Summary of Rauhut (Chapter Three)--What Is Knowledge? Epistemological Issues

I base these notes on Nils Rahut's book, Ultimate Questions, chapter three.  3rd Edition (Boston and Columbus: Prentice Hall, 2011). I'm always working on them, but I no longer teach the course in which I used his book.

This is an outline of pages 42-63 interspersed with some of my comments. I want to make it clear from the outset that I'm mainly reviewing this chapter of Rauhut and offering some additional thoughts along the way. The views expressed by Rauhut do not represent my own beliefs or values.

Rauhut (Chapter 3)

1. How would you define epistemology? (p. 42)

2. What does it mean to "know" something or someone?

3. Why is it important to define the term "knowledge" with precision? p. 43

4. What do you think about W.K. Clifford's observation regarding the tendency to believe things too easily based on insufficient evidence? p. 43-44

5. What is knowledge? What conditions must be fulfilled in order for something to count as knowledge? A) "I know the sun will rise tomorrow." B) "I know my Redeemer lives." C) "I know the atomic number of hydrogen is 1."

What does it mean to say that I know these things? The common philosophical answer is "justified true belief." That's what knowledge is supposed to be. Plato (428-ca. 347 BCE) set forth this idea.

6. Three major theories of knowledge: a) skepticism-difference btw. global and local skepticism, see p. 49. Example of Jack and Heinrich on pp. 48-49. b) empiricism-a posteriori (from the latter) c) rationalism-a priori (from the former)

7. Is it possible to ward off skepticism, to keep skepticism from undermining all of our claims about knowledge? Rene Descartes (1596-1650) tried to address skepticism by engaging in hyperbolic doubt. Descartes lived during a period that witnessed the Reformation and the Scientific Revolution, which were developments that challenged traditional religious and cosmological assumptions. See p. 51. " Cogito ergo sum." (chapter 3, pages 57ff)

8. Defining empiricism-all knowledge is derived through the senses or sensory experience (ears, eyes, hands, tongue and the nose). The main philosophers are John Locke (1632-1704), George Berkeley (1685-1753) and David Hume (1711-1776).

What counts as knowledge for the empiricists is what can be justified by "empirical evidence" (p. 58). Inferential evidence is treated the same way: the empiricist believes in dinosaurs although he/she has never seen one) because of what paleontologists have found. See p. 58.

But could we substantiate that all humans are on equal insofar as they are human by means of scientific evidence? How might we go about demonstrating human equality if we were empiricists? Moreover, what about empiricism and moral/religious skepticism. 

What are some possible advantages and disadvantages of empiricism? (free will, (non)dependability of the senses, the apparent success of science, string theory and extra dimensions).

9. Theories of perception and difficulties-pp. 60-61

10. Types of properties: primary (size, shape, motion, etc.) and secondary properties (taste, sight, touch)-John Locke.

11. Argument for indirect realism-pp. 62-63

But indirect realism supplies evidence for Kant's distinction and opens the way for global skepticism.

12. George Berkeley-p. 63 (subjective idealism)

13. The difference between analytic and synthetic truths