CONCEPT OF KNOWLEDGE IN TRADITIONAL EPISTEMOLOGY

Introduction

Traditional epistemology is the theory of one of the four core branches of philosophy. It has knowledge as its subject. But how does discuss knowledge? This paper is geared towards understanding knowledge in the concept of traditional epistemology, it shall discuss traditional epistemology as theory of justification and how we arrive at knowledge. To achieve this, we shall discuss the following;

·         Epistemology

Ø  Etymology of the word epistemology

Ø  Definition of Epistemology

·         Knowledge

Ø  Definition of knowledge

Ø  Types of knowledge

·         Truth

Ø  Definition of truth

Ø  Correspondence and coherence theory of truth

·         Belief

Ø  Definition of belief

·         Justification

Ø  Definition of justification

Ø  Notions of justification

·         Sources of knowledge and justification

Etymology

Epistemology is coined from two Greek words, episteme, meaning "knowledge, understanding", and logos, meaning "word". it is a term first used by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier to describe the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge; it is also referred to as "theory of knowledge".[1]

Definition

     Epistemology is the core area of philosophy  that deals with nature, structure, foundation, limits , possibilities, and conditions for knowledge.

     Epistemology is the study of the nature and scope of knowledge and justified belief. It analyzes the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief and justification. It equally discuss the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. It is essentially about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry.[2] It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired. [3]

It asks questions like:

·         What are the conditions necessary for of knowledge?

·         What are its sources?

·         What is its structure, and what are its limits?

·         How are we to understand the concept of justification?

·         What makes justified beliefs justified?

·         Is justification internal or external to one's own mind?

Epistemology is interested in those conditions that are individually necessary and collectively sufficient for any claim to count as a knowledge claim.

It examines whether the relationship between a perceiving subject and a perceived object is a matter of knowledge.[4] Traditional epistemology focuses on the criteria that ensure that we know the truth.

KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of particular aspects of reality. It is the clear, lucid information gained through the process of reason applied to reality. [5]

The three types of knowledge

·         Propositional knowledge (also refered to “knowledge that”, a knowledge that Mr. A knows that X)

·         Know-how knowledge (knowledge of how to). knowledge of how to do something; like driving a car, knowledge of how to cook a particular soup or food (…)

·         Acquaintance knowledge (knowledge of something or somebody) this include knowing someone, knowing a city (…).

Epistemology is concerned with the propositional knowledge, ”knowledge that”.

     Within traditional epistemology, knowledge is considered as knowledge about something, knowledge is not considered as being something in its own right.[6]

Conditions Necessary And Sufficient For S A To Know That X

 The standford encyclopedia of philosophy tells us that There are two ways to get to the required conditions, they include the traditional and non traditional approach.

The non traditional knowledge: it conceives justification as when a belief originates in a reliable cognitive processes or faculties. This is known as reliabilism[7]

The traditional knowledge: The knowledge that x is, is already a justified true belief, for false proposition cannot be known. knowledge in traditional knowledge requires belief for something, because what one doesn’t belief cannot be something that one can be said to know. Finally, S's being correct in believing that p might merely be a matter of luck. Therefore, knowledge requires a third element, traditionally identified as justification.[8] The traditional approach is that knowledge requires three necessary and sufficient conditions, so that knowledge can then be defined as "justified true belief".[9]

In traditional epistemology, there are three conditions necessary for knowledge

1.      Belief

2.      Truth

3.      Justification

TRUTH

Truth is the synergy or co relation or consisting between any given knowledge claim and a given state of affairs.[10]

According to Luke Mastin, in The Basics Of Philosophy, stated that since false propositions cannot be known - for something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true. As Aristotle famously (but rather confusingly) expressed it: "To say of something which is that it is not, or to say of something which is not that it is, is false. However, to say of something which is that it is, or of something which is not that it is not, is true."[11]

Correspondence And Coherence Theory

The traditional epistemology recognizes two approaches to truth; correspondence and coherence (Lehrer 1978). Correspondence means that a statement is true if and only if it corresponds with the reality. By coherence a statement is true if and only it does not contradict another true statement.[12]

in traditional epistemology, the theory of truth goes hand in hand with the theory of justification, so both are actually the two sides of the same coin (Lehrer 1978). This match has consequences on what can be justified: by correspondence one may justify beliefs about facts primarily basic (self-evident) fact and then non-basic facts that the former underlie, coherence allows justification not necessarily through facts, but also by logical deduction for example, the significant contribution of the coherence theory is the ability to explain, beyond describing[13]

BELIEF

In common speech, a "statement of belief" is typically an expression of faith or trust in a person, power or other entity[14]

Belief is simply a view, an opinion, an unsubstantial claim, an unjustified standpoint on an issue. Example,one may belief that a certain bridge will be strong enough for people to walk across it, in actuality, the bridge may be able to be strong enough for the people to walk across it, and it is equally possible that it has a fault somewhere and may just break off and fall when  people tries to walk on it.[15]

JUSTIFICATION

It a methodic speech act, in which one affirms reasons, either in support or repudiation of a given epistemic claim, or knowledge ascription. [16]

NOTIONS OF JUSTIFICATION.

There are two understanding to what justification means. They include deontological justification and Non-deontological justification.

Deontological notion of justification

S is justified in believing that p if and only if S believes that p while it is not the case that S is obliged to refrain from believing that p.[17] deontological definition of justification held unto belief which is not necessarily sufficient for justification. Some philosophers critizice their notion because mere believe is not sufficient for justification and my believe and other peoples believe may not be the same.

Non-deontological notion of justification

S is justified in believing that p if and only if S believes that p on a basis that properly probabilifies S's belief that p.[18]

OTHER NOTIONS OF JUSTIFICATION

The Evidentialist notion of justification

They believe that justification is about evidence. For anything to be justified, there must be evidence. In other words; what makes a belief justified in this sense is the possession of evidence - a belief is justified to the extent that it fits a person's evidence. Example:that I go to Dominican institute each morning for studies is an evidence that I am a student of Dominican institute. That I drove a car yesterday is an evidence that I have memory of the past.

The reliabilist notion of justification:

They didn’t accept justification to be solely a matter of evidence and suitable experiences, rather  they believe that a  belief is justified if, and only if, it results from cognitive origin that is reliable. Justification is not all about the possession of evidence, but the fact that the types of processes in which they originate — perception, introspection, memory, and rational intuition — are reliable.[19]

Internalism And Externalism

There has been an intensive argument and debate concerning wheather justification is internal or external. Some philosophers held that it is internal, reason being that those things which make something justified or unjustified are known through we recognizing them in our reflection. Reflection is internal. justification according to them is known by reflection. Secondly, factors of justification are mental states, so therefore; justification is internal.

coherence theories of justification might hold that justification supervenes on a beliefs having the property of belonging to  belonging to a coherent body of beliefs. Even classical foundationalist would seem able to accept supervenience, classical foundationlist might hold that a belief is justified in virtue of either being infallibly produced or being deduced from beliefs that are infallibly produced.[20]

What does it mean to say that something is characterized as being a justified, true belief? 

1.      One must be convinced that the knowledge he possess actually represents the thing he claim to have knowledge of. He has to be convinced that his knowledge represents the fact( the reality).

2.      The convictions must be justifiable: why are you convinced that the field is green.( maybe because you saw it). But are the believe and reason a sufficient criteria for the knowledge that the field is green?

Example: if person A draws out a ball from a bag containing 90 pink balls, 3 yellow balls, 3 blue balls and 4 green balls, the question represents itself as to whether person B- if we assume that a pink ball was actually drawn from the bag has knowledge as to whether the ball drawn is pink. The argument about justified true belief is that based on the high probability of drawing a pink ball, person B must justifiably believe that a pink ball was drawn. Even though that this is true, but does person B have knowledge that a pink ball was drawn?[21]

Gettier argues that the relationship mentioned is not a question of knowledge, as a person’s belief maybe based on something that is actually false.

The solution to this brings about Fallibilism and Iinfallibilism.

Infallibilism argues that justified belief automatically leads to the truth, and that justified belief thus also automatically satisfies the criteria for something being knowledge.

Fallibilist affirm that it is possible to have a false justified beliefs.

Morton (1997:7-9) gives us a good example of a false justified belief and I quote.

 Toshiro from japan is on his way to North America, and during the flight he studied a book about animals in north America. However, the book is a satire about animal life, and the description and picture of the Chipmunk is actually a description of a moose. Then when Toshiro arrives in north America and visits a zoo, when he sees a chipmunk, he has a justified belief that he is actually looking at a moose. But Toshiro does not have knowledge that what he has before him is a moose. [22]

Consequently in order for knowledge to exist, additional criteria is required- namely that the justified belief is true.[23]

Conditions required for the knowledge,

 traditional epistemology requires that;

1.      The person believes

2.      His/her belief is fallibly justified

3.      His/her belief is true

4.      The justification, the belief and the truth do not occur by chance[24]

SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE AND JUSTIFICATION

Perception: Perception has to do with our five sence organs which include, the eyes for sight, ear for sounds, skin for touch, nose for smell and tongue for taste. These sense organs are important source for our knowledge and justification, and are realiable to some extent except In the case of perceptual seemings where something is similar to another and then one mistakes A to be B. except in cases like that and few other cases, perception can be said to be reliable.

The J-Question
Why are perceptual experiences a source of justification?

From a coherentist point of view, we might answer the J-question as follows: Perceptual experiences are a source of justification because we are justified in believing them to be reliable and we have justification for taking them to be reliable.[25]

We remember that they have served us well in the past. [26]We are supposing, then, that justification for attributing reliability to our perceptual experiences consists of memories of perceptual success.[27]

Introspection

It deals with one’s inner self, inner mind. Through introspection, one knows the mental state he/she is in. one can know the particular way he or she feels in a particular time. It deals with one’s mental state. One can tell when he or she is thirsty, tired, excited, or moody, in pains (…). It is accepted by many philosophers to be a justified belief.

Memory

According to the standford encyclopedia is the capacity to retain knowledge acquired in the past[28]. Memory is not just about the past, it also include the present continuos and even plan for the future. Memory includes past event like what one saw, it include the present continuos like one phone number, the future like a forth coming event. Memory is a source of justification because it provides one with the knowledge of the past. This events of the past include both the physical and mental(introspection). Memory is said to be fallible because the retained knowledge acquired in the past may be seemingly or not well remembered.

Reasons

It provides to an extent some form of justification, it gives evidence to one’s knowledge claim. Though it is not sufficient for knowledge but it contributes to a reasonable extent.

Testimony

Unlike other sources doesn’t have it’s own cognitive faculty. Knowledge is acquired here through what we hear from others, in could be something like asking somebody what time it is, it could also be like listening, watching or following up a news. Knowledge can be gained but can not be termed a justified true belief.

Conclusion

Traditional epistemology as theory of justification justifies our belief by providing us with the conditions that are individually necessary and collectively sufficient for any claim to account to a knowledge or justified belief, and finally leads us to the truth.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ed. Carla Vivas and Pedro Sequeira , Proceedings of the 15^th European Conference on Knowledge Management. Polytechnic Institute of Sanctarem, Portugal. 4^th – 5^th September 2014 volume 1.

Naoh Lemos, Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy. An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge.

Peter Holdt Christensen. Knowledge Management- perspectives and pitfalls. Copenhagen Business school press 2003. Page 28

Luke Mastin, The Basics of Philosophy. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_epistemology.html. 2008.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology. last edited 15 December 2015.

Matthias Steup, the standford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/. Dec 14, 2005

---

[1] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology. last edited 15 December 2015.

[2] Luke Mastin, The Basics of Philosophy. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_epistemology.html. 2008.

[3] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology. last edited 15 December 2015.

[4] Peter Holdt Christensen. Knowledge Management- perspectives and pitfalls. Copenhagen Business school press 2003. Page 28

[5] Luke Mastin, The Basics of Philosophy. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_epistemology.html. 2008.

[6] Peter Holdt Christensen. Knowledge Management- perspectives and pitfalls. Copenhagen Business school press 2003. Page 29

[7] Matthias Steup, the standford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/. Dec 14, 2005

[8] ibid

[9] Luke Mastin, The Basics of Philosophy. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_epistemology.html. 2008.

[10]My note

[11] Luke Mastin, The Basics of Philosophy. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_epistemology.html. 2008.

[12] Ed. Carla Vivas and Pedro Sequeira , Proceedings of the 15^th European Conference on Knowledge Management. Polytechnic Institute of Sanctarem, Portugal. 4^th – 5^th September 2014 volume 1, ( page 332).

[13] Ed. Carla Vivas and Pedro Sequeira , Proceedings of the 15^th European Conference on Knowledge Management. Polytechnic Institute of Sanctarem, Portugal. 4^th – 5^th September 2014 volume 1, ( page 332).

[14] Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology. last edited 15 December 2015.

[15] My class note

[16] All from my year one note

[17] Matthias Steup, the standford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/. Dec 14, 2005

[18] Matthias Steup, the standford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/. Dec 14, 2005

[19] ibid

[20] Naoh Lemos, Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy. An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. (page 215).

[21] Peter Holdt Christensen. Knowledge Management- perspectives and pitfalls. Copenhagen Business school press 2003. Page 28

[22] Peter Holdt Christensen. Knowledge Management- perspectives and pitfalls. Copenhagen Business school press 2003. Page 29

[23] Ibid Page 29

[24] Ibid Page 30

[25] Matthias Steup, the standford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/. Dec 14, 2005

[26] ibid

[27] ibid

[28] ibid