Chapter 1:
Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. There are two types of knowledge: propositional (we can say in a sentence and explain like the moon revolves around the earth) and ability knowledge (the knowledge of how to do something: you can do; demonstrate it but maybe you can’t say it: like playing Tennis). The book is mainly dealing with propositional knowledge.
Philosophers agree on 2 requirements of knowledge:
1- Belief: that you believe in it
2- Truth: that belief is what actually is
When we know something, then it turns out we were wrong; then we didn’t really know it in the first place. However true belief is not equivalent to knowledge as it could be acquired by luck/ accident without exerting effort in acquiring this true belief. Hence there is no success that is creditable to the agent and can’t be repeated. Epistemologists’ challenge is to explain what needs to be added to mere true belief in order to be knowledge.
Chapter 2:
Is knowledge valuable?
We value knowledge but why?
Knowledge should be true & truth is instrumentally valuable (it is used to achieve other goals).
- True belief is better to reach our goals (all other things being equal) than false beliefs (it’s instrumentally more valuable).
- However sometimes false belief is instrumentally valuable as in jumping the ravine case.
- True belief could be in trivial matters so they are not of instrumental value. So gaining this true beliefs could be useless.
Thus true beliefs can only be useful (valuable) sometimes. Since not all true beliefs are knowledge perhaps only true beliefs of instrumental value are knowledge, but this is undermined by examples of knowledge with no instrumental value such as the weight of each sand grain and the ravine example. Hence not all knowledge is of instrumental value.
Is knowledge more valuable than mere true belief?
Since knowledge is more stable than true beliefs, they are more of instrumental value. However knowledge is not completely stable either as false information can make a person question his knowledge. but it is generally more stable as it couldn’t be easily mistaken (dr diagnosis example). In addition some knowledge is non-instrumentally valuable as in the case of wisdom.
Chapter 3:
The chapter moves on to define knowledge and the problem of where to begin when defining knowledge. One option is look at instances of knowledge and see what is similar among them. but how can we determine instances of knowledge without the defining criteria? who/ what will judge if this instance is actually knowledge or not. And we can’t determine the criteria for knowledge without adopting a definition of knowledge. This is called “the problem of the criterion”. So we must assume either of them
There are 2 approaches:
- Methodism: assumes we know the criteria for knowledge through philosophical reflection and moves from there to define knowledge
- Particularism: identifies particular instances of knowledge then drive a definition
Then Pritchard applies the methodism starting from the point that knowledge is true belief plus other stuff. What are these other things?! Since Plato’s time philosophers added justification (possession of good reasons for what one thinks is true) for one’s belief: This is the classical account of knowledge; tripartite. However this is contrasted by Gettier cases (having justified true belief that is not knowledge as it was true by accident). Philosophers responded to Gettier cases by adding being away from false presuppositions. But should presupposition be defined in a liberal or restrict manner. A restrict definition won’t address the problem; while liberal one would prevent us from having most of the knowledge we have.
So the criteria of knowledge are not manifest and easy to reach we actually made instances of knowledge to discuss them. It shows that you need to demand more than truth from the world if you want to reach knowledge. Maybe that the agent is forming his belief in the right way.