home / skills / chrislemke / stoffy / epistemology

epistemology skill

/.claude/skills/epistemology

This skill helps you analyze epistemology by explaining knowledge, justification, and skepticism to improve your reasoning and belief assessment.

npx playbooks add skill chrislemke/stoffy --skill epistemology

Review the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.

Files (1)
SKILL.md
7.1 KB
---
name: epistemology
description: "Master epistemology - the theory of knowledge, justification, and belief. Use for: knowledge, justification, skepticism, sources of knowledge, epistemic virtue. Triggers: 'knowledge', 'epistemology', 'justification', 'belief', 'Gettier', 'skepticism', 'certainty', 'evidence', 'testimony', 'perception', 'reason', 'a priori', 'empirical', 'reliability', 'internalism', 'externalism', 'foundationalism', 'coherentism'."
---

# Epistemology Skill

Master the theory of knowledge: What is knowledge? How is belief justified? Can we know anything?

## Core Questions

| Question | Issue | Stakes |
|----------|-------|--------|
| What is knowledge? | Analysis | Definition of knowledge |
| What justifies belief? | Justification | Epistemic norms |
| Can we know anything? | Skepticism | Scope of knowledge |
| What are sources of knowledge? | Sources | Perception, reason, testimony |

---

## The Analysis of Knowledge

### Traditional Analysis

**JTB**: Knowledge = Justified True Belief

```
S knows that P iff:
1. S believes that P (belief condition)
2. P is true (truth condition)
3. S is justified in believing P (justification condition)
```

### Gettier Problem

**Gettier Cases** show JTB is not sufficient:

```
GETTIER CASE #1
═══════════════

Smith has strong evidence that Jones will get the job
(told by company president).

Smith also knows Jones has 10 coins in his pocket.

Smith infers: "The man who will get the job has 10 coins
in his pocket."

Unknown to Smith: HE (Smith) will get the job.
And Smith happens to have 10 coins in his pocket.

Smith's belief is:
✓ Justified (by evidence about Jones)
✓ True (Smith will get job, has 10 coins)
✗ NOT knowledge (too lucky!)
```

### Post-Gettier Theories

**Fourth Condition Approaches**:
- No false lemmas
- Causal connection
- Defeasibility (no truths that would defeat justification)

**Tracking** (Nozick):
- S knows P iff: If P were false, S wouldn't believe P
- Sensitivity condition

**Safety** (Sosa, Pritchard):
- S knows P iff: S couldn't easily have been wrong
- In nearby possible worlds where S believes P, P is true

**Virtue Epistemology**:
- Knowledge = true belief from intellectual virtue
- Success attributable to cognitive ability

---

## Theories of Justification

### Foundationalism

```
FOUNDATIONALIST STRUCTURE
═════════════════════════

DERIVED BELIEFS
├── Justified by inference
├── From more basic beliefs
└── Not self-justifying

         ↑
         │
    BASIC BELIEFS
    ├── Self-justifying
    ├── Need no support from other beliefs
    └── Foundation of knowledge
```

**Basic Beliefs**:
- Classical: self-evident, incorrigible
- Modest: defeasibly justified without inference

### Coherentism

```
COHERENTIST STRUCTURE
═════════════════════

    ┌─────────────────────┐
    │                     │
┌───▼───┐           ┌─────┴───┐
│ Belief ├──────────►│ Belief │
│   A    │◄──────────┤   B    │
└───┬────┘           └────┬───┘
    │                     │
    │    ┌─────────┐      │
    └────► Belief  ◄──────┘
         │   C    │
         └────────┘

No foundations; mutual support
```

**Objection**: Coherent fiction could be well-justified but false (isolation problem)

### Infinitism

- No basic beliefs
- No circular justification
- Infinite regress is not vicious
- We can always provide further reasons

### Internalism vs. Externalism

| Internalism | Externalism |
|-------------|-------------|
| Justifiers must be accessible to subject | Justifiers may be external |
| What I can know by reflection | Reliable processes suffice |
| Epistemic responsibility | Connection to truth matters |
| Examples: evidentialism | Examples: reliabilism |

---

## Skepticism

### Cartesian Skepticism

```
SKEPTICAL ARGUMENT
══════════════════

1. I cannot know I'm not a brain in a vat (BIV)
2. If I know I have hands, I can deduce I'm not a BIV
3. If I can't know the conclusion, I can't know the premise
4. Therefore, I don't know I have hands

CLOSURE PRINCIPLE:
If S knows P, and S knows P→Q, then S can know Q
```

### Responses to Skepticism

**Moorean Shift**:
- I know I have hands
- If I have hands, I'm not a BIV
- Therefore, I know I'm not a BIV
- Common sense trumps skeptical premises

**Contextualism**:
- "Know" has different standards in different contexts
- In everyday contexts, we do know
- In philosophical contexts, standards are higher
- Both claims are true (in their contexts)

**Relevant Alternatives**:
- Knowledge requires ruling out relevant alternatives
- BIV is not a relevant alternative in normal contexts

---

## Sources of Knowledge

### Perception

**Direct Realism**: We perceive external objects directly
**Indirect Realism**: We perceive sense-data caused by objects
**Idealism**: Objects are mind-dependent

**Problems**:
- Perceptual error, illusion
- Skepticism about external world
- Theory-ladenness of observation

### Reason (A Priori Knowledge)

**Rationalism**: Some knowledge is innate or a priori
**Examples**: Mathematics, logic, conceptual truths

**Problems**:
- How do we access a priori truths?
- Are they merely analytic?
- Quine's attack on analytic/synthetic distinction

### Testimony

**Reductionism**: Testimony reducible to other sources
**Anti-Reductionism**: Testimony is fundamental source

**Conditions**: Speaker sincerity, competence, listener's critical uptake

### Memory

**Preservative**: Memory preserves justification
**Generative**: Memory can generate new knowledge
**Problems**: False memories, reliability

---

## Key Concepts

### Epistemic Virtues

| Virtue | Description |
|--------|-------------|
| Intellectual humility | Recognizing limits |
| Open-mindedness | Considering alternatives |
| Intellectual courage | Pursuing truth despite cost |
| Thoroughness | Careful investigation |
| Fair-mindedness | Impartial assessment |

### Evidence

**Evidentialism**: Justification proportional to evidence
**Evidence types**: Perceptual, testimonial, inferential

### Degrees of Belief (Bayesian)

- Credences: Degrees of belief (0-1)
- Conditionalization: Update on evidence
- Bayes' theorem: P(H|E) = P(E|H)·P(H)/P(E)

---

## Key Vocabulary

| Term | Meaning |
|------|---------|
| Justified | Having good reasons |
| A priori | Independent of experience |
| A posteriori | Dependent on experience |
| Analytic | True by meaning |
| Synthetic | True by world |
| Infallible | Cannot be wrong |
| Defeasible | Can be overridden |
| Propositional knowledge | Knowledge that P |
| Knowledge how | Practical knowledge |
| Epistemic luck | Being right by chance |
| Closure | Knowledge closed under known entailment |

---

## Integration with Repository

### Related Themes
- `thoughts/knowledge/`: Epistemological explorations
- `thoughts/consciousness/`: Perception, self-knowledge

Overview

This skill teaches core concepts and debates in epistemology: the nature of knowledge, justification, skepticism, and sources of belief. It summarizes classical analyses (JTB), Gettier challenges, major responses (safety, tracking, defeasibility), and competing theories of justification. Use it to clarify concepts, evaluate arguments, and apply epistemic standards to real cases.

How this skill works

The skill outlines formal analyses of knowledge and common counterexamples, then surveys prominent theories of justification (foundationalism, coherentism, infinitism) and positions on internalism vs externalism. It examines skepticism and standard replies, and catalogs sources of knowledge—perception, reason, testimony, memory—along with epistemic virtues and probabilistic reasoning (Bayesianism). Practical criteria and examples illustrate application.

When to use it

  • Clarifying whether a belief counts as knowledge in philosophical or everyday contexts
  • Evaluating skeptical arguments (brain-in-a-vat, radical doubt) and common responses
  • Choosing between justificatory frameworks for research or teaching (foundationalism, coherentism, reliabilism)
  • Analyzing Gettier-like cases to test proposed analyses of knowledge
  • Designing or critiquing testimony-based or perception-based knowledge claims

Best practices

  • Start by specifying the notion of ‘knowledge’ you are using (closure, safety, tracking, virtue)
  • Use concrete examples (Gettier cases, perceptual errors) to test abstract principles
  • Distinguish between epistemic justification and psychological belief when diagnosing cases
  • Consider context-sensitivity: ordinary vs philosophical standards can differ
  • Combine formal tools (Bayesian updating) with normative judgments (epistemic virtues) where appropriate

Example use cases

  • Assessing whether eyewitness testimony yields knowledge in a legal or everyday scenario
  • Explaining why a justified true belief might fail to be knowledge using a Gettier case
  • Comparing foundationalist and coherentist strategies when building an epistemic framework for a study
  • Applying safety or tracking conditions to claims about perceptual knowledge
  • Using Bayesian conditionalization to model degrees of belief and evidence updating

FAQ

Does justified true belief define knowledge?

No. Gettier cases show JTB can come apart from knowledge; most contemporary views add conditions like no-defeaters, safety, tracking, or appeal to intellectual virtue.

Which is better: internalism or externalism?

They answer different concerns: internalism emphasizes reflective access and epistemic responsibility; externalism emphasizes reliable connection to truth. Choice depends on whether you prioritize justification that the subject can access or mechanisms that secure truth.