|Knowledge: Knowledge is a conscious relationship to sentences or propositions, which legitimately attributes to them truth or falsehood. What is known is true. Conversely, it does not apply that everything that is true is also known. See also knowledge how, propositional knowledge, realism, abilities, competence, truth, facts, situations, language, certainty, beliefs, omniscience, logical knowledge, reliability_____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. |
Alvin Goldman/Knowledge/BrandomVsGoldman: his theory paved the way for the reliability theories, but it is a two-edged sword with regard to naturalized epistemology.
For his example, it is important that we assume that the causal chain is an ideal one.
For example barn facades: one can imagine the facades of the province as embedded in a country with real barns, this in turn embedded in a state with facades, embedded in a continent with real, these on a planet with facades, this in turn embedded in a planet system with real barns and so on.
Whether it is about knowledge when seeing a real barn, is then completely dependent on the choice of the reference class! The closest reference class is then highly reliable.
Much is against genuine knowledge. This reveals the inadequacy of classical internalism of justification.
But E.g. twin earth/Brandom: a modern internalist could claim that the "internal states" are the same. All they have in common is that the subject cannot keep them apart. McDowell: but this fact does not have to be considered as sufficient to identify their contents!
Goldman/Brandom: Overall, the presence of barn façades in the area is causally irrelevant.
Barn facades/Goldman: the candidate is not a reliable perpetrator of barns.
Brandom: the special thing about this case is that the circumstances are external.
BrandomVsGoldman: "Goldman's insight", however, does not support the naturalized epistemology because the knowledge is completely dependent on the choice of the reference class. An argument place therefore remains empty.
It depends on how we describe the convinced: as a member of the country, of the federal state, etc. And that would be precisely the naturalistically formulated facts. They then lead to different judgments about the reliability of the observer.
Brandom: Situations like those of the example can quite possibly arise. From this follows the:
definition "blind spot" of the reliability theories/Brandom: whether or not an observer is reliable is dependent on the choice of reference classes (barn province), and thus on external circumstances which have nothing to do with the observed object._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
Alvin I. Goldman
Reliabilism and Contemporary Epistemology: Essays Oxford 2015