Importance of determining what knowledge is
"We have to filter the good information from the bad one. And that's why knowledge is so important. And that's the reason why philosophers are very interested in trying to determine exactly what knowledge is."
Knowledge
1. Propositional Knowledge
For example, knowing that Paris is the capital of France. (This knowledge is connecting with a proposition. You know that a proposition is the case)
2. Ability knowledge or ‘know-how’
For example, knowing how to ride a bicycle. (This knowledge is connecting with the manifestation of ability or skill)
Propositional Knowledge
It is knowledge that something is the case. Propositional knowledge is the kind of thing that can be true or false.
A proposition
It is what is expressed by a declarative sentence. That is, a sentence that declares that something is the case.
Declarative sentence
‘The cat is on the mat’
- That's a sentence that declares that the world is in a certain way, that there is a cat on a mat.
- This sentence could be true if a cat is on the mat. Or it could be false if there is no cat on the mat.
Non-declarative sentence
‘Shut that door’
- This sentence isn't describing the world as being in a certain way. It’s not saying that something is the case.
- This sentence is not the sort of thing that can be true or false, because it doesn't describe the world as being in a certain way.
Two basic constituents of propositional knowledge
"1. Truth.
The proposition is describing that the world is being in a certain way. And if you are to know that proposition, then the world must really be in the way that proposition says it is. So, to say that proposition knowledge requires the truth, is to be able to say you can't know a falsehood.
Notice that when we say that knowledge requires the truth, all we mean by that is that you can't know a falsehood. In particular, we don’t suggest that when you know you must be infallible, or that you must be absolutely certain. Knowledge doesn't require certainty, it doesn't require infallibility, but it is inconsistent with knowing a falsehood
2. Belief.
If you know a proposition, then you must at least believe that proposition. So, if you know that Paris is the capital of France, then you must at least believe that Paris is the capital of France.
There is the idea that knowledge is something stronger than belief. But of course that's entirely compatible with the thought that knowledge at the very least requires belief."
The problem of two jurors in a criminal trial
"Imagine that one juror hasn't been paying attention to the evidence tool. He forms his judgment that the defendant is guilty simply out of prejudice
Imagine that another juror carefully attends to the evidence and thinks through the issues, listens to the testimony from both sides. Listens to the directions of the judge and so forth, and forms a judgment that defendant is guilty
Both jurors end up with the same judgment. And they both get it right, because the defendant is really guilty. But the first juror who makes the decision simply on the basis of prejudice, this person doesn't know. The second juror who sifts through the evidence and carefully weighs it out, it seems he does know
Thus, knowledge requires more than mere true belief, more than just getting it right. It requires doing the same kinds of things that the second juror is doing. Attending to the evidence, thinking things through, coming to a correct judgment."
Two basic intuitions that govern our thinking about knowledge
1.Anti-Luck Intuition
"When you know you're getting it right, your true belief isn't just a matter of luck.
Let’s recall the first juror. It's just a matter of luck that his belief was true. In contrast, the second juror has got a true belief because he has formed his belief in a way which is a good route to the truth
2. Ability Intuition
When you know, your knowing is down to you in some important way and the exercise of your cognitive abilities that is your abilities which are relevant to the formation of true beliefs.
Let’s recall the first juror. Forming beliefs through prejudice is not a cognitive ability, is not a route to truth. If you want to form false beliefs, that's a very good way of forming false beliefs. But if you want to form true beliefs, that's a terrible way of forming true beliefs. In contrast, the juror who carefully attends the evidence and thinks things through, he’s using his cognitive abilities."
SOURCES
'Introduction to Philosophy' course (the University of Edinburgh)
https://www.coursera.org/learn/philosophy