Philosophy Lecture 2: What is Knowledge?

Hello everyone, and welcome to today’s lecture! I promise you, this is going to be an exciting and insightful session as we explore a fascinating question: What does it mean to truly know something? By the end of this lecture, you’ll see just how tricky and thought-provoking the idea of knowledge can be. Let’s dive right in.

The concept of knowledge has intrigued philosophers for centuries. To get us started, let’s break it down into two main types. First, we have propositional knowledge, which is knowing that something is true. For example, you might say, “Paris is the capital of France.” To have this type of knowledge, three things are required: the statement must be true, you must believe it, and you need justification for your belief.

Second, we have ability knowledge, or “know-how.” This is practical knowledge, like knowing how to ride a bike or play the piano. Unlike propositional knowledge, this is gained more through experience and practice than observation.

Now that we’ve outlined the basics, let’s move on to a classic way of defining knowledge: the tripartite view. This states that knowledge is justified true belief. For a belief to count as knowledge, it must meet three conditions. It has to be true, you must believe it, and you need a solid justification for that belief. It sounds straightforward, right? Well, not so fast. Philosophers have found some tricky cases that challenge this definition. These are called Gettier cases, and they show us that sometimes, even justified true belief doesn’t quite add up to knowledge.

Let’s start with the first Gettier case, often called The Broken Clock.

Imagine a man who has a very strict daily routine. Every morning, he wakes up at 5 a.m., gets ready, and leaves the house at exactly 7 a.m. He doesn’t wear a wristwatch, so as he’s about to leave, he always looks up at the large analog clock above his front door to check the time. This clock has always been accurate.

One evening, however, the clock stops working. It freezes at precisely 7:00 p.m. The man, having no idea the clock is broken, goes to bed as usual. The next morning, he wakes up at 5 a.m., follows his routine, and just as he’s about to leave, he looks up at the clock. It shows 7:00, as it always does. Trusting the clock, he confidently steps out, believing it’s 7 a.m., and he’s right—it is 7 a.m. But here’s the catch: his belief was only true by coincidence. The clock wasn’t working; it had stopped the night before. So, was this really knowledge?

To unpack this, let’s ask three critical questions:

1. If the man says, “The time is 7 a.m.,” is this statement true or false? The answer is true. Coincidentally, it was indeed 7 a.m. when he looked at the stopped clock.
2. If the man says, “I know the time is 7 a.m.,” is this statement true or false? The answer is false. Even though he got the right time, his belief wasn’t based on a reliable justification. It was pure luck, and luck cannot form the basis of knowledge.
3. If the man says, “The time on the clock was 7 a.m.,” is this statement true or false? The answer is false. The clock had stopped working the night before, so it wasn’t accurately showing the current time.

Fascinating, isn’t it? This example shows how something can meet the criteria of being a justified true belief but still fail to qualify as knowledge.

Now, let’s move on to another Gettier case, known as The Sheep in a Field.

Picture this: A man is driving along a country road when he glances out at a nearby field. In the distance, he sees what looks like a sheep grazing peacefully. Delighted by the sight, he continues driving, and when he meets a friend at a restaurant, he remarks, “I saw a sheep in a field on my way here. It’s so unusual to see just one sheep alone!”

What the man doesn’t realize is that what he saw wasn’t a sheep at all. It was a large white rock with some fleece caught on it from a recent storm. However—and here’s the twist—there actually is a sheep in that field, but it’s hidden behind a hill, out of sight from the road. So, is the man’s belief that there was a sheep in the field truly knowledge?

Let’s break it down with three key questions:

1. If the man says, “There is a sheep in the field,” is this statement true or false? The answer is true. There really is a sheep in the field, even though he didn’t see it.
2. If the man says, “I saw a sheep in the field,” is this statement true or false? The answer is false. He didn’t actually see the sheep; he saw a rock that looked like a sheep.
3. If the man says, “I know there is a sheep in the field,” is this statement true or false? The answer is false. Although there is a sheep in the field, his belief wasn’t based on reliable evidence, and his justification was flawed.

These Gettier cases—The Broken Clock and The Sheep in a Field—are more than just philosophical puzzles. They challenge us to think critically about what it means to have knowledge. They reveal that even when our beliefs are justified and true, luck or false premises can undermine their status as knowledge.

But Gettier cases are only one part of this fascinating puzzle. Philosophers have gone further to propose stricter conditions for knowledge. One such idea is the anti-luck intuition—the belief that true knowledge cannot simply be a matter of luck. Imagine flipping a coin and guessing correctly; while the result is true, it doesn’t count as knowledge because it was purely accidental.

Others argue for the no false lemmas view, which adds another condition to the tripartite definition. It states that knowledge must not depend on false premises. For example, imagine someone believes “John owns a Ford” because they saw him driving one. If John had only rented the car but coincidentally owned another Ford, the person’s belief would still fail to qualify as knowledge.

Finally, we come to the skeptical challenge. Radical skepticism asks whether we can truly know anything. Take the Brain in a Vat Hypothesis. If we were just brains wired to experience illusions, how could we ever prove that our perceptions of reality are accurate? While skepticism pushes the boundaries of doubt, some philosophers counter with fallibilism, accepting that knowledge can be imperfect but still meaningful.

In the end, these debates remind us that knowledge is not just about getting the right answer. It’s about the journey—how we justify our beliefs, avoid luck, and strive for understanding. Thank you for joining me on this intellectual adventure. I hope you found today’s lecture both thought-provoking and enjoyable!

Author: Joe Najeme

Sources:

Gettier, E. (1963). Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis, 23(6), 121-123.

• This seminal paper introduced Gettier cases, challenging the classical definition of knowledge.

Zagzebski, L. T. (1994). The Inescapability of Gettier Problems. Philosophical Quarterly, 44(174), 65-73.

• Explores the inevitability of Gettier-like issues in defining knowledge.

Lehrer, K., & Paxson, T. J. (1969). Knowledge: Undefeated Justified True Belief. Journal of Philosophy, 66(8), 225-237.

• Proposes refinements to the tripartite definition of knowledge.