Epistemology: 

The Theory of Knowledge

If we think of Socrates and the natural philosophers who came before him, it's not
hard to see that they share some common concerns. The Pre-Socratics were interested
in understanding how the cosmos existed, and believed that it was not necessary to
appeal to mythology to do so. Socrates was interested in living the good life and
believed that any rational person could, if they diligently tried, do so. But in both
natural philosophy and moral philosophy we are interested in knowing the truth. So,
before we can answer either Socrates or the natural philosophers, we must first have a
conception of what it is to know. 'Epistemology' is the branch or subdivision of
philosophy which is dedicated to the study of knowledge, its attainment, and its
limitations.

Epistemology is an umbrella term used to describe the study of philosophical

problems underlying theories of knowledge. Epistemology attempts to answer
important questions such as:

Is knowledge possible or is it just belief?

Is science truly objective and beyond doubt?
Are there things we cannot doubt?
How much evidence is needed for us to be certain?
Can we trust our senses?
What is knowledge?
Traditionally, there are three different types of knowledge:

practical knowledge: knowledge that is skills-based, e.g. being able to drive or use a
computer
knowledge by acquaintance: knowledge that doesn’t involve facts but familliarity
with someone or an objects, e.g. I know my mother, I know what an apple looks like
factual knowledge: knowledge based on fact, e.g. I know that the sun rises every
morning – I know it is true.

Philosophers are mostly interested in factual knowledge because they are trying to
understand how we can achieve truth about the world.

Plato argues that for a factual claim to be knowledge, it has to be a belief which is true
and justified. His definition of knowledge is therefore that it is must be a justified
true belief .

sources of knowledge :

ideas that we gain from our senses: Empiricism

ideas that we gain from reason: Rationalism
Rationalism and empiricism are two opposing philosophical schools of thought. They
both attempt to establish the source of our knowledge claims and to determine how we
form concepts and ideas. Rationalism argues that knowledge is based on reason
whereas empiricism argues that knowledge is based on experience.

Empiricism

Empiricism is the view that knowledge is derived from our senses. For example, I know
what a red circle is because I have experienced through my senses the colour red and
the shape of a circle.

Rationalism

Rationalism is the view that knowledge does not come from the senses but from
reason. senses can deceive us and therefore cannot be trusted to give us true and
certain knowledge. Rationalists argue that instead we should derive knowledge only
from our reason and logical abilities.

I. Introduction to Epistemology: An Overview -

A. Three Central Questions:
1. What is knowledge? (What‘s the difference between knowledge and
opinion?)
2. Can we have knowledge? (Are humans capable of knowing anything?)
3. How do we get knowledge? (What‘s the process by which knowledge is
obtained?)
B. Three Preliminary Answers:
1. What is Knowledge?
a. beliefs which are
b. true
c. for which we can give sufficient justification
2. Can we have knowledge?
a. Skepticism - "No!"
b. Dogmatism - "Yes!"
3. How do we obtain knowledge?
a. Rationalism - through rational reflection on ideas alone
b. Empiricism - through the senses alone

a. Belief
Let us begin with the observation that knowledge is a mental state; that is, knowledge
exists in one's mind, and unthinking things cannot know anything. Further,
knowledge is a specific kind of mental state. While "that"-clauses can also be used to
describe desires and intentions, these cannot constitute knowledge. Rather, knowledge
is a kind of belief. If one has no beliefs about a particular matter, one cannot have
knowledge about it.

b. Truth
Knowledge, then, requires belief. Of course, not all beliefs constitute knowledge. Belief
is necessary but not sufficient for knowledge. We are all sometimes mistaken in what
we believe; in other words, while some of our beliefs are true, others are false. As we
try to acquire knowledge, then, we are trying to increase our stock of true beliefs (while
simultaneously minimizing our false beliefs).

We might say that the most typical purpose of beliefs is to describe or capture the way
things actually are; that is, when one forms a belief, one is seeking a match between
one's mind and the world. (We sometimes, of course, form beliefs for other reasons – to
create a positive attitude, to deceive ourselves, and so forth – but when we seek
knowledge, we are trying to get things right.) And, alas, we sometimes fail to achieve
such a match; some of our beliefs do not describe the way things actually are.

Note that we are assuming here that there is such a thing as objective truth, so that it
is possible for beliefs to match or to fail to match with reality. That is, in order for
someone to know something, there must be something one knows about. Recall that
we are discussing knowledge in the factive sense; if there are no facts of the matter,
then there's nothing to know (or to fail to know). Truth is a condition of knowledge;
that is, if a belief is not true, it cannot constitute knowledge. Accordingly, if there is no
such thing as truth, then there can be no knowledge.

c. Justification
Knowledge, then, requires factual belief. However, this does not suffice to capture the
nature of knowledge. Just as knowledge requires successfully achieving the objective
of true belief, it also requires success with regard to the formation of that belief. In
other words, not all true beliefs constitute knowledge; only true beliefs arrived at in
the right way constitute knowledge.

A belief is said to be justified if it is obtained in the right way. While justification

seems, at first glance, to be a matter of a belief's being based on evidence and
reasoning rather than on luck or misinformation, we shall see that there is much
disagreement regarding how to spell out the details.