Woody Woods Wissensdatenbank

The term "knowledge" takes many forms. It can be described as justified true belief, reflective knowledge, or unanalyzable knowledge. These forms also include knowledge that we receive or create ourselves, such as a story, poem, or recipe. It's important to distinguish between these different types and decide which one best describes your beliefs. This article provides a brief overview of the different types of knowledge. Please see the links below for more information.

The concept of knowledge

The term "knowledge" takes many forms. It can be described as justified true belief, reflective knowledge, or unanalyzable knowledge. These forms also include knowledge that we receive or create ourselves, such as a story, poem, or recipe. It's important to distinguish between these different types and decide which one best describes your beliefs. This article provides a brief overview of the different types of knowledge. Please see the links below for more information.
Justified True Belief (JTB) concept of knowledge

A Justified True Belief (JTB) conception of knowledge affirms the existence of true sentences. However, Gettier's cases are flawed because they rely on the unreliability of the boss, the fact that Jones owns a Ford, and other factors that do not necessarily support the sentence's justification. This problem undermines the JTB conception of knowledge, but Gettier's counterexamples do not negate the validity of the JTB representation of knowledge.

The Justified True Belief (JTB) conception of knowledge is the classic analysis of knowledge. According to this view, knowledge is any claim that we accept that corresponds to the realities of the world. A true belief, however, is justified only when it is supported by adequate evidence. In addition, having all the conditions for the presence of knowledge is not enough.

The Gettier problem was formulated by Edmund Gettier in 1963. In it he presented two cases of justified delusion and concluded that they cannot be known. The cases, known as the Gettier problems, have prompted discussions about the concept of Justified True Belief (JTB). There are many arguments for and against the JTB concept, but it is generally considered to be the more conservative position.

Goldman rejects the JTB conception of knowledge and advocates a hybrid approach. He argues that the justification of beliefs depends on internal states such as information, experience, or intuition. Both methods are consistent with Goldman's distinction between state and access internalism. It is the internalist perspective that deserves further study. For philosophers of science, however, the JTB conception of knowledge remains the best.

Justified True Faith

Plato's classic analysis of knowledge describes knowledge as justified true belief, also known as JTB theory. In Plato's formulation, belief is whatever you accept as true and corresponds to how the world is. However, knowledge requires sufficient evidence to be justified. Unlike true belief, which can be incidental, justified true belief must be supported by evidence. Socrates and the other ancient Greek philosophers did not accept this definition.

A valid definition of knowledge involves a stable causal pattern. For knowledge to be justified, it must be observed and accompanied by a stable causal pattern. This requires the application of ordinary eyesight and the appropriate use of observation. The Gettier case illustrates the classic analysis of knowledge. That is why epistemologists often emphasize the importance of correctly evaluating knowledge. However, if knowledge is not observed directly, it must be accidental.

A higher proportion of nearby possible worlds indicates a lower level of justification. A higher proportion of nearby worlds even means that a false belief in the neighbor's father is not enough for knowledge. So there are two kinds of knowledge: false knowledge and real knowledge. Both imply that knowledge is not based on false beliefs. And yet these two are the most commonly used definitions of knowledge.

To answer this question, epistemologists often test their own conception of knowledge. For example, in their study, Weinberg, Nichols, and Stich asked a larger number of people to describe the Gettier cases. The researchers noted that people would likely react differently if they presented the Gettier cases to a larger group. But they wouldn't say they don't know the Gettier case because they lack epistemological awareness.

reflected

Reflective Knowledge is an epistemological work by the philosopher Peter Davidson that advocates virtuous circularity and a reflective epistemology of virtue. Philosophers like Moore, Davidson, and Descartes have all drawn on the idea of ​​virtuous circularity to explain their work. However, Davidson makes a counter-argument that is controversial. Here is a brief analysis of the work.

In this essay, Sosa presents a reflective knowledge perspective and discusses the role of beliefs in reliability. He also responds to Barry Stroud's objection to externalist concepts of knowledge that they cannot explain knowledge because they presuppose a belief in one's own account. Sosa's claim is both plausible and counter-intuitive. However, it is important to note that he also brings a normative dimension to his claims.

Part II of Reflective Knowledge argues for virtuous circularity and reflective virtual epistemology. He extends Moore's epistemology of virtue by focusing on reflective knowledge and the idea of ​​​​epistemic circularity. In short, she argues that epistemic circularity is necessary to understand how we make decisions. But this assumption is not enough. The author also offers some other ways to understand the importance of circular knowledge and reflective knowledge.

Another way to understand reflective knowledge as metacognitive is to think of it as an extension of the "natural world". For Pyrrhonists, it is a means of rational defense, and that means we must have reliable sources to use it as a basis for our beliefs. However, the problem with this term is that it is not well defined and has a wide range of uses. In reality, reflected knowledge is more useful than knowledge acquired from animals.

To better understand the value of reflected knowledge, Sosa traces it back to beliefs that help us make decisions. We have beliefs about reliability to ensure we maintain true beliefs and withdraw false ones. Reflective beliefs thus facilitate the withdrawal of false beliefs and increase the proportion of truths. Ultimately, the value of reflected knowledge lies in the ability to apply it to new situations. This is why it is so important to practice reflective thinking and metacognition.

Unanalyzable knowledge

Assuming that unanalyzable knowledge is not related to a previous epistemic project, the problem of reductive analysis becomes less problematic. As Gerken (2018) argues, fundamental epistemic phenomena cannot be reductively analyzed and can be co-explained in a non-reductive way. Therefore, unanalyzable knowledge is more likely to be associated with a previous project that is itself not reductively analyzable.

Justified True Belief (JTB) concept of knowledge

A Justified True Belief (JTB) conception of knowledge affirms the existence of true sentences. However, Gettier's cases are flawed because they rely on the unreliability of the boss, the fact that Jones owns a Ford, and other factors that do not necessarily support the sentence's justification. This problem undermines the JTB conception of knowledge, but Gettier's counterexamples do not negate the validity of the JTB representation of knowledge.

The Justified True Belief (JTB) conception of knowledge is the classic analysis of knowledge. According to this view, knowledge is any claim that we accept that corresponds to the realities of the world. A true belief, however, is justified only when it is supported by adequate evidence. In addition, having all the conditions for the presence of knowledge is not enough.

The Gettier problem was formulated by Edmund Gettier in 1963. In it he presented two cases of justified delusion and concluded that they cannot be known. The cases, known as the Gettier problems, have prompted discussions about the concept of Justified True Belief (JTB). There are many arguments for and against the JTB concept, but it is generally considered to be the more conservative position.

Goldman rejects the JTB conception of knowledge and advocates a hybrid approach. He argues that the justification of beliefs depends on internal states such as information, experience, or intuition. Both methods are consistent with Goldman's distinction between state and access internalism. It is the internalist perspective that deserves further study. For philosophers of science, however, the JTB conception of knowledge remains the best.

Justified True Faith

Plato's classic analysis of knowledge describes knowledge as justified true belief, also known as JTB theory. In Plato's formulation, belief is whatever you accept as true and corresponds to how the world is. However, knowledge requires sufficient evidence to be justified. Unlike true belief, which can be incidental, justified true belief must be supported by evidence. Socrates and the other ancient Greek philosophers did not accept this definition.

A valid definition of knowledge involves a stable causal pattern. For knowledge to be justified, it must be observed and accompanied by a stable causal pattern. This requires the application of ordinary eyesight and the appropriate use of observation. The Gettier case illustrates the classic analysis of knowledge. That is why epistemologists often emphasize the importance of correctly evaluating knowledge. However, if knowledge is not observed directly, it must be accidental.

A higher proportion of nearby possible worlds indicates a lower level of justification. A higher proportion of nearby worlds even means that a false belief in the neighbor's father is not enough for knowledge. So there are two kinds of knowledge: false knowledge and real knowledge. Both imply that knowledge is not based on false beliefs. And yet these two are the most commonly used definitions of knowledge.

To answer this question, epistemologists often test their own conception of knowledge. For example, in their study, Weinberg, Nichols, and Stich asked a larger number of people to describe the Gettier cases. The researchers noted that people would likely react differently if they presented the Gettier cases to a larger group. But they wouldn't say they don't know the Gettier case because they lack epistemological awareness.
reflected knowledge

Reflective Knowledge is an epistemological work by the philosopher Peter Davidson that advocates virtuous circularity and a reflective epistemology of virtue. Philosophers like Moore, Davidson, and Descartes have all drawn on the idea of ​​virtuous circularity to explain their work. However, Davidson makes a counter-argument that is controversial. Here is a brief analysis of the work.

In this essay, Sosa presents a reflective knowledge perspective and discusses the role of beliefs in reliability. He also responds to Barry Stroud's objection to externalist concepts of knowledge that they cannot explain knowledge because they presuppose a belief in one's own account. Sosa's claim is both plausible and counter-intuitive. However, it is important to note that he also brings a normative dimension to his claims.

Part II of Reflective Knowledge argues for virtuous circularity and reflective virtue epistemology. He extends Moore's epistemology of virtue by focusing on reflective knowledge and the idea of ​​epistemic circularity. In short, she argues that epistemic circularity is necessary to understand how we make decisions. But this assumption is not enough. The author also offers some other ways to understand the importance of circular knowledge and reflective knowledge.

Another way to understand reflective knowledge as metacognitive is to think of it as an extension of the "natural world". For Pyrrhonists, it is a means of rational defense, and that means we must have reliable sources to use it as a basis for our beliefs. However, the problem with this term is that it is not well defined and has a wide range of uses. In reality, reflected knowledge is more useful than knowledge acquired from animals.

To better understand the value of reflected knowledge, Sosa traces it back to beliefs that help us make decisions. We have beliefs about reliability to ensure we maintain true beliefs and withdraw false ones. Reflective beliefs thus facilitate the withdrawal of false beliefs and increase the proportion of truths. Ultimately, the value of reflected knowledge lies in the ability to apply it to new situations. This is why it is so important to practice reflective thinking and metacognition.

Unanalyzable knowledge

Assuming that unanalyzable knowledge is not related to a previous epistemic project, the problem of reductive analysis becomes less problematic. As Gerken (2018) argues, fundamental epistemic phenomena cannot be reductively analyzed and can be co-explained in a non-reductive way. Therefore, unanalyzable knowledge is more likely to be associated with a previous project that is itself not reductively analyzable.