Reasoning and Knowledge: Lecture Eleven: Can We Define Knowledge'?

PY1006 (2009-10)
REASONING AND KNOWLEDGE
LECTURE ELEVEN:
Can we define ‘knowledge’?
4/2/2010
(student version)
Dr. Patrick Greenough
1
1. Recap.
• Recall that there are two basic

epistemological questions:
The Definitional Question: What is

knowledge?
The Sceptical Question: Do we know

anything?
2
2. Overview.
• In these last two epistemology lectures,

we are going to address the first of these
questions.
• In particular, we are going to look at a

the so-called Gettier counterexamples.
3
3. What is a definition?
• Two basic types:
(1) Ostensive definitions (To ostend is to

point.)
(2) Verbal definitions. Here we try to

express using words, rather than by
pointing, what a word or phrase means.
4
• Two types of verbal definitions:
(a) Definitions by giving examples.
E.g.: We define bachelor by citing

examples of bachelors: ‘John is a
bachelor’, ‘Jim is a bachelor’, …
5
(b) Analytic Definitions: These employ an

‘if and only if’.
E.g.: x is bachelor if and only if …
6
• Here ‘is a bachelor’ is the definiendum

(the thing to be defined).
(Sometimes this is called the

analysandum.)
7
• And the … are to be filled in by the

definiens.
(Sometimes these are called the

analysans.)
8
• Good analytic definitions provide an

analysis of some concept.
• The best kind of analytic definitions are

reductive.
9
• Reductive analyses provide an analysis

(or definition) of a concept in terms which
are better understood (or more basic)
than the original term.
10
• Reductive definitions are never circular:

the defiendum never re-appears in the
definiens or in any further analysis of the
definiens.
11
4. Non-reductive definitions.
Example one:
x is a bachelor if and only if x is a bachelor
• This is blatantly circular.
• This definition is highly uninformative!

12
Example Two: x is red if and only if x is

coloured and not-green and not-yellow and
not-blue and ..
• This definition is circular (non-reductive)

because ‘green’ is defined as as follows:
x is green if and only if x is coloured and not-

red and not-yellow and not-blue and …
13
Question: Are all circular definitions bad?
• Suppose I say that belief is that state

which aims at truth and that truth is that
property which all good beliefs have.
• Such analyses may be informative –

despite being circular …
14
5. Necessary and sufficient conditions.
• Necessary conditions are conditions

which must obtain in order for some
other condition to obtain.
15
Definition: P is a necessary condition for

Q if and only if:
Necessarily, if Q then P
That is: Necessarily, Q only if P
16
• Sufficient conditions are conditions

whose holding is enough (or sufficient)
for the obtaining of some other condition.
17
Definition: P is a sufficient condition for Q

if and only if:
Necessarily, if P then Q.
That is: Necessarily, P only if Q.
18
• So, P is both necessary and sufficient for

Q when and only when:
Necessarily, P if and only if Q.
19
6. Case Study: defining ‘millionaire’.
• See handout …
20
7. Case Study: defining ‘bachelor’.
• See handout …
21
8. When are analytic definitions bad?
• They are bad when either:
(a) They are uninformative (see above).
(b) Inaccurate, i.e. subject to

counterexample.
22
9. Counterexamples to an analytic definition.
• Recall that an analytic definition is of the

form:
x is F if and only if …
E.g.: x is bachelor if and only if …
23
• Such a definition makes two claims:
(i) If … then x is F (sufficiency claim)
(ii) If x is F then … (necessity claim)
24
• In other words, such a definition makes

the following two claims:
(i) … is sufficient for x to be F
(ii) … is necessary for x to be F
25
• So, counterexamples to some definition

can be of two kinds:
(1) Failure of sufficiency.
(2) Failure of necessity.
26
(1) Failure of sufficiency: This is where

… is not sufficient for x to be F
• That is, the … condition holds, but x fails

to be F.
27
Example: Take the following definition.
x is a millionaire if and only x has a very

expensive house, a Rolls-Royce, and a
German butler.
Counterexample to sufficiency: …
28
Example: Take the same definition as

before.
Counterexample to necessity: …
29
10. Is knowledge just belief?
Question: is knowledge just belief?
(Here we are interested in so-called

knowledge-that – as opposed to
knowledge-how.)
30
• Put another way: is belief both necessary

and sufficient for knowledge?
• That is, do we have the following?
A subject S knows that p if and only if S

believes that p
31
Question: But is belief necessary for

knowledge?
• YES.
Potential counterexample: …
32
Question: But is belief sufficient for

knowledge?
• Surely knowledge is some kind of special

belief.
• Mere belief, while necessary, is not

sufficient for knowledge.
33
11. Is knowledge just true belief?
Question: Is knowledge just true belief?
• That is, do we have the following?
S knows that p if and only if:
(i) S believes that and

(ii) p is true.
34
Question: Is truth necessary for

knowledge knowledge?
Arguably: Yes – one cannot know a

proposition which is false.
Potential counterexample: …
35
Question: Is true belief sufficient for

knowledge?
36
Counterexample to this sufficiency claim:

I believe that the moon contains 3 billion
tonnes of lead. I formed this belief
without any evidence. Nonetheless my
belief turns out to be true – but surely it is
not knowledge!
37
Basic Underlying thought: a belief needs

to be a bit more special than that in order
to count as knowledge.
38
Underlying thought One: we don’t want

beliefs that are accidentally true to count
as knowledge.
Underlying thought Two: we don’t want

true beliefs that are not supported by
evidence to count as knowledge.
39
12. Is knowledge justified true belief?
Put another way: …
40
This is called The Tripartite Analysis of

Knowledge.
Alternative name: The JTB Analysis.
41
JTB Analysis: a subject S knows that P if

and only if
(i) S believes that P,
(ii) P is true,
(iii) S is justified in believing that P
42
That is, truth, belief and justification are

not only individually necessary for
knowledge—they are jointly sufficient for
knowledge too.
43
13. What do we mean by ‘justification’ here?
• The sort of justification in the JTB

analysis is a certain kind of fallibilist
justification: one can have a justified but
false belief.
• (We’ll come back to this.)

44
13. What do we mean by ‘justification’ here?
• It's a so-called 'threshold concept'--you

need a certain amount of justification in
order for your true belief to count as
knowledge. A bit of evidence won't do--
you need sufficient evidence.
45
14. Is JTB enough for knowledge?
Question: But is a justified true belief

sufficient for knowledge?
In the shortest and perhaps the most

famous article in 20th Century
Philosophy, Edmund Gettier (1963)
famously thought not …
46

Reasoning and Knowledge: Lecture Eleven: Can We Define Knowledge'?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reasoning and Knowledge: Lecture Eleven: Can We Define Knowledge'?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PY1006 (2009-10)

REASONING AND KNOWLEDGE

Can we define ‘knowledge’?

• Recall that there are two basic

The Definitional Question: What is

The Sceptical Question: Do we know

• In these last two epistemology lectures,

• In particular, we are going to look at a

• Two basic types:

(1) Ostensive definitions (To ostend is to

(2) Verbal definitions. Here we try to

• Two types of verbal definitions:

(a) Definitions by giving examples.

E.g.: We define bachelor by citing

(b) Analytic Definitions: These employ an

E.g.: x is bachelor if and only if …

• Here ‘is a bachelor’ is the definiendum

(Sometimes this is called the

• And the … are to be filled in by the

(Sometimes these are called the

• Good analytic definitions provide an

• The best kind of analytic definitions are

• Reductive analyses provide an analysis

• Reductive definitions are never circular:

x is a bachelor if and only if x is a bachelor

• This is blatantly circular.

• This definition is highly uninformative!

Example Two: x is red if and only if x is

• This definition is circular (non-reductive)

x is green if and only if x is coloured and not-

Question: Are all circular definitions bad?

• Suppose I say that belief is that state

• Such analyses may be informative –

• Necessary conditions are conditions

Definition: P is a necessary condition for

That is: Necessarily, Q only if P

• Sufficient conditions are conditions

Definition: P is a sufficient condition for Q

That is: Necessarily, P only if Q.

• So, P is both necessary and sufficient for

Necessarily, P if and only if Q.

• They are bad when either:

(a) They are uninformative (see above).

(b) Inaccurate, i.e. subject to

• Recall that an analytic definition is of the

E.g.: x is bachelor if and only if …

• Such a definition makes two claims:

(i) If … then x is F (sufficiency claim)

(ii) If x is F then … (necessity claim)

• In other words, such a definition makes

(i) … is sufficient for x to be F

(ii) … is necessary for x to be F

• So, counterexamples to some definition

(1) Failure of sufficiency.

(2) Failure of necessity.

(1) Failure of sufficiency: This is where

• That is, the … condition holds, but x fails

Example: Take the following definition.

x is a millionaire if and only x has a very

Example: Take the same definition as

Question: is knowledge just belief?

(Here we are interested in so-called

• Put another way: is belief both necessary