Welcome to the World of Epistemology!
Welcome to the first part of your AQA Philosophy journey! Epistemology is simply the "theory of knowledge." In this chapter, we are going to tackle one of the oldest questions in history: "What is knowledge?"
Don't worry if this seems a bit "meta" at first. We use the word "know" every single day, but as you're about to find out, defining exactly what it means is harder than it looks! By the end of these notes, you’ll understand the different types of knowledge and the famous "Tripartite View" that philosophers have argued about for centuries.
1. The Three Types of Knowledge
Before we can define knowledge, we need to realize that we use the word "know" in three different ways. Imagine you are going to a concert:
A. Ability Knowledge (Knowledge-how)
This is knowing how to do something. For example, knowing how to play the guitar or how to ride a bike. You don't need to explain it in words; you just have the skill.
B. Acquaintance Knowledge (Knowledge-of)
This is knowing of something or someone. For example, "I know my best friend" or "I know London." It involves direct contact or familiarity with the thing you're talking about.
C. Propositional Knowledge (Knowledge-that)
This is the one philosophers care about most in this course. It is knowing that something is the case. For example, "I know that the capital of France is Paris." A proposition is a statement that can be either true or false.
Quick Review: Which type of knowledge is "knowing that 2 + 2 = 4"? If you said Propositional Knowledge, you're spot on!
Key Takeaway: In Epistemology, when we ask "What is knowledge?", we are almost always talking about Propositional Knowledge.
2. How Do We Define Knowledge?
How do you even define a concept? Linda Zagzebski is a modern philosopher who suggests that a good definition should avoid being "ad hoc" (made up just to fix one specific problem). She argues that knowledge is a cognitive achievement and that we should look for the "real essence" of what knowledge is, much like a scientist defines water as \( H_2O \).
3. The Tripartite View (JTB)
For over 2,000 years, many philosophers followed Plato’s idea that knowledge has three "ingredients." This is called the Tripartite View because it has three parts. It claims that Propositional Knowledge is Justified True Belief (JTB).
According to this view, you (S) know a proposition (p) if and only if:
1. The Belief Condition: You actually believe that p is true.
2. The Truth Condition: p is actually true in the real world.
3. The Justification Condition: You have a good reason or evidence for believing p.
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
This is a bit of "philosophy-speak" that is very important for your exam:
• Individually Necessary: You need each of the three parts. If one is missing, you don't have knowledge. (e.g., You can't "know" something if it's false).
• Jointly Sufficient: If you have all three together, that is enough. You don't need anything else.
Analogy: Think of a cake. Flour, eggs, and sugar are necessary. If you have all of them (and bake them!), they are sufficient to make a cake.
Key Takeaway: The Tripartite View says Knowledge = Justification + Truth + Belief.
4. Issues with the Tripartite View
Philosophy is all about poking holes in theories! There are two main ways to attack the JTB definition:
A. Are the conditions really "Necessary"?
Some people argue you can have knowledge without all three. For example, can you "know" something without believing it? Imagine a student who is so nervous in a quiz that they think they are just guessing the answers, but they get every single one right. Do they "know" the answers even if they don't feel like they "believe" them?
B. Are the conditions "Sufficient"? (The Gettier Problem)
In 1963, Edmund Gettier wrote a short paper that changed philosophy forever. He showed that you can have Justified True Belief but still not have knowledge because you were just lucky.
The Famous Example (Simplified):
Imagine Smith and Jones are applying for a job. Smith has been told by the boss that Jones will get the job. Smith also counted 10 coins in Jones's pocket. Smith then forms the belief: "The man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket."
As it turns out, Smith gets the job, and coincidentally, Smith also happens to have 10 coins in his pocket. Smith's belief was True, and he was Justified (he had evidence), but we wouldn't say he "knew" it. He was just lucky!
Did you know? Gettier’s paper was only three pages long, but it is one of the most famous works in modern philosophy!
5. Fixing Knowledge (Post-Gettier Responses)
After Gettier, philosophers tried to "fix" the JTB definition. Here are the four ways the AQA syllabus wants you to know:
1. Infallibilism (Strengthen the Justification)
This view says that for something to be "justified," it must be impossible for it to be false. If there is even a 1% chance you're wrong, it’s not knowledge.
Problem: This makes knowledge almost impossible to have! We would have to admit we don't "know" much at all.
2. No False Lemmas (J+T+B+N)
A "lemma" is just a fancy word for a "step in an argument." This view says knowledge is JTB, but your justification cannot be based on a falsehood. In the Smith/Jones case, Smith's argument relied on the false idea that Jones would get the job. Therefore, it wasn't knowledge.
3. Reliabilism (R+T+B)
This replaces "Justified" with "Reliably Formed." Knowledge is a true belief produced by a reliable process (like a high-quality thermometer or your own eyesight).
Memory Aid: Think of a Reliable car—it gets you to the truth consistently!
4. Epistemic Virtue (V+T+B)
Ernest Sosa suggests that knowledge is a "virtuous" act. He uses the AAA Rating for an archer's shot:
• Accurate: Does it hit the target? (Is the belief true?)
• Adroit: Was it a skillful shot? (Was the belief formed by a skillful mind?)
• Apt: Did it hit the target because it was skillful? (The truth isn't just luck).
Knowledge is an Apt belief.
Quick Summary Table:
• JTB: Justified True Belief (The classic view).
• +N: No False Lemmas (No false steps).
• Infallibilism: Justification must be 100% certain.
• Reliabilism: Replaces J with a Reliable Process.
• Virtue: Truth through intellectual skill (Aptness).
Common Mistake to Avoid: Don't confuse "Infallibilism" with "Reliabilism." Infallibilism wants certainty (no possibility of error), while Reliabilism just wants a reliable method (it works most of the time).
Key Takeaway: Philosophers are still debating the perfect definition, but most agree that "luck" (like in Gettier cases) should not count as knowledge!