Teaching Theory of Knowledge

Theory of Knowledge: General Course

CONTRIBUTOR: KeithLehrer.

This course makes use of historical sources to consider in a sustained and systematic way three perspectives in epistemology:

1. Dogmatic Epistemology
2. Critical Epistemology
3. Scientific Epistemology.

I try to get students to appreciate those problems that are uniquely epistemological as opposed to metaphysical and psychological problems. If, by the end of the course, I feel that I have accomplished this central purpose, I then attempt to connect epistemological issues with issues in philosophy of science and philosophy of mind.

1. Dogmatic Epistemology. I argue that the traditional approach to epistemology through Plato was to place metaphysics first and then append an epistemology. The methodology was to ask what was the basic reality and then add an epistemology to explain how we know that reality. I take the ancient problem of negation as illustrative.

      The Theaetetus is useful for getting the standard analysis of knowledge as true opinion plus an account up for consideration. I argue that the reason that Plato does not accept this account is his acceptance of the forms as the ultimate reality that leads him to account for knowledge as an intuitive awareness of the forms.

Readings

Plato. Theatetus [selections from the Presocratics]

2. Critical Epistemology. I argue that there is a revolution in epistemology introduced by Descartes in that he placed the question of what we can know prior to questions of what is ultimately real. I attribute to him the immediacy theses, which says that what we know immediately is confined to ideas in our own minds. I take Hume as the developer of the consequences of this theory. I take Reid as the refuter arguing that we have immediate knowledge of the external world.

      Reid pointed out that the diversity of appearances of an object, rather than showing that we do not perceive the object, is a necessary condition of perceiving it. He also noted that the skeptics assume that our beliefs resulting from consciousness and reason are justified and that they have no more justification for assuming those beliefs to be justified than the beliefs resulting from perception. All the faculties are fallible, and some perceptual beliefs are as certain as any beliefs. For example, the belief that I see a table and am not asleep and dreaming is immediately justified. I may not be able to say how I know that I am awake and perceiving a table, but that is because such knowledge is immediate.

Readings

Descartes. Meditations.

Hume. Inquiry Into the Human Understanding. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. The sections on perception and skepticism.

Reid. Inquiry and Essays. Indianapolis: Hackett. Selected sections on perception.

3. Scientific Epistemology. I argue that there is a third approach to epistemology where theories about what we can know and theories about what is real are given equal status, that is, neither is assumed to be prior to the other. Consequently, a theory of knowledge should explain how we know those things which we most clearly do know and at the same time provide a critical standard of evaluation for knowledge claims.

      The project is to construct a coherent scientific account of what is known and how it is known. I take Russell as an example of someone developing such an epistemology in that he offers an explanation of how we are justified in believing those things Reid affirms we are immediately justified in believing. I consider foundationalism and argue that this theory in postulating that some beliefs are justified without explanation has all the advantages of theft over honest toil. I note, in favor of such theories, that they are correct in assuming that we have some immediate, that is, noninferential knowledge.

      I next consider reliabilist theories of knowledge. These theories offer an explanation of why the beliefs postulated as justified by the foundationalist are justified, namely, that they are reliable guides to truth. I argue, however, that receiving information by a reliable process is compatible with a failure to know that the information is correct. Such accounts are inadequate as accounts of scientific knowledge which depend on various methods to distinguish correct from erroneous hypotheses, theories and experimental information.

      I conclude that a coherence theory of knowledge and justification allows us to explain the relation between truth and justification. A coherent account, and, therefore, a justified one contains the assumption that we are reliable in evaluating our beliefs, methods, and, ultimately, our own reliability. I end with discussion of arguments concerning regresses and circularity.

Readings

Russell. Problems of Philosophy.

Pappas and Swain (ads.). Essays on Knowledge and Justification.

Pappas (ed.). Justification and Knowledge: Philosophical Topics. (vol. 14, no. 1)

[Lehrer, Knowledge].