The Theory of Knowledge - Assignment Example

Justification of knowledge Justification of knowledge Introduction Epistemology is derived from two reek words episteme, meaning knowledge or understanding and logos, which means the ‘study of’. Therefore, epistemology refers to the philosophical branch that is often concerned with the scope and nature of knowledge. In other words, it is often referred to as the theory of knowledge. Epistemology often questions the exact composition of knowledge and the process in which people can acquire it, including the degree to which knowledge of any subject can be acquired by people (Comesaña, 2005). Much of the debate relating to epistemology focuses on philosophical analyses on the particular nature of knowledge including its relationship with other connected notions like justification and true belief. Many philosophers have raised question of whether the concept of knowledge needs any king of justification for it to be accepted as being true and reliable. It is important to understand that when it comes to epistemology, knowledge that is discussed is often propositional, also referred to as the “knowledge that.” this kind of knowledge is often separated from the “knowledge how” as well as “acquaintance knowledge.” For instance, it is a well known fact that when you add 2+2=4; however, another kind of knowledge often exist like that of knowing another person of oneself, place or something (Comesaña, 2005). This has made some philosophers to suggest that an important distinction exists between “knowing how,” “knowing that” as well as “acquaintance knowledge.” In all these, epistemology seems to be greatly interested in the second one. In this paper, I have attempted to make an argument of whether knowledge that people have over various subjects can be effectively justified. Justification For a long time, justification has often been regarded as one of the major conditions for knowledge. In this case, the theories that have long been used to deny the reasons for justification have often been dismissed as being mere non-starters. Previously, some philosophers had attempted to make the traditional perspective that justification was indeed an essential and necessary condition in the study and understanding of knowledge. This was contrary to the epistemic externalists that suggested that justification was to be replaced and in its place, a more reliable indication that was quite sensitive or any kind of externalist condition. The initial philosophers explained that the concept of replacement was not needed at all, since it was not very necessary. Soon this views were dismissed is unnecessary and unable to make people understand the essence of knowledge. In this case, knowledge was seen as an important concept that needed to be credibly supported. More recently, some philosophers have tried to suggest some of the purportedly necessary and essential conditions of knowledge. For instance, these philosophers have always pointed to the universal willingness of most individuals attributing knowledge where truth seems absent. In this regard, they argue that the usual idea of knowledge cannot be termed as factive in general. Some empirical research data has been found, which explains that people can willingly attribute knowledge even where dispositional belief or occurrent are missing. Justification of knowledge Initially, philosophers that often gave preference to the aspect of justification of knowledge showed an open attack towards the epistemological dogma, which asserted that knowledge can be a justified and true belief (Fantl & Mcgrath 2009). They explained that the real essence of having to make a justification for ones beliefs did not require being interpreted as an indication that justification was a necessary component of knowledge. Instead, it is argued that justification is simply an essential and important criterion for the knowledge that people need. In this case, by asking for justification, it is possible to determine whether one is a true belief of the particular item or subject matter in discussion. Because of the association that exists between truth and justification, knowing that a person can fail to have a substantive and god reason in believing a certain proposition is often the basis of our understanding how to determine whether his belief can be effectively trusted. In fact, it is important to realize that by knowledge having to be justified; it does not mean that justification has to be termed as an essential constituent of the knowledge itself. Is justification always necessary? Many instances have been given about incidences where knowledge does not necessarily have to be justified for it to be accepted a true belief. In this case, justification does not always have to be called upon in the process of attributing knowledge correctly (Hawthorne 2002). Generally, people are always willing and able to ascribe knowledge especially in instances of extremely weak and missing justifications. This is especially in incidents where justification was merely an implicit component of the knowledge. For this reason, it is necessary that we make a denial of the existence of knowledge. A good example of the above argument is given where a man believes that his boy is actually innocent in a case of crime amidst the tabled evidence against him (Hawthorne 2002). The man bases his belief on the fact that the boy in question is actually his own son. Generally, we can agree that the son is actually innocent in practice irrespective of whether the evidence provides a contrary opinion. Several example shave also been given to illustrate in certain incidences justification of knowledge is not always necessary and mandatory for it to be accepted as true belief by people who purport to argue in its favor. Generally, knowledge is a concept that can be argued in different perspectives provided a substantive standpoint is agreed upon. People need to understand that it may be difficult to explain that a certain aspect is true without giving any evidence in its support. For this reason, justification becomes a necessary condition for truth. However, it should be noted that not all arguments require justification (Hawthorne 2002). Where people can derive an effective understanding from the arguments given in the most effective manner, then they do not need to make such justifications. This indicates that knowledge is a concept that people have to be careful in making assertions of what they hold as factual issues, otherwise they need to be effectively justified. References Comesaña, J., (2005). “Unsafe Knowledge,” Synthese, 146(3): 395–404. Fantl, J. & Mcgrath, M. (2009). Knowledge in an Uncertain World, New York: Oxford University Press. Hawthorne, J., (2002). “Deeply Contingent A Priori Knowledge,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65(2): 247–69 Read More