Ep. 348: Tim Williamson's Knowledge-First Epistemology (Part Two)
Aug 26, 2024
auto_awesome
In this discussion, philosopher Tim Williamson delves into his Knowledge-First Epistemology, challenging conventional notions of knowledge and belief. He explores the nuances of justification versus excuse, highlighting how we often misinterpret evidence in forming beliefs. Williamson critiques relativism and skepticism with thought-provoking hypotheticals, such as the 'brain in a vat' scenario. The conversation also touches on moral implications of our epistemic views, emphasizing the intertwining of knowledge with ethical judgments.
Williamson's knowledge-first epistemology asserts that true justification requires genuine knowledge, challenging traditional beliefs about self-evident mental states.
The podcast critiques internalism by emphasizing the necessity of an objective truth relationship for moral accountability in assessing beliefs.
Deep dives
Knowledge-First Epistemology and Mental States
Knowledge-First Epistemology posits that knowledge is a mental state, differing from traditional views that describe mental states as transparent. Tim Williamson argues against the idea that mental experiences, like pain or belief, are inherently self-evident. He asserts that individuals may not fully understand their own beliefs or the evidence they face, leading to the conclusion that not all sensations can be trusted at face value. For example, a person might believe they are aware of their beliefs or the evidence supporting them, but in reality, this understanding may be flawed, demonstrating that knowledge and evidence are intertwined.
Justification versus Excuse
Williamson makes a significant distinction between being justified in a belief and having an excuse for that belief, particularly in hypothetical scenarios like the brain in a vat. In such cases, even if a person follows the correct procedures to assess their beliefs—like examining limbs—they may still lack genuine justification because their evidence is misleading or incorrect. This creates a scenario where it is crucial to understand that having a strong methodological approach does not guarantee justified knowledge if the underlying reality is flawed. Thus, while one might feel justified based on their reasoning, it does not equate to true epistemic justification.
The Relationship Between Knowledge, Belief, and Justification
Williamson argues that knowledge is a prerequisite for genuine justification, contrasting with views that separate belief and justification. For instance, he explores the Gettier problem where true belief does not equal knowledge, emphasizing that true beliefs derived from unreliable processes cannot constitute knowledge. This distinction illustrates that a correct belief formed through dubious means—like flipping a coin—falls short of being classified as knowledge, despite being accurate. Therefore, the basis for belief must be rooted in actual knowledge for it to hold epistemic value.
Normative Standards in Epistemology
The discussion also touches on how normative standards apply to beliefs and actions, particularly regarding moral implications. Williamson criticizes internalism, which may allow individuals to justify their beliefs based solely on available perceptions without real truth verification. He argues for an objective perspective, advocating that justification must be based on an actual relationship to truth rather than subjective interpretations. This leads to the conclusion that someone can be justified in believing something while still being fundamentally incorrect about it, showcasing the complexities in the relationship between belief, knowledge, and moral accountability.
Continuing on "Knowledge First Epistemology" (2011), "Justifications, Excuses, and Sceptical Scenarios" (2015), and "Morally Loaded Cases in Philosophy" (2019).
How does knowledge-first epistemology relate to reliabilism? What are its moral implications? Does W. have a good argument against relativism and skepticism?