On whiteboards Summarise Gettier’s two examples and explain what they show. Can you think of any responses to Gettier?

Responding to Gettier Objectives: Understand two responses to Gettier and how they work. Begin to assess them.

Dealing with Gettier Initially (as we saw last lesson) the most attractive response to Gettier might be to argue that the people in these cases have not had their beliefs justified in the proper way. This may lead us to one of a number of options: We need to strengthen what we mean by justification in the case of knowledge. We need to add a further condition to the tripartite view. We need to replace the justification condition with something else.

Which of the following beliefs cannot be rationally doubted? You believe it will rain tomorrow You believe that 2 + 2 = 4 You believe that one day dogs will start to speak You believe you currently are in pain or not You believe that you are experiencing looking at a screen reading a sentence You believe you know that you exist You believe that you ate breakfast this morning You believe that it is possible to doubt things

Response 1: Infallibilism Descartes: To have knowledge you have to have justification Justification requires certainty The Gettier examples are not knowledge, because they are not known with certainty Important Note: This is not the claim that we must merely feel certain in our beliefs to have knowledge. It is the much stronger claim that we should only count as knowledge those things that we absolutely cannot doubt. S knows that p iff: B. S believes that p T. P is I. S’s belief that p is INFALLIBLY justified

On whiteboards: How strong do you find this response? Problem: the issue for Infallibilism is that it rules out a lot of what we think of as knowledge! We can only know logical truths and facts about our own minds.

Response 2: No false lemmas A lemma = a claim within an argument (NOT a suicidal rodent!!) What is the false lemma in the Smith and Jones example? Remember: Jones will get the job Jones has 10 coins in his pocket The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket  S knows that p if and only if:   B. S believes that p T. p is true J. S’s belief that p is justified N. S’s belief that p is not based on a false lemma

On whiteboards: How does the no false lemmas condition deal with Gettier’s original cases? Now consider other “Gettier-style” cases… (sheep in the field, stopped clock, fake barn, Boris Johnson day etc.)

Responding to Gettier Objectives: Understand two responses to Gettier and how they work. Begin to assess them.

On your whiteboard: Explain the two responses to Gettier. These images may help jog your memory: Which was best? Why?

Responding to Gettier Objectives: Understand two more responses to Gettier and how they work. Begin to assess them.

Which of these headlines would you believe? Why?

Response 3 - Reliabilism Does away with justification altogether! Knowledge = a true belief that is formed by a reliable process. NB. The agent does not need to be aware of the reliability of the process that caused their belief S knows that p if and only if:   B. S believes that p T. p is true R. S’s belief that p is reliably formed

What is a reliable process? Adding six and four in your head to make ten. Eating hallucinogenic mushrooms and believing your friend is about to call you (she does). Reading in an encyclopaedia that porcupines are mostly nocturnal. Believing that you will have children because of the patterns of lines on your hand (you do go on to have children). Multiplying 246 by 327 in your head to get 80,442. What process is at work in each of these cases? Are they examples of knowledge?

K = T+B+R Think-Pair-Share: Is this a satisfactory definition of knowledge? (clue- think about: whether it solves the Gettier problem whether it is what we usually think of as knowledge whether it solves other Gettier-style cases whether it brings problems of its own)

Assessing Reliabilism The reliabilist may class the case of the sheep in the field, and Boris Johnson, as knowledge, because they are formed by a reliable process. For some this is counter-intuitive, as there is still an element of luck involved. For Gettier, the reliabilist could say that Smith’s beliefs are reliably formed – they are based on logical deduction. But if we answered in more detail, they would NOT be reliably formed (based on deduction from false premises). What problem does this suggest?

What process is Smith using to come to his belief? Is it reliable? Visual perception Visual perception from a distance of 10 metres Visual perception from a distance of 10 metres in the fog Visual perception from a distance of 10 metres in the fog without prescription distance glasses So, what is the problem with reliabilism?

Epistemic/ Intellectual Virtues Intellectual virtues are particular skills, abilities or traits that contribute to someone getting to the truth. They are the processes and qualities that are more likely to yield a higher rate of true belief. Examples?

Epistemic/ Intellectual Virtues Intellectual virtues are particular skills, abilities or traits that contribute to someone getting to the truth. They are the processes and qualities that are more likely to yield a higher rate of true belief. Eg. The accuracy of perceptual organs Reliability of memory Rationality of thought processes Understanding of the situation

Epistemic/ Intellectual Virtues People who make use of these intellectual virtues more often will generally be seen to be more reliable (more epistemically virtuous). However if a person is not making use of these processes, perhaps he is willfully ignoring facts, or is often forgetful of key details, (vices – bad ways of getting knowledge) then we will be less likely to believe him.

Ernest Sosa says knowledge is like archery… 3 ways to assess: Accuracy: did the arrow hit the target? Adroitness: was the arrow shot well? Aptness: did the arrow hit the target because it was shot well? Only the apt shot was really a good shot.

We can apply the same criteria to beliefs: Accuracy: is the belief true? Adroitness: did the person form their belief by using their epistemic virtues? Aptness: is the belief true because they formed it by using their epistemic virtues? Give your own example of a belief that would meet the first two criteria but is not knowledge, because it doesn’t meet the 3rd.

Epistemic Virtue - Example If my friend, Sammy, says he thinks he saw a turtle in the village pond, but was very tired and wasn’t wearing his glasses, would we secretly be doubting this claim? Why? However, if another friend, Tessa, had seen a turtle up close in the pond, would you would be more likely to believe her? Why?

Epistemic Virtue Vs Reliabilism This process might seem close to reliabilism. But reliabilists would claim Sammy has knowledge because his (true) belief is generated by a reliable process (sight). The same process Tessa is using. What is missing is a discussion about the ability of the person to perform this reliable process. Virtue epistemology claims Tessa has knowledge because her true belief was formed as the result of her intellectual virtues operating in a suitable way (i.e. her sight is good, she has a good memory etc). Sammy meanwhile was using the same virtues – but they were not operating in a suitable way. The focus here is on the person (and their characteristics / virtues) rather than the process.

Response 4: epistemic virtue Again this replaces, rather than strengthens, the justification condition A belief is knowledge if it is formed using the intellectual virtues, and not by using any intellectual vices Focuses on the agent, rather than the process (unlike Reliabilism)

K = T+B+V Think-Pair-Share: Is this a satisfactory definition of knowledge? (clue- think about: whether it solves the Gettier problem whether it is what we usually think of as knowledge whether it solves other Gettier-style cases whether it brings problems of its own)

Assessing Virtue Epistemology Any examples where the person is right due to sheer luck (the coins example, the clock face) seem to be dealt with effectively. Lucky beliefs are true because of luck, and this implies they are not true because of intellectual virtue. Cases like the sheep example – where the person applied an intellectual virtue (good eyesight) but still happened to be correct due to sheer luck are also dealt with. The person is correct, and has applied their intellectual virtue but they are not correct because of their intellectual virtue.

Assessing Virtue Epistemology However, in the fake barn case, the person seems to have applied an intellectual virtue (good eyesight) and he is accurate in his belief that the building is a barn because of this intellectual virtue (i.e. because he’s looking at it up close). But still we would want to say he doesn’t have knowledge. Can we solve this?

Responding to Gettier Objectives: Understand two more responses to Gettier and how they work. Begin to assess them.