Epistemology

Core concepts

Distinctions

Schools of thought

Topics in addition to views

Specialized domains of inquiry

Notable epistemologists

Related fields

Traditions by region

Epistemology Ancient Greek  'knowledge', and -logy, or the opinion of knowledge, is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists discussing the nature, origin, in addition to scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, a rationality of belief, and various related issues. Epistemology is considered a major subfield of philosophy, along with other major subfields such(a) as ethics, logic, and metaphysics.

Debates in epistemology are broadly clustered around four core areas:

In these debates and others, epistemology aims toquestions such(a) as "What develope we know?", "What does it intend to say that we know something?", "What makes justified beliefs justified?", and "How shit we know that we know?".[]

Defining knowledge

A central case in epistemology is the question of what the generation of cognition is or how to define it. Sometimes the expressions "theory of knowledge" and "analysis of knowledge" are used specifically for this cause of inquiry. The term "knowledge" has various meanings in natural language. It can refer to an awareness of facts, as in knowing that Mars is a planet, to a possession of skills, as in knowing how to swim, or to an experiential acquaintance, as in knowing Daniel Craig personally. Factual knowledge, also returned to as propositional knowledge or descriptive knowledge, plays a special role in epistemology. On the linguistic level, it is distinguished from the other forms of cognition since it can be expressed through a that-clause, i.e. using a formulation like "They know that..." followed by the requested proposition.

Some attribute of factual knowledge are widely accepted: it is a form of cognitive success that establishes epistemic contact with reality. However, there are still various disagreements approximately its exact set even though it has been studied intensely. Different factors are responsible for these disagreements. Some theorists try to furnish a practically useful definition by describing its most noteworthy and easily identifiable features. Others engage in an analysis of knowledge, which aims to supply a theoretically precise definition that identifies the set of essential qualifications characteristic for any instances of knowledge and only for them. Differences in the methodology may also cause disagreements. In this regard, some epistemologists use abstract and general intuitions in grouping toat their definitions. A different approach is to start from concrete individual cases of knowledge to creation what any of them have in common. Yet another method is to focus on linguistic evidence by studying how the term "knowledge" is usually used. Different indications of knowledge are further predominance of disagreement. A few theorists set these specifics very high by demanding that absolute certainty or infallibility is necessary. On such a view, knowledge is a very rare thing. Theorists more in tune with ordinary language commonly demand lower standards and see knowledge as something commonly found in everyday life.

The historically near influential definition, discussed since perceptual experience, a memory, or abelief.

The justified-true-belief account of knowledge came under severe criticism in thehalf of the 20th century, when Edmund Gettier presentation various counterexamples. In a famous known Gettier-case, a person is driving on a country road. There are numerous barn facades along this road and only one real barn. But it is not possible to tell the difference between them from the road. The adult then stops by a fortuitous coincidence in front of the only real barn and forms the idea that it is a barn. The idea unhurried this thought experiment is that this is non knowledge even though the belief is both justified and true. The reason is that it is just a lucky accident since the person cannot tell the difference: they would have formed precisely the same justified belief whether they had stopped at another site, in which case the belief would have been false.