A Hitchhiker's Guide To Epistemology Quiz

Answer: 24

As a working definition of knowledge, justified true belief has certainly stood the test of time. Plato was already discussing it in his writings at least 24 centuries ago and the most recent edition of "The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology" published in 1999 still gives it respectful treatment.

Answer: An epistemological premise

"What is knowledge? What can we know? How do we know what we do know?" These questions, we are blithely informed by "The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology", are the three mean questions, er... that is the three main questions of epistemology. The "Guide" doesn't answer these questions either. Question: "What do an Epistemologists have in common with diet clinic doctors?" Answer: "If they ever really solve the problem they'll all be out of business."

Answer: An ontological problem

Ontology is the study of being or existence. Historical ontological problems have included the existence of God, the existence of the external world and the existence of self. There is a modern discipline of ontology that is of importance to those involved in artificial intelligence research. Tom Gruber has provided what is apparently felt to be a good definition for modern ontology, "An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization." Thanks Tom, for that clarification. Maybe Plato wasn't so bad.

Answer: Descartes

Rene Descartes asserted, "One cannot conceive anything so strange and so implausible that it has not already been said by one philosopher or another." A comic strip in the 1960's called "Sally Bananas" ran a strip with a first panel showing Sally and her friend Norbert standing together. Norbert says, "I think therefore...".

The second panel has Sally standing next to a puff of smoke with the word "poof" overlying it. The final panel shows Sally standing alone observing, "I knew he was pushing his luck."

Answer: The issue of consciousness

In the 4th century BC Chuang-tzu reported dreaming he was a butterfly, but on awakening wondering if he might be a butterfly dreaming he was a man? Chuang-tzu also once advised, "Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing." Perhaps harmonizing these two statements requires that if we are dreams we must simply be the best dreams we can be. Of course the question of whether we're awake or dreaming begs the issue of what consciousness is, really, when you get right down to it.

Answer: Phenomenology

Phillip Dick quipped, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." In the early twentieth century Edmund Husserl (whose name always appears misspelled) attempted to cast off scientific and cultural preconceptions and describe the structure and relationship of observed phenomena and their relationship to consciousness.

In the opinion of many he did not succeed...but that's the philosophy biz!

Answer: Requiring a dogmatic assumption without proof

Gilbert K Chesterton observed, "The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion." An ancient Greek, Agrippa, noted that an appeal to justify a belief must end in one of three ways: circular reasoning, an infinite regress or a dogmatic assumption.

The fact that no one of these three is adequate for the purpose of justifying a belief constitutes Agrippa's trilemma.

Answer: Infinite regress

Infinite regress is another of the three traps that Agrippa felt we must fall into trying to justify a true belief. Quite a number of philosophers have tried to escape Agrippa's trilemma. Convincing success would have led to widespread unemployment amongst epistemologists and apparently many remain at work, therefore by Modus Tollens (See my "Logically Speaking Quiz), I assert that no convincing success has been achieved.

Answer: Circular reasoning

The agnostic or skeptic is in the enviable position of being the one to ask the questions, at least as long as the victim permits it. Could one not reasonably ask from a person, who questions the blandest and most obvious fact, for a justification of their doubt? This quiz has actually addressed what Blackwell calls the two families of skeptical argument, those associated with Agrippa's trilemma and those termed Cartesian.

Answer: Show that justified true belief was an inadequate description of knowledge

Do you every worry that other people have used up all the original thoughts and now there are none left for you? It took twenty-four centuries of use and scrutiny by the world's most brilliant philosophers before, in 1963, Gettier came up with the following type of scenario. You think one of your co-workers owns a Ford Prefect. Actually the guy you think owns a Ford Prefect is deliberately deceiving you by driving someone else's Ford Prefect and claiming it is his.

However, a different co-worker actually does own a Ford Prefect. So, you have a belief that a co-worker owns a Ford Prefect; your belief is true; and you have a (good) justification for it. You can certainly claim justified true belief.

But could it be claimed that you KNOW a co-worker owns a Ford Prefect? So much for JTB.

This supports Bertrand Russell's contention, "The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it."