient of that testimony to also know the statement.
claimSanford Goldberg argues that the hearer (S) can possess knowledge even if the hearer is unaware of the guaranteeing function of the agent or mechanism (A), as the function of the agent or mechanism alone is sufficient to guarantee the reliability of the hearer's belief.
claimIn the case of a testifier with pathological lies and misperceptions, it is not obvious that a recipient can gain knowledge from their statements, as the testifier appears insane, and a recipient would need to know the testifier is a reliable speaker despite their condition to gain knowledge.
claimTestimonial liberals who accept that a subject lacks justification or knowledge when they have evidence that a proposition is false or that a source is unreliable should also concede that the subject lacks knowledge or justification when they have no evidence that the source is reliable.
claimAn alternative to the requirement that a speaker must know a proposition for a hearer to gain knowledge is the requirement that the speaker merely possesses the information that the proposition is true.
claimAt time t, the testifier's (T) belief and testimony are unreliable, but at time t+Δt, the testifier also knows that p because the testifier can rely on the failure of the agent or mechanism (A) to correct the testimony.
claimA factual defeater occurs when a subject's belief is not justified or does not count as knowledge because the subject happens to encounter a reliable source in a context where most sources are unreliable, such as the 'fake barn' scenario.
claimGreen claims that the fact that an information-obtaining faculty is operated by a person should not change how that source produces justified beliefs and knowledge.
claimThe 'Not-Testimony' response suggests that in cases where a testifier is unreliable, a hearer's belief may be sustained by the hearer's independent knowledge rather than the testimony alone.
claimIf T tells S that p at time t, and it would take A at least time Δt to correct T's testimony if it were false, S's belief at time t is not safe, but S's belief at time t+Δt may constitute knowledge.
claimOne way 'liberal' epistemologists resist Jennifer Lackey's argument is by denying that the 'no-defeaters condition' for knowledge requires the subject to have the capacity to recognize defeaters.
claimGoldberg argues that at time t+Δt, T also knows that p because T has the right to rely on A's failure to correct the testimony that p, making T's testimony safe and reliable at that later time.
quoteGraham (2000) posits that "knowledge is not transferred through communication, rather Information is conveyed."
claimA hearer's (S) knowledge derived from a testifier (T) is considered shaky when the testimony is true only because of matching errors in the hearer's assumptions and the testifier's perception.
claimGoldberg argues that even if S does not know that A is guaranteeing the reliability of the belief that p, S still knows that p because A's guaranteeing function alone is sufficient for knowledge.
perspectiveRobert Audi argues that students cannot gain knowledge from a teacher who does not believe the lesson they are teaching, stating that if students simply take the word of a teacher who would deceive them when job retention requires it, it is highly doubtful that this testimonial origin provides an adequate basis for knowledge.
referenceGreen (2007) defends an approach to knowledge or justification that imposes a no-defeater requirement but not a positive-reasons-to-believe-in-reliability condition, using the legal handling of fraud cases as an analogy.
claimIf the testifier (T) tells the hearer (S) that p at time t, and the agent or mechanism (A) requires time Δt to correct false testimony, the hearer's belief is not safe at time t, but may become knowledge at time t+Δt after the agent or mechanism has had the opportunity to correct the testimony.
claimKnowledge-preservationism is the thesis that a subject's testimonially-based knowledge that a proposition is true requires the speaker to also know that proposition.
claimJennifer Lackey presents examples where a testifier (T) suffers from skeptical worries or believes their perceptual abilities are faulty, which challenges whether a hearer (S) can acquire knowledge from that testifier's testimony.
accountIn a case discussed by Graham (2000b), a testifier (T) cannot distinguish between two twins (A and B), but the hearer (S) knows that twin B could not have knocked over a vase; therefore, when the testifier claims twin A knocked over the vase, the hearer's belief is sustained by the hearer's independent knowledge that twin B did not do it.
claimMichael Dummett suggests that both memory and testimony are merely means of preserving or transmitting knowledge rather than creating it, and that both are direct and do not require supporting beliefs.
claimSanford Goldberg argues that the hearer's (S) belief is safe because the presence of an agent or mechanism (A) would prevent the testifier's (T) false testimony from being believed, even though the testifier's testimony is unsafe because it is based on usually misleading evidence.
claimPeter Graham (2006) argues that the fact that one source of knowledge can defeat another does not imply that the defeated source depends on inferential support from the other, nor does it show that testimony is inferior to perception.
claimChristopher Green argues that the fact that a faculty for obtaining information is operated by a person should not fundamentally change how that source produces justified beliefs and knowledge.
claimSome epistemologists are skeptical of the 'fake barn case,' arguing that these cases do not clearly demonstrate a failure of justification or knowledge.
claimSanford Goldberg suggests that beliefs partly based on defective testimony can constitute knowledge if the other part of the belief's basis, specifically the guaranteeing function of the agent or mechanism (A), cures the defect in the testimony.
claimSeveral philosophers have endorsed the principle that a recipient of testimony can only come to know what is testified to if the testifier knows the subject matter of their assertion.
quoteGalen Strawson (1994) suggests that testimony as a source of belief requires other sources like perception, stating: "[T]he employment of perception and memory is a necessary condition of the acquisition and retention of any knowledge (or belief) which is communicated linguistically…"
perspectiveEpistemologists debate whether a testifier must possess knowledge of a statement for the recipient of that testimony to also possess knowledge of it.
claimGoldberg argues that in the 'Yankees-actually-won' case, the hearer's belief is safe and counts as knowledge because the hearer utilizes clues about the testifier's reliability—such as eye contact—in addition to the testimony itself, even when the testifier's own belief is based on wishful thinking.
claimIn the context of the epistemology of testimony, 'Liberal' approaches are less demanding on testimonially-based justification, allowing beliefs to count as justified or as knowledge more easily, while 'Conservative' approaches are more demanding and dispense epistemic honors more conservatively.
quoteMichael Dummett (1994) stated: "In the case of testimony … if the concept of knowledge is to be of any use at all, and if we are to be held to know anything resembling the body of truths we normally take ourselves to know, the non-inferential character of our acceptance of what others tell us must be acknowledged as an epistemological principle, rather than a mere psychological phenomenon. Testimony should not be regarded as a source, and still less as a ground, for knowledge: it is the transmission from one individual to another of knowledge acquired by whatever means."
claimJohn Hawthorne (2004) and Jason Stanley (2005) propose interest-sensitive approaches to knowledge, suggesting that the level of certainty required for knowledge depends on the subject's specific needs or stakes.
quoteAlvin Plantinga (1993) states: "Testimonial evidence is indeed evidence; and if I get enough and strong enough testimonial evidence for a give fact … the belief in question may have enough warrant to constitute knowledge."
quoteFricker (2006b) states: "When the hearer [S] … believes [T] because she takes his speech at face value, as an expression of knowledge, then … [S]’s belief in what she is told is grounded in her belief that T knows what he asserted."
claimFor a subject S to acquire knowledge through a testifier T's testimony, the proposition p must be true, and the testifier T must be properly connected to the fact that p, satisfying an environmental condition.
Virtue Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Jul 9, 1999 38 facts
referenceStephen E. Napier published 'Virtue Epistemology: Motivation and Knowledge' with Continuum Press in 2008, which explores the relationship between motivation and knowledge in virtue epistemology.
claimSome epistemologists, including Lycan (2006) and Turri (2011), reject the claim that agents in fake-barn-style cases or structurally similar cases lack knowledge.
claimJohn Greco argues that knowers deserve credit for knowledge because they believe the truth because of their virtue.
claimVirtue Epistemology provides a straightforward solution to the value problem, assuming the basic line on knowledge is correct.
claimMany virtue epistemologists define knowledge as non-accidentally true belief, specifically asserting that to know is to believe the truth because of one's intellectual virtue.
claimWayne Riggs hypothesizes that the opposition between knowledge and luck is best explained by the concept that knowledge is an achievement for which the knower deserves credit.
claimThe credit thesis is used to explain the value of knowledge and features prominently in attempts to resolve the Gettier problem and explain epistemic luck.
claimSome epistemological approaches propose that knowledge-producing virtues are seated in the broader intellectual community rather than the individual knower, understanding knowledge as produced from community virtues.
claimErnest Sosa identifies knowledge with apt belief, which is a special case of creditable, apt performance, a status that applies across various human activities.
claimErnest Sosa argues that knowledge can exist even in cases where an agent might easily have been wrong, provided the belief is apt.
claimVirtue epistemologists claim that the virtue-based approach provides an intuitive account of why knowledge is inconsistent with luck, specifically the idea that one does not know something if it is largely a matter of luck that one believes it.
referenceErnest Sosa's conventional virtue epistemology (1991, 2003) attempts to define knowledge as true belief held out of intellectual virtue and seeks to settle the dispute between internalists and externalists regarding epistemic justification through detailed definitions and counterexamples.
accountIn the fake-barn thought experiment, Henry drives through a region where most barns are fake, but he happens to look at the one real barn. Duncan Pritchard argues that while Ernest Sosa's view would classify Henry's belief as knowledge because it is apt, it is intuitively obvious that Henry does not know, thus serving as a counterexample to Sosa's AAA-model.
claimBenjamin Jarvis examined the relationship between knowledge, cognitive achievement, and environmental luck in his 2013 article 'Knowledge, cognitive achievement, and environmental luck' published in the Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.
claimWayne Riggs (2009) argues that if Morris were asked about the tower's location shortly after receiving testimony, he would be out of line to assert the location as fact, which suggests he does not actually possess knowledge.
claimKing (2014a) defends responsibilism by arguing that, based on Linda Zagzebski's (1996) version of virtue epistemology, knowledge does not need to manifest virtue but only needs to arise from the type of motivated inquiry a virtuous person would engage in.
claimPritchard (2014) posits that an individual in a favorable material, social, and political environment can acquire more knowledge with less cognitive agency than an individual in an unfavorable environment, even if the latter exerts significant cognitive effort.
claimVirtue epistemology is divided by four main issues: the nature and scope of intellectual virtues, the questions to address, the methods to use, and the relations among epistemic virtue, knowledge, and epistemic credit.
claimThe question of why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief, especially when true belief is sufficient for guiding action, is known as 'the value problem' and dates back to Plato's Meno.
claimDuncan Pritchard raises an objection to John Greco's theory of knowledge that is similar to his objection against Ernest Sosa's AAA-model.
claimMark Alfano argues that if people's cognitive dispositions do not qualify as virtues because they are unreliable or irresponsible, the true beliefs produced by those dispositions will not count as knowledge.
claimConventional virtue epistemology (VE) utilizes the resources of virtue epistemology to address standard questions in contemporary Anglophone epistemology, such as providing analyses or definitions of knowledge and justification, solving puzzles like the Gettier problem and the lottery problem, constructing counterexamples, and confronting the skeptic.
perspectiveLinda Zagzebski (2003) argues that an adequate account of knowledge must explain why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief, and that virtue epistemology is well-positioned to solve this 'value problem' by focusing on the internal agency of the knower.
claimEpistemologists engage in a debate known as the 'value problem,' which seeks to determine what makes knowledge more valuable than mere true belief.
claimPritchard (2014) argues for a version of virtue epistemology that recognizes the essential role of the environment in the acquisition of knowledge.
referenceLinda Zagzebski's conventional virtue epistemology (1996) provides a definition of knowledge and an attempted resolution of the Gettier problem.
claimThe production of knowledge can be considered a joint achievement when it involves intentional cooperation, such as a research team conducting an investigation too complex for a single individual to perform alone.
perspectiveJennifer Lackey argues that the credit thesis is false because we do not deserve credit for everything we know, which implies that standard Virtue Epistemology definitions of knowledge are incorrect and that the framework is not ideally suited to explain the value of knowledge.
claimWayne Riggs (2009) argues that it is unclear if Morris knows the location of the tower, suggesting that casual, unreflective acceptance of testimony should not necessarily count as knowledge.
claimVirtue Epistemology solves the Gettier problem by asserting that knowledge requires an agent to believe the truth because of their intellectual virtues, whereas Gettier subjects do not believe the truth because of their virtues.
claimA Gettier case is constructed by starting with a belief that meets the justification condition for knowledge, adding an element of bad luck that would normally prevent the belief from being true, and adding a dose of good luck that cancels out the bad luck so the belief ends up true.
claimA complete epistemology likely requires both faculty-virtues, which account for knowledge of the past and the world, and trait-virtues, which are necessary for deeper intellectual achievements like understanding and wisdom.
claimEmpirical studies indicate that the ordinary concept of knowledge does not treat reliability as a necessary condition for knowledge.
claimThe credit thesis in epistemology is false because the origin of a belief, such as natural selection or an evolutionary mechanism, is often the most salient explanation for why a subject holds a true belief, making it unlikely the subject deserves credit for that knowledge.
claimJohn McDowell (1994) and Duncan Pritchard (2016) argue that epistemology should help individuals overcome anxieties caused by defective presuppositions about knowledge.
claimPhilosophers including Axtell & Carter (2008), McDowell (1994), Roberts & Wood (2007), and Zagzebski (1996, 2009) argue that epistemological terms like 'knowledge', 'evidence', 'justification', 'duty', and 'virtue' cannot be adequately defined or fully explained in purely non-normative vocabulary.
claimWayne Riggs distinguishes between two senses of credit: praiseworthiness and attributability, arguing that knowledge requires that a true belief be attributable to an agent, but not that the agent be praiseworthy for it.
claimExperimental studies by Colaço, Buckwalter, Stich & Machery (2014), Turri, Buckwalter, & Blouw (2014), and Turri (2016c) indicate that non-philosophers overwhelmingly view fake-barn cases and structurally similar scenarios as instances of knowledge.
Virtue Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 34 facts
claimJohn Greco's response to skepticism allows for knowledge of the external world even in cases where a person lacks cogent or non-question-begging reasons for believing that the external world exists.
perspectiveJonathan Kvanvig proposes an epistemological perspective that prioritizes the social and cross-temporal dimensions of cognitive life over questions regarding the nature and limits of knowledge and justification.
claimLinda Zagzebski defines knowledge as belief arising from acts of intellectual virtue.
claimLinda Zagzebski characterizes Gettier cases as situations where the connection between the warrant condition and the truth condition for knowledge is severed by bad luck and restored by good luck.
claimThe author asserts that the exercise of intellectual virtue is not a necessary condition for knowledge or justification.
claimJohn Greco's definition of knowledge requires that a person believes the truth because they believe the claim out of one or more of their intellectual virtues, making objective justification a necessary and salient part of the explanation for why the person believes the truth.
claimVirtue reliabilism and virtue responsibilism are not necessarily incompatible, as a virtue reliabilist can hold that a faculty-based approach is most promising for questions concerning the nature of knowledge and justification, while still maintaining that there are substantive epistemological questions to be pursued regarding the character traits that interest virtue responsibilists.
claimVirtue responsibilism faces a difficulty as an analysis of knowledge or justification because knowledge and justification are often acquired passively, making few demands on the character of the cognitive agent.
claimJohn Greco's account of knowledge requires that a person be subjectively justified in believing a claim, which occurs when the belief is produced by dispositions manifested when the person is motivated to believe what is true.
claimVirtue reliabilists prioritize traditional epistemological projects such as the analysis of knowledge, whereas some virtue responsibilists prioritize new and different epistemological concerns.
claimJohn Greco defines knowledge as believing the truth of a proposition because one believes it out of an intellectual virtue.
claimLorraine Code claims that an adequate conception of intellectual virtues cannot be achieved through standard methodologies of contemporary epistemology, which she believes are too narrow and overemphasize abstract doxastic properties like knowledge and justification.
perspectiveLorraine Code's epistemological view prioritizes the value of virtuous cognitive character, the social and moral dimensions of intellectual life, and the role of agency in inquiry, rather than offering a definition of knowledge or justification.
accountIn the clock example provided by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a person forms a true belief about the time from a stopped clock that is usually reliable; this is not considered knowledge because the truth is reached through a stroke of good luck rather than virtuous motive or activity.
claimLinda Zagzebski's view on knowledge requires the presence of virtuous intellectual motives, which the author argues are absent in cases where knowledge is gained through automatic cognitive processes.
claimIf an agent possesses a reliable disposition to form beliefs about the external world based on sensory experience, knowledge of the external world is possible for that agent under John Greco's account of knowledge, even if the agent lacks grounds that satisfy the skeptic's stringent demands.
claimLorraine Code argues that being intellectually virtuous involves regarding reality as intellectually penetrable, viewing oneself and others as capable of understanding the world, and considering such knowledge as a valuable good.
claimVirtue reliabilists argue that knowledge should be understood as a true belief arising from an exercise of intellectual virtue.
claimVirtue reliabilist accounts of knowledge and justification are versions of epistemological externalism, which may prove unsatisfying to those with internalist sympathies.
claimLinda Zagzebski claims that her analysis of knowledge is immune to Gettier counterexamples because of the tight connection between the warrant and truth conditions for knowledge.
claimVirtue reliabilist accounts of knowledge and justification are versions of epistemological externalism, as they deny that the factors grounding one's justification must be cognitively accessible from one's first-person or internal perspective.
claimLinda Zagzebski's analysis of knowledge defines knowledge as belief arising from acts of intellectual virtue, rather than true belief, because the justification or warrant condition entails the truth condition.
claimJohn Greco argues that the skeptic's reasoning presupposes a mistaken view of the relation between knowledge and epistemic grounds, specifically assuming that to know a claim, one must possess grounds or reasons that provide a cogent reason for thinking the claim is true via logical or quasi-logical principles.
claimThe author argues that knowledge, such as noticing a change in room lighting, can be acquired through the automatic operation of cognitive faculties like vision without the exercise of virtuous intellectual character traits.
claimVirtue reliabilists, such as John Greco (2000), argue that cognitive powers are more reasonably regarded as intellectual virtues than character traits because cognitive powers play a more important role in the analysis of knowledge.
claimLinda Zagzebski's theory of knowledge resembles virtue reliabilism because its main component is a virtue-based account of knowledge.
claimThe author argues that if virtue concepts are not central to an analysis of knowledge or justification, it is difficult to defend the claim that intellectual virtues have epistemological importance.
claimVirtue reliabilists argue that an exclusive focus on cognitive faculties is warranted for specific instances of knowledge, such as using vision to determine the appearance of immediate surroundings or using introspection to determine if one is in pain.
claimJohn Greco's account of knowledge requires that an agent's grounds be reliable, or that the agent herself be reliable due to a disposition to believe on reliable grounds.
claimLinda Zagzebski claims that knowledge is a belief arising from what she calls 'acts of intellectual virtue'.
claimVirtue reliabilists primarily focus on providing a virtue-based account of knowledge or justification, whereas virtue responsibilists often pursue different and less traditional epistemological projects.
claimJohn Greco's requirements for knowledge are viewed by internalists as a capitulation to skepticism rather than a victory over it.
claimJohn Greco argues against skepticism about the external world by claiming that if a person possesses a reliable disposition to reason from the appearance of an external world to its existence, then knowledge of the external world is possible for that person.
claimJohn Greco's definition of knowledge requires that a belief be objectively justified, which means the belief must be produced by one or more of the agent's intellectual virtues.
Understanding epistemology and its key approaches in research cefcambodia.com Jan 21, 2023 34 facts
claimVedala (2014) provides a diagram illustrating the classical definition of knowledge.
claimThe epistemology of pragmatism defines knowledge as a self-correcting, fallible process based on experience that must be evaluated and revised in view of subsequent experience.
referenceLuper, S. (2010) discusses knowledge in the entry 'Epistemology from A to Z' within 'A Companion to Epistemology'.
claimInterpretivists believe that knowledge of the world depends on the interpretation or understanding of human actions, experiences, and environments.
claimThe core argument of positivism is that facts about the external world exist to be discovered, and knowledge is based on sensory experience measurable through empirical or scientific inquiry.
claimPotter (2017) defines epistemology as the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge, its possibility, scope, and general basis.
referenceThe infallibility argument, as formulated by Noah Lemos (2007), posits that because humans are not infallible about the existence and character of the external world, and knowledge requires infallibility, humans do not have knowledge about the external world.
claimA general consensus in the philosophy of knowledge is that knowledge is defined as justified true belief.
claimYin (2016) defines an epistemological position as the philosophical underpinnings of a researcher's beliefs regarding the nature of knowledge and how it is derived or created.
referencePritchard, D. (2018) authored the book 'What is this thing called knowledge' (4th ed.).
claimFallibilists argue that the possibility of a justification being false does not necessarily mean the belief itself is false, and that knowledge can exist without certainty.
accountPritchard (2018) provides the example of Harry, who forms a belief about which horse will win a race based on which horse's name appeals to him; even if the horse wins and the belief is true, Harry did not 'know' the outcome because the belief was not formed through appropriate justification.
claimMerriam and Tisdell (2016) define epistemology as the nature of knowledge and its construction.
claimThe key components of knowledge are identified as truth, belief, and justification.
perspectivePritchard (2018) posits that for a true belief to become knowledge, it must be justified, meaning the believer must have good reasons to think that what they believe is true.
claimEpistemology is a field of philosophy concerned with questions about what knowledge is, the sources of knowledge, the extent to which we know things, and the differences between knowledge, wisdom, and opinion.
referenceEdelheim (2014) defines epistemology as the study of knowledge, which sets out to explain why society jointly decides that certain things are true and others are not.
referenceThe certainty argument, as formulated by Noah Lemos (2007), posits that because one cannot be certain about the external world, and knowledge requires certainty, one cannot know what the external world is like.
claimSteup (2010) identifies justification as a key component required to transform a true belief into knowledge.
claimPositivist researchers claim that only facts obtained through scientific methods constitute genuine knowledge.
claimPotter (2017) distinguishes between ontology and epistemology by stating that ontology is concerned with what exists and in what form, while epistemology is concerned with how humans can come to know and understand those things.
claimKillam (2013) asserts that epistemology deals with the nature or theory of knowledge and is concerned with how knowledge is acquired or how we know what we know.
claimCouper (2020) defines epistemology as the study of knowledge, which asks questions such as 'what is knowledge?' and 'how do we know something?'
claimPritchard (2018) argues that knowledge cannot simply be true belief because true beliefs can be formed in inappropriate or weird ways that do not constitute knowledge.
claimRescher (2003) asserts that knowledge is not simply a matter of having a true belief that is somehow justified, but must be appropriately justified.
claimMemory of something that is not true does not constitute genuine knowledge.
perspectiveLemos (2007) advocates that for a true belief to constitute knowledge, it must be epistemically justified, requiring a high degree of justification.
claimDictionaries generally define wisdom as the ability to make right decisions and sound judgments about life and conduct by utilizing existing knowledge and experience.
claimBryman (2012) defines epistemology as a stance on what should pass as acceptable knowledge.
claimEpistemology is a branch of philosophy that examines the relationship between knowledge and the researcher during the process of discovery.
claimMost epistemologists define knowledge as justified true belief, meaning one can claim to have knowledge if one holds a true belief that is appropriately justified by good reasons.
accountRescher (2003) illustrates the problem of justification with an example: A person believes Smith is in London (which is false, as Smith is in Manchester), and because Smith being in London entails Smith being in England, the person believes Smith is in England; while the belief is true, the person does not 'know' Smith is in England because the justification is false.
referenceMoser (2009) defines epistemology as the study of the nature of knowledge and justification, specifically regarding defining components, substantive conditions or sources, and the limits of knowledge and justification.
claimSufficient epistemic support from non-memorial grounds is required as a means of justification for a memory-based belief to be considered knowledge.
Virtue Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Jul 9, 1999 27 facts
claimJonathan Kvanvig characterizes traditional epistemology as being dominated by an 'individualistic' and 'synchronic' conception of knowledge that prioritizes specifying the conditions under which an individual knows a particular proposition at a particular time.
referenceJohn Turri, Wesley Buckwalter, and Peter Blouw authored the article 'Knowledge and luck', published in the journal Psychonomic Bulletin & Review in 2014.
claimStephen Grimm argues that understanding is a special kind of knowledge that arises from “grasping”, which is a distinctive psychological act that manifests intellectual virtue.
referenceJennifer Lackey argued that individuals do not deserve credit for everything they know in a 2007 article.
referenceDuncan Pritchard published 'Knowledge' with Palgrave Macmillan in 2009, which discusses the nature of knowledge.
measurementIn studies of perceptual and memorial beliefs, people attribute knowledge at a rate of approximately 80%, regardless of whether the agent is correct 10% or 90% of the time.
claimLinda Zagzebski conjectures that understanding can be defined analogously to knowledge, but whereas knowledge derives from virtues that aim at truth, understanding derives at least partly from different, special virtues that have been hitherto unanalyzed or unrecognized.
referenceChristoph Kelp published 'Pritchard on Knowledge, Safety and Cognitive Achievements' in the Journal of Philosophical Research in 2009, which analyzes Duncan Pritchard's views on knowledge, safety, and cognitive achievements.
claimJohn Greco (2009, 2012) and Ernest Sosa (2003, 2007) argue that knowledge is a form of achievement, defined as intellectual success through ability for which the knower is creditable.
referenceChristoph Kelp published 'Knowledge and Safety' in the Journal of Philosophical Research in 2009, which discusses the relationship between knowledge and safety.
claimErnest Sosa (2007) argues that an agent like Morris deserves partial credit for a belief even if it relies on a socially seated competence, as this is sufficient for the belief to be apt and count as knowledge.
perspectiveJonathan Kvanvig advocates for a 'genetic epistemology' that focuses on the cognitive life of the mind as it develops within a social context, replacing the traditional focus on individual knowledge.
claimCarter and Gordon argue that objectual understanding has a special value that knowledge lacks, and that this type of understanding is necessary to explain why traits like open-mindedness are intellectual virtues.
referenceJohn Turri authored the article 'Unreliable knowledge', published in the journal Philosophy and Phenomenological Research in 2015.
claimIf empirical studies suggest that people's beliefs usually manifest cognitive defects or incompetence, virtue epistemology would be led to the conclusion that most human true beliefs do not count as knowledge.
referenceMichael P. Lynch explored the impact of big data on knowledge and understanding in his 2016 book 'The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data'.
claimVirtue epistemology practitioners generally agree that knowledge is defined as true belief that manifests virtue.
claimJohn Turri argues that if knowledge is considered an achievement, it should not require reliability, because no other type of achievement requires reliability.
referenceThe book 'Knowledge, Belief and Character: Readings in Virtue Epistemology', edited by Guy Axtell and published in 2000 by Rowman and Littlefield, is a collection of works regarding virtue epistemology.
referenceJohn Turri authored the article 'Vision, knowledge, and assertion', published in the journal Consciousness and Cognition in 2016.
claimThe 'credit thesis' in Virtue Epistemology posits that knowledge is a credit-worthy state of the agent, meaning an individual knows a proposition only if they deserve credit for believing the truth.
claimJohn Turri claims that no serious argument has been provided that knowledge requires reliability, noting that philosophers have typically relied on weak explanatory arguments or simply assumed that reliability is a necessary condition for knowledge.
claimJohn Turri argues that there is no evidence that knowledge requires the dispositions challenged by epistemic situationism, and that there is theoretical and empirical evidence suggesting knowledge does not require such dispositions.
referenceS.R. Grimm published 'Ernest Sosa, Knowledge and Understanding' in Philosophical Studies in 2001, which analyzes the work of Ernest Sosa regarding knowledge and understanding.
referenceIn the philosophy of science, explanations provide understanding by communicating knowledge of causes, as supported by Lipton (1991), Salmon (1984), Khalifa & Gadomski (2013), and Turri (2015b).
referenceJohn Turri authored the article 'Knowledge and assertion in ‘Gettier’ cases', published in the journal Philosophical Psychology in 2016.
referenceStephen R. Grimm published 'Is understanding a species of knowledge?' in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science in 2006.
Naturalized Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Jul 5, 2001 24 facts
claimWidely shared views in epistemology imply that for a person to know a proposition to be true, the person must have a well-justified belief in the proposition, and the proposition must in fact be true.
claimPhilosophers utilize various principles to assess knowledge and justification, including inference to the best explanation, principles about coherence, and the conservation of belief.
claimNaturalists in epistemology tend to focus on questions regarding whether we have knowledge in specific areas, whether we draw correct conclusions from evidence, and whether the processes we use are reliable.
claimTraditionalists in epistemology can sensibly proceed without scientific input if their goal is to refute arguments for skepticism, as refuting arguments for the denial of knowledge does not necessarily demonstrate that knowledge exists.
claimJaegwon Kim argues that Willard Van Orman Quine's naturalized epistemology studies a different topic than traditional epistemology, specifically shifting focus from questions of rationality, justification, and knowledge to the causal connections between sensory evidence and beliefs.
claimThe Cartesian picture of knowledge posits that knowledge of the world is ultimately traceable to knowledge of one's own experiences.
claimCooperative Naturalism is defined as the view that empirical information from the natural sciences is potentially relevant to judgments about whether actual people have knowledge in actual cases.
claimCognitive science could potentially discover that beliefs previously thought to constitute knowledge actually result from unreliable or deviant causal chains, thereby overturning judgments about whether people have knowledge in those cases.
claimTraditional epistemologists often investigate whether specific domains of knowledge, such as other minds, morality, or religious matters, are justified based on the basic evidence available.
claimA priorists can evaluate skeptical arguments by analyzing whether knowledge actually requires the specific conditions described in the skeptical premises, a task that can be performed without empirical data.
claimThe debate between naturalists and non-naturalists can be understood as a disagreement over whether knowledge and justification can be defined using naturalistically acceptable causal and reliabilist terms or if they require naturalistically suspect evaluative terms.
claimW.V.O. Quine viewed the central question of epistemology as whether our actual scientific beliefs have a firm foundation, with the goal of reconstructing our knowledge.
quoteHilary Kornblith wrote in 1999: "Of course knowledge is possible if we weaken the standards for knowledge far enough, in particular if we weaken them until we can show that many of our beliefs then pass the standards. But this seems to be nothing more than an exercise in self-congratulation. Why should we care about knowledge so defined?"
claimContemporary epistemologists largely view the goal of their field as defining what knowledge is, rather than attempting to refute skepticism, because they already operate under the assumption that the skeptic is wrong.
claimSome traditional epistemologists operate on the assumption that humans possess knowledge and that empirical information cannot overturn this judgment, asserting that humans know approximately what they believe they know.
claimEmpirical results can demonstrate that a contingent claim to knowledge is false by proving the claimed fact is false or by showing that the belief in that fact originated in an untoward way.
quoteHilary Kornblith wrote in 1999: "But if our standards for knowledge are merely designed to allow us to attach the epithet ‘knowledge’ to whatever it is we pretheoretically believe, then ... the result is an uncritical endorsement of the epistemological status quo."
claimTraditional epistemologists debate whether knowledge and justification require conclusive reasons, strong reasons, or if they rely on factors like reliability, causal connectedness, explanatory power, or wide acceptance.
claimClaims that actual people know actual facts about the world are contingent propositions that cannot be known a priori.
claimSkeptical arguments considered by traditional epistemologists typically rely on premises that specify a necessary condition for knowledge and premises that assert people's beliefs fail to satisfy that condition.
claimTraditional epistemologists may only be committed to the modest claim that no abstract philosophical argument is initially more plausible than the claim that humans possess knowledge in typical actual cases, rather than the extreme claim that empirical results could never show a lack of knowledge.
procedureTraditional epistemological inquiry typically relies on the method of reflection on possible cases, where epistemologists describe cases, consult their intuitions about whether the cases constitute knowledge, and decide if the proposed analysis fails based on those intuitions.
claimThe position held by many traditional epistemologists, which assumes that we know what we think we know, does not necessarily rule out the possibility that empirical results could overturn specific claims to knowledge.
quoteIn typical skeptical arguments, we invariably find that we are more certain of the of the knowledge seemingly denied us than we are of some of the premises. Thus it is not reasonable to adopt the skeptical conclusion that we do not have that knowledge. The rational stance is instead to deny one or more of the premises.
Virtue epistemology - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org 20 facts
claimVirtue epistemologists distinguish between 'eliminative' virtue epistemology, which replaces traditional concepts like knowledge and justification with intellectual virtue and vice, and 'non-eliminative' virtue epistemology, which retains traditional concepts while using virtue to provide a substantive explanation of them.
claimVirtue epistemology differs from other areas of epistemology by taking the state of an individual's intellect into account, which allows social context to alter knowledge.
perspectiveJonathan Kvanvig argues that there is nothing valuable about the anti-Gettier condition on knowledge once the non-Gettierized account of knowledge is understood.
perspectiveJonathan Kvanvig believes that epistemology should focus on 'understanding,' which he maintains is of more value than knowledge or justified true belief.
claimVirtue epistemology evaluates knowledge based on the properties of the persons or knowers who hold beliefs, rather than focusing solely on the properties of propositions and beliefs.
claimAlvin Plantinga's theory of knowledge, which is related to virtue epistemology, asserts that knowledge is warranted if an individual's intellectual faculties are operating as they were designed to operate.
claimKnowledge is considered valid if it is obtained through the correct operation of intellectual faculties that are designed to have an inherent ability to capture and produce true beliefs.
perspectiveJonathan Kvanvig argues that true belief is sufficient to maximize truth and avoid error, suggesting that justification should be dropped from the equation of knowledge.
claimVirtue epistemology replaces formulaic expressions for knowledge, such as 'S knows that p', by applying virtue theory to the intellect, making virtue the fulcrum for assessing knowledge candidates.
claimEdmund Gettier developed counterexamples to the traditional account of knowledge as justified true belief in 1963, which prompted the development of competing theories like coherentism and foundationalism.
claimVirtue epistemology attempts to simplify the analysis of knowledge by replacing certain abstractions with flexible and contextual instances, which allows for cognitive relativism.
perspectiveJohn Greco argues that knowledge and justified belief are grounded in stable and reliable cognitive character, which includes both natural cognitive faculties and acquired habits of thought.
claimUnder the view of virtue epistemology, a well-functioning intellectual faculty is a necessary condition for the formation of knowledge.
claimVirtue reliabilism posits that the virtuousness of a person's intellect and the quality of their knowledge are determined by the extent of that person's reality-tracking ability.
claimVirtue epistemology was inspired by a renewal of interest in virtue concepts among moral philosophers and as a response to the intractability of competing analyses of knowledge that arose following the work of Edmund Gettier.
claimIn Plato's Meno, Socrates argues that justified true belief fails to 'stay in their place' and must be 'tethered' to be considered knowledge.
perspectiveLorraine Code posits that the acquisition of correct knowledge about the world is the primary 'good' and the end toward which intellectual efforts should be oriented, with the desire for truth serving as the primary motivating factor for epistemological virtues.
claimThe philosophical definition of knowledge as 'justified true belief' is based on the distinction between 'true belief' and 'knowledge' found in Plato's Socratic dialogue, Meno.
quote"So long as such habits are both stable and successful, they make up the kind of character that gives rise to knowledge."
claimAI epistemology is a field that explores how artificial intelligence systems generate, structure, and transform knowledge, building on the foundations of virtue and social epistemology.
Social Epistemology - Open Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science oecs.mit.edu Jul 24, 2024 18 facts
claimUnderstanding is often conceptualized as 'knowledge+', with two prominent accounts holding that understanding is knowledge of causes or knowledge of difference makers (Sartorio, 2005).
claimVirtues, expertise, and skills are conceptualized as acquired traits of character that facilitate the acquisition, maintenance, and transmission of knowledge and other epistemic goods.
claimEpistemic vices are conceptualized as dispositions that obstruct the acquisition, maintenance, and transmission of knowledge and other epistemic goods, or promote ignorance and error.
claimEpistemology is defined as the study of knowledge and related phenomena, including attitudes like belief and trust, attributes like justification and reliability, and intellectual traits such as humility or arrogance.
referenceIn Plato's Meno, a thought experiment involving a travel guide raises the question of whether a guide must possess actual knowledge to be reliable, or if merely having a true belief is sufficient for reliability (Cooper, 1997).
claimUnderstanding is typically conceptualized as 'knowledge+', with theorists debating the additional requirements needed to transform knowledge into understanding.
claimEpistemologists generally agree that mere true belief does not qualify as knowledge, as illustrated by the example of a belief based on a coin toss that happens to be correct.
claimHonesty is an epistemic trait that increases the production of knowledge in those around an individual, according to Kawall (2002).
claimCandidates for the additional feature required to transform true belief into knowledge include justification (the ability to provide a reason), warrant (being well-positioned to know, such as through training or pattern recognition), and accuracy that manifests epistemic virtue (expressing reliable dispositions like good memory).
claimIn large team science, the conditions for knowledge are not met by any single individual but are instead met by the group as a whole.
claimNancy Hartsock introduced the notion of standpoint epistemology in 1983, which posits that socially marginalized people who engage in political activism are especially likely to acquire knowledge of the conditions of their marginalization, making their testimony valuable.
claimPlato recognized in the Meno that knowledge is deeply connected to belief.
claimVices are conceptualized as dispositions that obstruct the acquisition, maintenance, and transmission of knowledge and other epistemic goods, or that promote ignorance and error.
claimSocial epistemology is the study of knowledge and related phenomena as they manifest within social interactions.
claimAlthough René Descartes presented himself as retreating to a private residence to rebuild knowledge from scratch in Meditations, he was actually a social individual who consulted others for feedback on the work.
claimKnowledge is associated with the speech act of testifying or asserting, whereas understanding is associated with the speech act of explaining.
claimKnowledge is considered an essential epistemic status in social epistemology.
claimCore epistemic attitudes, in addition to knowledge, include understanding, wisdom, and ignorance.
Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Fall 2019 Edition) plato.stanford.edu Dec 14, 2005 14 facts
accountLearning about the July 22, 2005 terrorist attack in Sharm el-Sheikh, which killed at least 88 people, by reading the Washington Post is an example of acquiring knowledge through testimony.
perspectiveInternalists argue that the reliability of a testimonial source is insufficient for making it a source of knowledge if the recipient has no evidential clue regarding that person's reliability.
claimThe proposal that trust in testimonial sources is a necessary truth faces the challenge that knowledge cannot be acquired from sources whose reliability is unknown.
claimEpistemology is defined narrowly as the study of knowledge and justified belief, and broadly as the study of issues concerning the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry.
claimIn low-standard contexts, individuals ascribe knowledge liberally because the criteria for what constitutes knowledge are easy to satisfy.
claimIn high-standard contexts, individuals ascribe knowledge reluctantly because the criteria for what constitutes knowledge are demanding and difficult to satisfy.
claimAn example of the closure principle is that if a person knows they have had exactly two beers, and they know that having had exactly two beers entails having had less than three beers, then they know they have had less than three beers.
procedureThe skeptical argument against knowledge typically proceeds in two steps: first, by identifying a proposition the subject agrees they do not know (a skeptical hypothesis), and second, by arguing that because the subject does not know that hypothesis, they cannot know the original proposition (e.g., that they have hands).
claimThe ambiguity response posits that the proposition expressed by a 'knowledge'-attributing sentence depends on the specific concept of knowledge (high-standards or low-standards) the speaker has in mind when using the word 'know'.
claimEpistemologists distinguish between different kinds of knowledge, including knowing how to do something, knowing a person, and knowing a place or city.
claimEpistemology defines knowledge as requiring truth and objective reality.
claimIn an ordinary, low-standard context, the possibility of being a 'Brain in a Vat' (BIV) is ignored, allowing individuals to claim knowledge of having hands by simply discriminating between having hands and having stumps, hooks, or prosthetic hands.
claimThe epistemological puzzle regarding testimony is determining why testimony serves as a source of knowledge.
claimThe 'low-standards' version of the Brain in a Vat (BIV) argument concludes that humans do not have even fallible knowledge of their hands, which is considered unsound and disturbing because it implies a radical mistake in what humans think they know.
Rationalism Vs. Empiricism 101: Which One is Right? - TheCollector thecollector.com Nov 9, 2023 14 facts
claimEmpiricists determine the validity of knowledge by assessing whether it corresponds to the actual state of the world in everyday experience.
claimEmpiricism asserts that there is nothing in reason that has not previously passed through the senses, making the senses the first stage of acquiring knowledge.
claimRationalists hold the thesis that reason is the only source or power for acquiring real knowledge, specifically general and necessary truths.
claimRationalists, including Plato, Descartes, and Leibniz, base their theories on the origin of knowledge on the absolutization of the intellect and principles inherent in reason or the soul.
quoteImmanuel Kant states that knowledge begins with experience (sensibility), proceeds through reason (categories), and ends in the mind (principles).
claimSocrates' enlightened rationalism is characterized by a dialogic skill used to arrive at clear definitions of terms, driven by the conviction that virtues are obtainable only through knowledge.
claimEmpiricism defines knowledge as being limited to information available through sensory experience.
claimRationalists determine the truth of knowledge by assessing the accordance of thinking with logical rules, laws, or general principles established by science.
claimGottfried Wilhelm Leibniz maintained that reason is the sole source of knowledge that is necessarily true.
claimRationalists hold that the object of knowledge can only be grasped through immediate intellectual perception and abstract-logical thought operations.
claimEmpiricism claims that the source of knowledge and the criterion of truth is experience rather than reason.
perspectiveThe author of the article asserts that there are currently no serious indications that a valid scientific basis exists for the rationalist thesis that knowledge originates from the intellect.
claimPlato argued that the source of knowledge is the soul's 'remembering' of its original residence in the 'kingdom of ideas,' where the power of reason is the ability to recall and recognize these ideas as general and necessary truths.
claimDavid Hume asserts that the initiator of knowledge is experiential content, specifically impressions acquired through sensory activity.
Epistemological Problems of Testimony plato.stanford.edu Apr 1, 2021 13 facts
claimA primary motivation for the Transmission View is the analogy between memory and testimony, which suggests that just as one cannot acquire memorial knowledge of a proposition today without having known it previously, one cannot acquire testimonial knowledge of a proposition from a speaker who does not know it themselves.
referenceWright (2016a) provides a discussion of epistemological views where testimony transmits knowledge while simultaneously generating justification.
referenceErnest Sosa authored the essay 'Knowledge: Instrumental and Testimonial,' published in the 2006 volume edited by Jennifer Lackey and Ernest Sosa.
claimGoldberg (2005) and Pelling (2013) present cases where a speaker's belief is unsafe and does not constitute knowledge, even though the hearer's belief derived from that speaker does constitute knowledge.
formulaThe Transmission View necessity condition (TV-N) states that for every speaker A and hearer B, B knows proposition p on the basis of A's testimony only if A also knows p.
claimRobert Audi (1997) maintains that while testimony can generate justification, it can only transmit knowledge.
formulaThe Transmission View sufficiency condition (TV-S) states that for every speaker A and hearer B, if A knows proposition p, B comes to believe p based on A's testimony, and B has no undefeated defeaters for believing p, then B comes to know p.
claimRecent epistemological research on whether testimony generates or transmits knowledge focuses on distinguishing between different versions of TV-N and TV-S to determine which versions avoid specific epistemic problems.
claimThe disjunctive account of testimony captures both the intentional act performed by a speaker and the sense in which testimony serves as a source of knowledge and justified belief regardless of the speaker's original intent.
perspectiveCritics of Global Reductionism argue that it is a mistake to treat testimony as a unified, homogeneous category of knowledge, because the reliability of testimony varies significantly depending on the subject matter, such as the difference between music preferences and political opinions.
accountIn the 'Persistent Believer' case, Persia ignores her eye doctor Eyal's (incorrect) testimony that her vision is unreliable, sees a badger, and forms a true belief about the badger. Persia then tells her friend Fred about the badger. Because Fred is unaware of Eyal's misleading testimony and has reason to trust Persia, Fred acquires knowledge of the badger's presence based on Persia's testimony, even though Persia herself lacked justification for her belief due to the undefeated defeater provided by Eyal.
claimThe 'Second Big Question' in epistemology asks whether testimony can generate knowledge or merely transmit it, specifically whether a hearer can acquire knowledge from a speaker who does not know the proposition themselves.
claimSteven L. Reynolds argues about the relationship between testimony, knowledge, and epistemic goals in his 2002 paper published in Philosophical Studies.
Epistemic Justification – Introduction to Philosophy: Epistemology press.rebus.community 12 facts
claimThe Agrippan trilemma, also known as the regress problem, is a first-century argument for global skepticism about justification and knowledge, attributed to the philosopher Agrippa.
claimA belief based solely on wishful thinking, such as the hypothetical example of Kim believing her husband is unharmed in an accident simply because she wants it to be true, does not constitute knowledge because it lacks epistemic justification.
claimUnderstanding epistemic justification can assist individuals in finding flaws in skeptical arguments, settling disagreements regarding which beliefs to hold in areas like religion, ethics, and politics, and determining what makes knowledge more valuable than true belief.
claimCartesian foundationalism is inadequate to explain the commonsense view that humans possess a significant amount of knowledge about external physical objects.
claimTruth is a requirement for knowledge, but it is a distinct requirement from justification; one cannot know a proposition to be true if that proposition is false.
claimAgrippa, a first-century Pyrrhonist philosopher, proposed an argument for global skepticism about justification and knowledge based on the structure of reasons.
claimThe Gettier problem demonstrates that epistemically justified true belief is not entirely sufficient for knowledge.
quoteIn Plato’s Meno (98a), Socrates defines knowledge as true belief plus an account of the reason why.
claimIn Plato’s Meno, the ancient philosopher Socrates (ca. 469–399 BCE) raised the question of what must be added to true belief for a person to possess knowledge.
claimAgrippa's trilemma is an argument put forward by the first-century Pyrrhonist philosopher Agrippa for global skepticism about justification and knowledge.
claimStrong foundationalism faces the challenge of determining whether ordinary people possess enough beliefs about how things seem to them to serve as the foundations for the knowledge claimed by the commonsense view.
claimEpistemic justification makes a belief rational by providing reasons that count toward knowledge.
Epistemology - Belief, Justification, Rationality | Britannica britannica.com Mar 13, 2026 12 facts
claimRationalists maintain that human beings possess knowledge that is prior to experience and significant, a possibility that empiricists deny.
referenceIn the work "On Certainty," Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that knowledge and certitude are radically different concepts and that neither concept entails the other.
claimJohn Locke, considered the father of modern empiricism, acknowledged that some knowledge does not derive from experience, though he characterized such knowledge as 'trifling' and empty of content.
claimSkepticism challenges the claim that human beings possess or can acquire knowledge.
formulaThe definition of knowledge accepted by both skeptics and non-skeptics implies two conditions: (1) if a person knows a proposition p, then p must be true, and (2) if a person knows a proposition p, then it is logically impossible for that person to be mistaken.
claimB.F. Skinner, a leading figure in behaviorism, proposed that all knowledge, including linguistic knowledge, is acquired through environmental conditioning via processes of reinforcement and reward.
claimSome philosophers argue that if a person's knowledge that a proposition p is true is occurrent rather than merely dispositional, it implies certainty that p is true.
claimRadical skepticism claims that knowledge of an external world does not exist.
claimPhilosophers investigate the origins of knowledge based on the assumption that understanding how knowledge arises sheds light on the nature of knowledge itself.
claimThe debate over whether knowledge is innate (present from birth) or acquired through experience has been significant in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology since the mid-20th century.
claimPlato's Republic contains one of the earliest systematic arguments asserting that sense experience cannot be a source of knowledge.
claimPlato concluded in the Meno that knowledge of abstract concepts is recollected by the soul from an earlier existence.
Rationalism vs Empiricism: Philosophy & Meaning - Vaia vaia.com Nov 12, 2024 10 facts
claimEmpiricism is a theory stating that knowledge derives primarily from sensory experiences, with individuals born as a 'blank slate' who learn through observation and interaction.
claimRationalism asserts that reason and logic are the primary paths to knowledge, with some ideas being innate.
claimEmpiricism is the philosophical theory that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience, underscoring the importance of observation and experimentation.
claimRationalism is the philosophical belief that reason and intellect are the primary paths to knowledge, emphasizing innate principles and deductive reasoning.
claimEmpiricism posits that human senses act as windows to understanding, arguing that knowledge is constructed based on sensory input.
claimRationalism posits that knowledge is innate, uses reason as the main tool, and relies on a priori knowledge, whereas empiricism posits that knowledge is learned through experience, uses senses as the main tool, and relies on a posteriori knowledge.
claimEmpiricists argue that learning about fire through sensory inputs like feeling heat, smelling smoke, and seeing flames provides knowledge about the nature of fire.
claimRationalism posits that the human mind's ability to reason is the primary repository of knowledge, distinguishing humans from other creatures.
claimRationalism is a philosophical view asserting that reason is the primary source of knowledge, and that humans possess innate understanding that can be developed through logic and deduction.
claimEmpiricism proposes that knowledge comes from sensory experiences, learning from observation and interaction.
7.1 What Epistemology Studies - Introduction to Philosophy | OpenStax openstax.org Jun 15, 2022 9 facts
claimKnowledge of one's own height is a posteriori because it requires measurement.
accountThe author illustrates the potential flaw in the 'certainty' theory of knowledge by describing a scenario where they believe there is a bird on a branch outside their office window based on visual evidence; even though the belief could be wrong (e.g., hallucination or a decoy), if the belief is true and supported by good reason, it challenges the necessity of certainty for knowledge.
claimCritics of the 'certainty' theory of knowledge argue that there are instances of true beliefs that are considered knowledge despite lacking absolute certainty.
claimEpistemological investigation begins with the philosophical method of doubting and asking questions about the nature and possibility of knowledge, such as questioning whether beliefs can be known to be true.
claimKnowing that 3 is the square root of 9 is a priori because it can be determined through reasoning.
claimSome theorists argue that certainty is a necessary component of knowledge, meaning a person cannot know a belief if they are not completely certain of it, even if the belief is true.
claimEpistemologists investigate knowledge by identifying necessary conditions, which are features that all instances of knowledge share, and sufficient conditions, which are the set of conditions that together constitute knowledge.
claimUnderstanding the process of conceptual analysis is essential for following debates in epistemological theorizing regarding knowledge and justification.
claimEpistemology is defined as the study of knowledge, focusing on what knowledge is, the types of knowledge that exist, the possibility and nature of justification, the sources of beliefs, and the nature of truth.
Naturalistic Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 8 facts
claimMany philosophers consider answering the Cartesian skeptic to be a primary task of epistemology, as the Cartesian skeptic argues that knowledge is impossible because the possibility of massive deception cannot be ruled out.
claimAlvin Goldman and Philip Kitcher apply insights from both natural and social sciences to understand knowledge as a simultaneously cognitive and social phenomenon.
claimAlvin Goldman's theory of knowledge, known as causal reliabilism, asserts that a justified true belief constitutes knowledge only if it is caused in a suitably reliable way.
claimPsychology plays a role in addressing skeptical problems by helping determine whether knowledge is humanly possible and whether anyone actually knows anything, as these depend on the cognitive processes available to humans and the reliability of those processes.
claimCausal reliabilism demonstrates that knowledge is logically possible, specifically that it is logically possible for a person to possess justified, true beliefs caused by reliable processes.
claimMuch naturalistic epistemology utilizes psychology and, in certain cases, the natural sciences to develop an understanding of knowledge.
claimNaturalistic epistemologists seek to develop an understanding of knowledge that is scientifically informed and integrated with the broader understanding of the world.
claimIn Alvin Goldman's theory of knowledge, psychology is necessary to identify and evaluate belief-forming processes and to judge their reliability, thereby making the determination of knowledge dependent on both philosophical and psychological considerations.
What Is Epistemology? Pt. 3: The Nature of Justification and Belief philosimplicity.com Oct 23, 2017 7 facts
claimThe Justified True Belief (JTB) theory, also known as the standard analysis, defines knowledge as consisting of three components: justification, truth, and belief.
claimMost epistemologists conclude that known things cannot be false because knowledge requires that beliefs be both justified and true.
claimFallibilism does not assert that beliefs are wrong or that true knowledge is impossible, but rather that absolute certainty regarding the nature of justifications in relation to the knowledge they provide is unattainable.
claimEpistemological positions are not mutually exclusive; for example, an individual can be an externalist regarding knowledge while being an internalist regarding justification, or simultaneously a fallibilist and a foundationalist.
claimWithin the Justified True Belief (JTB) framework, 'true' functions as a condition that modifies the definition of belief to exclude false statements from being considered knowledge.
claimIn the context of the Justified True Belief (JTB) account of knowledge, the question of 'what is true' refers specifically to epistemic truth or factive knowledge.
claimThe distinction between knowing something and contemplating false statements is metaphysical, as false things have not happened or been experienced, and therefore cannot be the object of epistemic access.
Naturalized epistemology - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org 7 facts
claimCooperative naturalism is a philosophical view that holds that empirical results from the natural sciences are essential and useful to epistemology, asserting that traditional epistemology cannot succeed in its investigation of knowledge without these results.
perspectiveW.V.O. Quine advocates for the use of natural scientific methods to study knowledge because traditional philosophical analysis of knowledge has failed.
claimJaegwon Kim argues that modern epistemology is defined by the normative concepts of justification and reliability, and that removing these concepts eliminates the common sense meaning of knowledge.
quoteJaegwon Kim asserts that the defining characteristic of an epistemological study is the notion of justification, stating: "If justification drops out of epistemology, knowledge itself drops out of epistemology."
claimSome critics argue that naturalized methods are unable to adequately address questions regarding the value of potential knowledge.
claimReliabilism is a form of investigation within naturalized epistemology that requires a belief to be the product of a reliable method to be considered knowledge.
claimWillard Van Orman Quine argues that the circularity of using science to ground the study of knowledge (which itself underlies science) should be tolerated because it is the best available option after traditional philosophical methods are ruled out for their flaws.
Naturalized epistemology and cognitive science | Intro to... - Fiveable fiveable.me 7 facts
claimCognitive science adopts an interdisciplinary approach to studying knowledge and cognition by integrating methods and insights from multiple fields to gain a comprehensive understanding.
claimNaturalized epistemology views knowledge as a natural phenomenon that is subject to empirical investigation.
claimCognitive science raises questions about the nature of consciousness and its role in knowledge and cognition.
claimCognitive science approaches challenge traditional philosophical views on knowledge and the mind.
claimNaturalized epistemology treats knowledge as a natural phenomenon, departing from traditional philosophical approaches that seek absolute certainty.
claimCognitive science explores how different levels of analysis, including neural, cognitive, and social, interact to produce knowledge.
claimNaturalized epistemology examines the processes by which organisms actually acquire knowledge and form beliefs.
What is the main difference between Rationalism and Empiricism? byjus.com 6 facts
claimRationalism and Empiricism are both theories within epistemology, the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge, and have historically been used as opposing concepts.
claimEmpiricism is a philosophical theory asserting that experience and experimentation are the primary sources of knowledge.
claimRationalism is a philosophical theory asserting that reason and logic are the primary sources of knowledge.
referenceThe ancient Indian philosopher Kanada accepted perception and inference as the two sources of knowledge, as documented in his work, the Vaisesika Sutra.
claimRationalists believe that reason is fundamentally true, cannot be denied, and that knowledge is independent of sensory experience.
claimEmpiricism is a philosophical theory stating that experimentation and sensory experience are the primary sources of knowledge, emphasizing evidence over ideas.
Social Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Feb 26, 2001 6 facts
referencePaul Faulkner's 2011 book 'Knowledge on trust' examines the role of trust in the acquisition and justification of knowledge.
claimPatricia Hill Collins explored the politics of empowerment and knowledge in her 2000 book 'Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment'.
claimJohn Locke, in his 1690 work, insisted on intellectual self-reliance, arguing that 'other men’s opinions floating in one’s brain' do not constitute genuine knowledge.
claimEdward Craig proposed a conceptual synthesis of knowledge and the state of nature in his 1990 book 'Knowledge and the State of Nature: An Essay in Conceptual Synthesis'.
claimRichard Rorty rejected the traditional conception of knowledge as 'accuracy of representation' and proposed replacing it with a notion of the 'social justification of belief'.
claimSystems-oriented social epistemology aims to determine how to design systems that achieve epistemic goods, such as the production or distribution of knowledge or true belief.
Sources of Knowledge: Rationalism, Empiricism, and the Kantian ... press.rebus.community 5 facts
claimRationalists argue that knowledge accessed through reasoning is eternal, meaning it exists unchanged throughout the past, present, and future.
claimEmpiricists argue that experience alone provides the mind with simple ideas, which serve as the basic elements of knowledge.
claimEmpiricism is the philosophical view that knowledge is empirical, meaning it is based on observation or experience.
claimRationalism is the philosophical view that reason is the primary source of knowledge, with mathematical or logical knowledge serving as paradigm examples.
perspectiveRené Descartes posits that reason alone, utilizing intuition and deduction, can provide certainty to all human knowledge.
Virtue Epistemology, Anyone? - The Philosophers' Magazine - philosophersmag.com 4 facts
claimFoundationalism views knowledge as a structure resembling a pyramid, which is gradually built upon a solid foundation.
perspectiveVirtue epistemology is not mutually exclusive with foundationalism or coherentism, but rather offers a different perspective on debates regarding the nature and security of knowledge.
claimKnowledge is defined in virtue epistemology as a state of belief generated by acts of intellectual virtue.
claimThe virtuous epistemic agent is motivated by a desire to acquire knowledge and cultivates appropriate virtues, such as open-mindedness, to achieve that goal.
Evolutionary psychology - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org 3 facts
claimDepth perception evolved to assist organisms in moving through space rather than to provide knowledge about the distances to other objects.
claimAnimals ranging from fiddler crabs to humans utilize eyesight for collision avoidance, which suggests that vision is primarily for directing action rather than providing knowledge.
perspectiveEvolutionary psychologists argue that the primary purpose of perception is to guide action, contrasting with the view held by experts like Jerry Fodor that the purpose of perception is to provide knowledge.
Basic epistemology and justification of true beliefs? : r/askphilosophy reddit.com Dec 3, 2015 3 facts
claimIn the Standard View of knowledge, justification is a necessary component for something to be considered knowledge.
claimThere are alternative philosophical views of knowledge that exist in addition to the Standard View.
claimThe Standard View of knowledge defines knowledge as "Justified True Belief".
Rationalism Vs. Empiricism: Sources of Human Knowledge ijesh.com 3 facts
claimRationalism is a philosophical position that emphasizes the role of innate ideas, intuition, and deductive reasoning in the acquisition of knowledge, maintaining that certain truths can be discovered independently of sensory input.
claimEmpiricism is a philosophical position that argues the human mind begins as a blank slate and that knowledge arises exclusively through sensory experience and observation, with induction serving as the basis for understanding.
claimRationalism seeks certainty and universality in knowledge, whereas Empiricism values evidence and the adaptability of knowledge to changing perceptions.
What is the actual difference between rationalism & empiricism? reddit.com Nov 30, 2017 2 facts
Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences sk.sagepub.com 2 facts
claimVirtue epistemologists argue that knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief because knowledge requires that the agent deserves credit for arriving at the truth through the exercise of epistemic virtues, whereas true belief can be the result of luck.
claimVirtue epistemologists define knowledge as true belief that manifests epistemic virtue.
Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Dec 14, 2005 2 facts
perspectiveProponents of the extensionist view of social epistemology maintain that knowledge and justified belief are linked to truth and that objective norms of rationality exist.
claimReligious epistemology examines whether arguments for the existence of God, such as the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the argument from design, can provide a rational foundation for faith or knowledge of God.
The Role of Epistemic Communities and Expert Testimonies in ... academia.edu 2 facts
claimEpistemic communities are defined as small groups of individuals who excel in a particular field of interest and possess a higher capacity for achieving knowledge in their domain compared to the average person.
claimShared beliefs within epistemic communities shape normative, causal, and validity frameworks for knowledge.
Neuro-Symbolic AI: Explainability, Challenges, and Future Trends arxiv.org Nov 7, 2024 2 facts
How Enterprise AI, powered by Knowledge Graphs, is ... blog.metaphacts.com Oct 7, 2025 2 facts
procedureThe 'decision transformation' process for business intelligence follows a predictable journey consisting of three steps: (1) Data + context = information, (2) Information + meaning = knowledge, (3) Knowledge + action = decision.
claimKnowledge is defined as information synthesized with organizational wisdom and historical understanding, allowing an enterprise to understand not just what happened, but why it happened and how it connects to broader business strategy.
Does the combination of sustainable business model patterns lead ... link.springer.com Feb 20, 2023 2 facts
claimProponents of the strong sustainability perspective, such as Victor et al. (1998) and Pelenc et al. (2015), assert that produced capital (including infrastructure, manufactured goods, labor, and knowledge) and natural capital are not interchangeable.
claimPatterns are defined as proven problem–solution combinations that serve as instruments for the codification of knowledge.
Understanding Behavioral Aspects of Financial Planning and Investing financialplanningassociation.org Mar 1, 2015 2 facts
measurementIn a 1999 survey of 265 financial advisers, MacGregor, Slovic, Berry, and Evensky reported that 98 percent of an expert’s risk perception is attributable to three major factors: worry, volatility, and knowledge.
quoteBenjamin Franklin stated, 'An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.'
[PDF] Social Epistemology: Theory and Applications - Philosophy, Rutgers fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu 2 facts
Large Language Models Meet Knowledge Graphs for Question ... arxiv.org Sep 22, 2025 1 fact
claimQ-KGR (Zhang et al., 2024c) improves the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models by filtering out irrelevant knowledge based on the ranking of relevance scores between the question and the knowledge.
Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Dec 14, 2005 1 fact
accountLearning the time by asking a person and receiving an answer is an example of acquiring knowledge through testimony.
Bridging the Gap Between LLMs and Evolving Medical Knowledge arxiv.org Jun 29, 2025 1 fact
referenceSanmartin (2024) published 'Kg-rag: Bridging the gap between knowledge and creativity' as an arXiv preprint (arXiv:2405.12035).
Self-Consciousness - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu Jul 13, 2017 1 fact
referenceDonald Davidson categorizes knowledge into three varieties in his 1991 essay 'Three Varieties of Knowledge'.
Social Epistemology – Introduction to Philosophy - Rebus Press press.rebus.community 1 fact
claimCollective epistemology investigates the conditions under which the beliefs of groups can be considered justified or knowledge, given that groups are often spoken of as having intentions and beliefs.
A Survey of Incorporating Psychological Theories in LLMs - arXiv arxiv.org 1 fact
referenceSchema Theory holds that humans store knowledge as dynamic, structured representations formed through repeated experience, which guide inference, memory, and learning.
Developing youth work: Chapter 5 - Beyond social education infed.org 1 fact
claimLearning can be conceptualized as either an internal change in consciousness or as the process of acquiring knowledge, feelings, and skills.
[PDF] The Problem of Expert Testimony, and the Problems with Social ... bilt.online 1 fact
claimA perspective on social epistemology holds that the field ought to focus on the transmission of truth or knowledge between two individuals.
Awesome-Hallucination-Detection-and-Mitigation - GitHub github.com 1 fact
referenceThe paper "Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity" by Wang et al. (2023) provides a survey on the state of factuality in large language models, covering aspects of knowledge, retrieval, and domain-specificity.
Quine: Naturalized Epistemology | History of Modern... fiveable.me 1 fact
claimW.V.O. Quine's naturalized epistemology proposed that knowledge should be studied as a branch of science rather than exclusively as a branch of philosophy.
Dualism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Winter 2016 Edition) plato.stanford.edu Aug 19, 2003 1 fact
perspectiveThe 'ability' response to the knowledge argument claims that Harpo does not acquire new factual knowledge, but rather 'knowledge how,' which is the ability to respond directly to sounds.
Early child development and nutrition: A review of the benefits and ... pure.johnshopkins.edu 1 fact
claimFurther research is required to determine how integrated messaging influences caregiver characteristics such as well-being, knowledge, and behavior, and how these factors subsequently influence early child nutrition and development outcomes.
Epistemology grokipedia.com 1 fact
claimScottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier coined the term 'epistemology' in 1856 to designate the branch of philosophy that systematically examines knowledge and distinguishes it from ontology.
Practitioners' perceived risks to biodiversity from renewable energy ... nature.com Feb 27, 2025 1 fact
referenceRydin (2007) in 'Re-Examining the Role of Knowledge Within Planning Theory' (Plan Theory) re-evaluates how knowledge is utilized within the framework of planning theory.
Building Trustworthy NeuroSymbolic AI Systems - arXiv arxiv.org 1 fact
referenceTyagi, Sarkar, and Gaur (2023) investigated leveraging knowledge and reinforcement learning to enhance the reliability of language models.
Practices, opportunities and challenges in the fusion of knowledge ... frontiersin.org 1 fact
referenceCoLAKE (Sun et al., 2020) uses a unified pre-training framework that jointly learns contextualized representations of language and knowledge by integrating them into a shared structure called the word-knowledge graph.
The construction and refined extraction techniques of knowledge ... nature.com Feb 10, 2026 1 fact
claimThe study 'The construction and refined extraction techniques of knowledge' asserts that its dataset systematizes knowledge through a structured data production process, providing a foundation for domain-specific artificial intelligence applications.
Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org 1 fact
claimType-C materialists acknowledge a distinction between knowledge and experience without asserting a more complete explanation for the experiential phenomenon.
Knowledge Graphs: Opportunities and Challenges - Springer Nature link.springer.com Apr 3, 2023 1 fact
claimArtificial intelligence systems require additional knowledge to understand and analyze their surroundings and solve complex tasks in realistic scenarios.
Virtue epistemology - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy rep.routledge.com 1 fact
claimSome virtue epistemology theories propose that traditional concepts of justification or knowledge can be analyzed in terms of intellectual virtue, while others argue that traditional concepts are defective or uninteresting and should be replaced by the notion of intellectual virtue.
Pluralism About Group Knowledge: A Reply to Jesper Kallestrup ... social-epistemology.com Jan 20, 2023 1 fact
claimThe epistemic structure of a group dictates how it possesses information to meet the belief component of knowledge.
Social epistemology - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy rep.routledge.com 1 fact
claimSocial epistemology is the study of methods for gaining and communicating knowledge where the subject is not self-reliant but is dependent on other agents or on tools that scaffold or extend their cognitive abilities.
Intro to Epistemology #1: The Nature of Knowledge - YouTube youtube.com Sep 6, 2013 1 fact
claimThe YouTube video titled 'Intro to Epistemology #1: The Nature of Knowledge' defines knowledge as justified, true belief.
A Survey on the Theory and Mechanism of Large Language Models arxiv.org Mar 12, 2026 1 fact
measurementHuang et al. (2024e) observe a strong linear relationship between compression efficiency and downstream task performance, using knowledge, commonsense, coding, and mathematical reasoning as proxies for intelligence.
Group Testimony: Social Epistemology - Taylor & Francis tandfonline.com 1 fact
claimThe fact that individuals gain much of their knowledge through the testimony of others challenges the philosophical position of epistemic individualism.
Grounding LLM Reasoning with Knowledge Graphs - arXiv arxiv.org Dec 4, 2025 1 fact
claimExplicitly linking reasoning steps to graph structure offers a more interpretable view of how large language models navigate knowledge.
Understanding Epistemology and Justified True Belief - Quizlet quizlet.com Dec 9, 2024 1 fact
claimKnowledge is defined as Justified True Belief (JTB), which requires three components: belief, truth, and justification.