Overview
This lecture explores various theories of knowledge, focusing on how we define and attribute knowledge in everyday situations versus philosophical skepticism, and examines major responses like relevant alternatives, contextualism, and invariantism.
Relevant Alternatives Theory
- Knowledge, according to this theory, does not require ruling out every possible doubt, only the relevant alternatives.
- For example, when you see a zebra at the zoo, you don't need to rule out outlandish scenarios (like a disguised mule or a hologram) to know it’s a zebra.
- The key problem is defining what counts as a "relevant" alternative and how to eliminate them.
Closure Principle and Critique
- The closure principle states: if you know P, and P entails Q, then you know Q.
- Relevant alternatives theory sometimes denies closure, suggesting you can know P (it’s a zebra) without knowing Q (it’s not a disguised mule).
- Critics argue this denial is problematic, as it conflicts with basic logical reasoning.
Contextualism
- Contextualism, influenced by Wittgenstein, says the standards for "knowledge" change depending on the context (“language games”).
- In ordinary contexts, low standards suffice for knowledge; in skeptical or high-stakes contexts, higher justification is needed.
- Stuart Cohen argues that ordinary knowledge attributions do not require eliminating all possible doubts.
Invariantism & Interest-Relative Invariantism
- Invariantism holds that knowledge standards do not shift with context, aligning with Descartes' (Descartes) view.
- Interest-relative invariantism suggests that what is at stake changes how strictly we apply knowledge standards.
- High-stakes situations (e.g., safety concerns, allergies) require stronger evidence than low-stakes ones, even with the same facts.
Problems and Debates
- Contextualism is sometimes criticized for being just disguised skepticism, as it makes knowledge too easy to attribute.
- Strict invariantism may return us to skepticism, where knowledge becomes unattainable due to high standards.
- There is ongoing debate about whether and how knowledge standards should shift based on context or stakes.
Key Terms & Definitions
- Relevant Alternative — A possible scenario that must be ruled out to claim knowledge.
- Closure Principle — The idea that knowing P and "P implies Q" means you also know Q.
- Contextualism — The view that knowledge standards vary with conversational or situational context.
- Invariantism — The view that knowledge standards remain fixed, regardless of context.
- Interest-Relative Invariantism — Standards for knowledge depend on what is at stake in the situation.
Action Items / Next Steps
- Review distinctions between relevant alternatives, contextualism, and invariantism.
- Prepare to discuss examples or come up with your own scenarios for each theory in the next class.