PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Analyzing Knowledge #4 (Tracking Theories) [HD]

Problems for the causal theory of knowledge led epistemologists to propose that knowledge is a matter of tracking the truth. Fred Dretske and Robert Nozick developed this idea using counterfactual conditions. In this Wireless Philosophy video, Geoff Pynn (Northern Illinois University) examines the tracking idea, consider how it improves on the causal theory, and then discuss some well known objections to the theories advanced by Dretske and Nozick.

Subscribe!

More on Geoff Pynn:

----

Wi-Phi @ YouTube:

Wi-Phi @ Khan Academy:

Twitter:

Facebook:

Instagram:
@wiphiofficial

----

Help us caption & translate this video!

[dominicditmyer]

Why not used the reliability theory but make the condition for true knowledge a 100% reliability. Almost everyone knows that the only way a fact can be 100% reliable is if it is true by definition. For instance, observing the zebra just isn't a reliable way to tell if you looking at a zebra. You have to observe what defines a zebra, its DNA. If the animal's DNA is zebra DNA, then the animal, by definition, is a zebra, and you are looking at a zebra. An animal cant have zebra DNA and not be a zebra, so this is a 100% reliable fact.
Same thing with the barn. What defines a barn as a real barn? Unless you observe everything that, by definition, makes something a real barn, you don't have 100% reliability, and therefore don't have true knowledge.

IN SHORT: If A, by definition, is B, C, D, ..., than to know for sure that A, you have to observe B, C, D, ... .

[zanebrunt]

i feel like ive been digging for knowledge and have just been left with a big hole, , , my head hurts

[sciwiz]

I'm interested in meta meta epistimology. What can a person know about the knowledge about knowledge about knowledge?

[alfredkokou]

At 9:00, I don't see how the example you gave violate the closure principle . If he were in fact looking at a disguised mule, the belief P = " I am looking at a Zebra" would not meet the sensitivity test in the first place. So in this example Q ="I am not looking at a disguised mule" failed the sensitivity test because P also failed the sensitivity test.

[charumohan]

To me it seems the whole assumption that is being contested all along is that "looking at something and forming a belief is a great way of obtaining any knowlege". If we refute this and arrive at methods which could be sufficient to form a belief, there won't be this discussion at all. Please correct me and let me know what am i missing to see here!!

[jakeb.]

I take offence at the "cheap mules" remark. Mules are fab.

[MalkuthEmperor]

2:05 To me, the solution is that if you cant destinguish between a fake zebra and a real zebra, you have to rely on stronger forms of evidence
Like making a biopsy and learning how zebras are different from other animals, so that you can have sufficient understanding without also needing to rely on an experts second hand knowledge

[kingsway]

Are limited scope makes us always vulnerable to misapprehensions any multivariant analysis could be overlooking a major flaw

[drxyd]

The tracking theory is excellent, hopefully the issue with the closure principle is resolved well by Roush's modification.

[channingjones]

I think the problem is that philosophers are trying to find objective definition of knowledge. If we go with a subjective or perspective-based definition of knowledge then that makes it easier. In the example of the person who sees the right time on a broken clock, that person, from his perspective, he *knows* the right time. It's only an observer with a different perspective (who knows that the clock is broken) would say that he doesn't actually know.

[haijiexie]

In the last part Closure principle, I think both the P(I am looking at a Zebra) and Q(I am not looking at a disguised mule) do not meet the sensitivity test. I do not know why the video says only Q violates.

[ahmedsakr]

POV: you have an epistemology test in 2 hours

[KatzePiano]

I love Nozick's response at 7:49 that our beliefs must track the truth "given the method by which we form them". I've been trying to think of a way round this sort of case.
A similar case includes the belief 'there is a vase on the table' formed by looking at a hologram of a vase hovering just in front of a real vase, which is activated by the vase being placed on a button on the table. It's a Gettier case and clearly not knowledge because you're not really looking at the actual vase, but it is sensitive because of the button, so if there weren't a vase in the room you would not believe it because the hologram wouldn't be there either. Nozick's specific type of tracking theory solves this, though, and explains why it doesn't properly track the truth! I'll make sure to remember this for my exam in a couple of months!)

[darrellee]

The sensitivity criteria means that my believe in P is in some sense evidence for P.
Not P -> Not B(P) equivalent to B(P) -> P (by contrapositive)

[newkingjames]

What would be the scenario where you didn't know animals, the zebra was a fake mule, and you guessed mule? What would that fall under?

[joshuafritz]

Calling knowledge a theory is ineffective in analysing it. Knowledge is an aspect of a soul, an energy. D minus.

[darrellee]

I can know I have hands, whether I'm a brain in a vat or not.
It's just that the ontological foundation of what I'm calling hands is different
in each case.

[dreamstorm]

I find that this video is less clear than the previous ones... Maybe it's because I don't fully understand English, but I'm sure better links with "defeaters" or other concepts might have be done. "Adherence" or "Tracking" are not precise enough so that I understand. Maybe one explain me the video in other words ? What is new in this tracking theory ?

[leonwang]

This video explains tracking account so clear!

[ingenuity]

So, the galaxies we see might be fake. Only the ones we can study physically by light/ mathematics are real. Those that are unreachable by us can be fake.