Epistemology - Revision history

Wordpad: BloomWiki: Epistemology

2026-04-25T01:50:40Z

BloomWiki: Epistemology

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:50, 25 April 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<div style="background-color: #4B0082; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
	{{BloomIntro}}		{{BloomIntro}}
	Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, sources, scope, and limits of human knowledge. Its central questions are ancient and still unresolved: What is knowledge? How do we acquire it? What can we know, and what must remain uncertain? Epistemology sits at the foundation of every academic discipline — every field's methods, standards of evidence, and claims to reliability rest on epistemological assumptions. From Plato's definition of knowledge as "justified true belief" to Gettier's 1963 counter-examples that shook that consensus, to contemporary debates about the role of testimony, perception, and reason, epistemology is where the deepest questions about the human mind's relationship to reality are worked out.		Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, sources, scope, and limits of human knowledge. Its central questions are ancient and still unresolved: What is knowledge? How do we acquire it? What can we know, and what must remain uncertain? Epistemology sits at the foundation of every academic discipline — every field's methods, standards of evidence, and claims to reliability rest on epistemological assumptions. From Plato's definition of knowledge as "justified true belief" to Gettier's 1963 counter-examples that shook that consensus, to contemporary debates about the role of testimony, perception, and reason, epistemology is where the deepest questions about the human mind's relationship to reality are worked out.
			</div>

	== Remembering ==		__TOC__

			<div style="background-color: #000080; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
			== <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">Remembering</span> ==
	* '''Epistemology''' — The branch of philosophy studying knowledge: what it is, how it is acquired, and what its limits are.		* '''Epistemology''' — The branch of philosophy studying knowledge: what it is, how it is acquired, and what its limits are.
	* '''Knowledge''' — Traditionally defined as justified true belief (JTB); Gettier cases challenged this definition.		* '''Knowledge''' — Traditionally defined as justified true belief (JTB); Gettier cases challenged this definition.
Line 18:		Line 23:
	* '''Social epistemology''' — Studies how social structures, testimony, and institutions affect knowledge production and distribution.		* '''Social epistemology''' — Studies how social structures, testimony, and institutions affect knowledge production and distribution.
	* '''Fallibilism''' — The view that knowledge is possible even if certainty is not; most of our beliefs could be wrong but still count as knowledge.		* '''Fallibilism''' — The view that knowledge is possible even if certainty is not; most of our beliefs could be wrong but still count as knowledge.
			</div>

	== Understanding ==		<div style="background-color: #006400; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
			== <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">Understanding</span> ==
	Epistemology's central project is understanding what distinguishes knowledge from mere belief or lucky guessing. Three core debates shape the field:		Epistemology's central project is understanding what distinguishes knowledge from mere belief or lucky guessing. Three core debates shape the field:

Line 29:		Line 36:

	'''Social dimensions of knowledge''': Modern epistemology increasingly addresses knowledge as a social achievement. Testimony — we know most of what we know through others — raises questions about when testimony transmits knowledge. Epistemic injustice (Miranda Fricker) identifies how social power structures can undermine people's ability to function as knowers and as sources of knowledge for others.		'''Social dimensions of knowledge''': Modern epistemology increasingly addresses knowledge as a social achievement. Testimony — we know most of what we know through others — raises questions about when testimony transmits knowledge. Epistemic injustice (Miranda Fricker) identifies how social power structures can undermine people's ability to function as knowers and as sources of knowledge for others.
			</div>

	== Applying ==		<div style="background-color: #8B0000; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
			== <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">Applying</span> ==
	'''Working with epistemological frameworks — practical analysis:'''		'''Working with epistemological frameworks — practical analysis:'''
	<syntaxhighlight lang="python">		<syntaxhighlight lang="python">
Line 104:		Line 113:
	: '''Virtue epistemology''' → Ernest Sosa, Linda Zagzebski — knowledge through intellectual virtues		: '''Virtue epistemology''' → Ernest Sosa, Linda Zagzebski — knowledge through intellectual virtues
	: '''Social epistemology''' → Miranda Fricker (''Epistemic Injustice''), Alvin Goldman		: '''Social epistemology''' → Miranda Fricker (''Epistemic Injustice''), Alvin Goldman
			</div>

	== Analyzing ==		<div style="background-color: #8B4500; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
			== <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">Analyzing</span> ==
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\|+ Core Epistemological Theories Compared		\|+ Core Epistemological Theories Compared
Line 122:		Line 133:

	'''Classic puzzles''': The problem of induction (Hume: no logical justification for inferring the future from the past). The problem of other minds (how do I know other beings are conscious?). The regress problem (each justified belief requires a justifier — how does this end?). The lottery paradox (justified to believe each lottery ticket will lose; unjustified to conclude all will lose). The paradox of the heap (sorites).		'''Classic puzzles''': The problem of induction (Hume: no logical justification for inferring the future from the past). The problem of other minds (how do I know other beings are conscious?). The regress problem (each justified belief requires a justifier — how does this end?). The lottery paradox (justified to believe each lottery ticket will lose; unjustified to conclude all will lose). The paradox of the heap (sorites).
			</div>

	== Evaluating ==		<div style="background-color: #483D8B; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
			== <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">Evaluating</span> ==
	Epistemological claims are evaluated through:		Epistemological claims are evaluated through:
	# '''Thought experiments''': testing intuitions against carefully constructed cases (Gettier, brain-in-a-vat, BIV).		# '''Thought experiments''': testing intuitions against carefully constructed cases (Gettier, brain-in-a-vat, BIV).
Line 130:		Line 143:
	# '''Application to science''': does the theory adequately account for scientific knowledge?		# '''Application to science''': does the theory adequately account for scientific knowledge?
	# '''Comparative analysis''': does the theory handle the problem cases better than competitors while preserving the benefits?		# '''Comparative analysis''': does the theory handle the problem cases better than competitors while preserving the benefits?
			</div>

	== Creating ==		<div style="background-color: #2F4F4F; color: #FFFFFF; padding: 20px; border-radius: 8px; margin-bottom: 15px;">
			== <span style="color: #FFFFFF;">Creating</span> ==
	Engaging epistemology at its frontiers:		Engaging epistemology at its frontiers:
	# '''Extended mind thesis''' (Clark & Chalmers): if knowledge can be stored outside the skull (notebooks, phones), what are the boundaries of the knowing self?		# '''Extended mind thesis''' (Clark & Chalmers): if knowledge can be stored outside the skull (notebooks, phones), what are the boundaries of the knowing self?
Line 142:		Line 157:
	[[Category:Epistemology]]		[[Category:Epistemology]]
	[[Category:Theory of Knowledge]]		[[Category:Theory of Knowledge]]
			</div>

Wordpad: BloomWiki: Epistemology

2026-04-23T14:36:35Z

BloomWiki: Epistemology

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:36, 23 April 2026
Line 124:		Line 124:

	== Evaluating ==		== Evaluating ==
	Epistemological claims are evaluated through: ~~(1)~~ '''Thought experiments''': testing intuitions against carefully constructed cases (Gettier, brain-in-a-vat, BIV). ~~(2)~~ '''Internal consistency''': can the theory avoid self-refutation? (skepticism: "I know nothing" is itself a knowledge claim). ~~(3)~~ '''Reflective equilibrium''': balancing theoretical principles with strong intuitions. ~~(4)~~ '''Application to science''': does the theory adequately account for scientific knowledge? ~~(5)~~ '''Comparative analysis''': does the theory handle the problem cases better than competitors while preserving the benefits?		Epistemological claims are evaluated through:
			# '''Thought experiments''': testing intuitions against carefully constructed cases (Gettier, brain-in-a-vat, BIV).
			# '''Internal consistency''': can the theory avoid self-refutation? (skepticism: "I know nothing" is itself a knowledge claim).
			# '''Reflective equilibrium''': balancing theoretical principles with strong intuitions.
			# '''Application to science''': does the theory adequately account for scientific knowledge?
			# '''Comparative analysis''': does the theory handle the problem cases better than competitors while preserving the benefits?

	== Creating ==		== Creating ==
	Engaging epistemology at its frontiers: ~~(1)~~ '''Extended mind thesis''' (Clark & Chalmers): if knowledge can be stored outside the skull (notebooks, phones), what are the boundaries of the knowing self? ~~(2)~~ '''Machine knowledge''': can AI systems "know" things? What would that require? ~~(3)~~ '''Epistemic injustice''': design institutions — scientific, journalistic, judicial — that give equal epistemic standing to all. ~~(4)~~ '''Epistemology of disagreement''': when you discover an equally qualified person disagrees with you, should you revise your beliefs? ~~(5)~~ '''Formal epistemology''': use probability theory, epistemic logic, and game theory to sharpen and test epistemological claims.		Engaging epistemology at its frontiers:
			# '''Extended mind thesis''' (Clark & Chalmers): if knowledge can be stored outside the skull (notebooks, phones), what are the boundaries of the knowing self?
			# '''Machine knowledge''': can AI systems "know" things? What would that require?
			# '''Epistemic injustice''': design institutions — scientific, journalistic, judicial — that give equal epistemic standing to all.
			# '''Epistemology of disagreement''': when you discover an equally qualified person disagrees with you, should you revise your beliefs?
			# '''Formal epistemology''': use probability theory, epistemic logic, and game theory to sharpen and test epistemological claims.

	[[Category:Philosophy]]		[[Category:Philosophy]]
	[[Category:Epistemology]]		[[Category:Epistemology]]
	[[Category:Theory of Knowledge]]		[[Category:Theory of Knowledge]]

Wordpad: BloomWiki: Epistemology

2026-04-23T14:21:21Z

BloomWiki: Epistemology

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:21, 23 April 2026
Line 22:		Line 22:
	Epistemology's central project is understanding what distinguishes knowledge from mere belief or lucky guessing. Three core debates shape the field:		Epistemology's central project is understanding what distinguishes knowledge from mere belief or lucky guessing. Three core debates shape the field:

	The Gettier problem and its aftermath: Plato's JTB definition seemed self-evident for millennia. In 1963, Edmund Gettier published a two-page paper showing it is insufficient. Classic Gettier case: you see what appears to be a sheep in a field; you believe "there is a sheep in the field"; the belief is justified and true. But it's actually a dog behind a rock, and there happens to be a real sheep hidden elsewhere. You have JTB but not knowledge. The philosophical response has been an industry: add a "no false lemmas" condition, add a causal condition (your belief must be causally connected to the fact), switch to reliability accounts, or abandon the analysis altogether.		'''The Gettier problem and its aftermath''': Plato's JTB definition seemed self-evident for millennia. In 1963, Edmund Gettier published a two-page paper showing it is insufficient. Classic Gettier case: you see what appears to be a sheep in a field; you believe "there is a sheep in the field"; the belief is justified and true. But it's actually a dog behind a rock, and there happens to be a real sheep hidden elsewhere. You have JTB but not knowledge. The philosophical response has been an industry: add a "no false lemmas" condition, add a causal condition (your belief must be causally connected to the fact), switch to reliability accounts, or abandon the analysis altogether.

	The rationalism-empiricism debate: Descartes, doubting everything that could be doubted, found one unshakeable fact: "cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). He built an account of knowledge grounded in clear and distinct ideas known by reason alone. Hume, an empiricist, argued that all meaningful ideas trace back to sensory impressions — including our ideas of causation, which he showed we don't observe but project onto the world. Kant's "Copernican revolution" in philosophy attempted a synthesis: the mind structures experience, so some features of experience (space, time, causation) are both known a priori and genuinely about the world.		'''The rationalism-empiricism debate''': Descartes, doubting everything that could be doubted, found one unshakeable fact: "cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). He built an account of knowledge grounded in clear and distinct ideas known by reason alone. Hume, an empiricist, argued that all meaningful ideas trace back to sensory impressions — including our ideas of causation, which he showed we don't observe but project onto the world. Kant's "Copernican revolution" in philosophy attempted a synthesis: the mind structures experience, so some features of experience (space, time, causation) are both known a priori and genuinely about the world.

	Internalism vs. externalism: Are the factors that justify our beliefs inside our minds (accessible to reflection), or can they be outside (like the reliability of the perceptual process we used)? Internalists say justification must be accessible to the knower; externalists (Goldman's reliabilism) say what matters is whether the belief-forming process is reliable, whether or not the knower can reflect on that reliability. This debate has profound implications for how we think about testimony, perception, and the epistemology of science.		'''Internalism vs. externalism''': Are the factors that justify our beliefs inside our minds (accessible to reflection), or can they be outside (like the reliability of the perceptual process we used)? Internalists say justification must be accessible to the knower; externalists (Goldman's reliabilism) say what matters is whether the belief-forming process is reliable, whether or not the knower can reflect on that reliability. This debate has profound implications for how we think about testimony, perception, and the epistemology of science.

	Social dimensions of knowledge: Modern epistemology increasingly addresses knowledge as a social achievement. Testimony — we know most of what we know through others — raises questions about when testimony transmits knowledge. Epistemic injustice (Miranda Fricker) identifies how social power structures can undermine people's ability to function as knowers and as sources of knowledge for others.		'''Social dimensions of knowledge''': Modern epistemology increasingly addresses knowledge as a social achievement. Testimony — we know most of what we know through others — raises questions about when testimony transmits knowledge. Epistemic injustice (Miranda Fricker) identifies how social power structures can undermine people's ability to function as knowers and as sources of knowledge for others.

	== Applying ==		== Applying ==
Line 124:		Line 124:

	== Evaluating ==		== Evaluating ==
	Epistemological claims are evaluated through: (1) Thought experiments: testing intuitions against carefully constructed cases (Gettier, brain-in-a-vat, BIV). (2) Internal consistency: can the theory avoid self-refutation? (skepticism: "I know nothing" is itself a knowledge claim). (3) Reflective equilibrium: balancing theoretical principles with strong intuitions. (4) Application to science: does the theory adequately account for scientific knowledge? (5) Comparative analysis: does the theory handle the problem cases better than competitors while preserving the benefits?		Epistemological claims are evaluated through: (1) '''Thought experiments''': testing intuitions against carefully constructed cases (Gettier, brain-in-a-vat, BIV). (2) '''Internal consistency''': can the theory avoid self-refutation? (skepticism: "I know nothing" is itself a knowledge claim). (3) '''Reflective equilibrium''': balancing theoretical principles with strong intuitions. (4) '''Application to science''': does the theory adequately account for scientific knowledge? (5) '''Comparative analysis''': does the theory handle the problem cases better than competitors while preserving the benefits?

	== Creating ==		== Creating ==
	Engaging epistemology at its frontiers: (1) Extended mind thesis (Clark & Chalmers): if knowledge can be stored outside the skull (notebooks, phones), what are the boundaries of the knowing self? (2) Machine knowledge: can AI systems "know" things? What would that require? (3) Epistemic injustice: design institutions — scientific, journalistic, judicial — that give equal epistemic standing to all. (4) Epistemology of disagreement: when you discover an equally qualified person disagrees with you, should you revise your beliefs? (5) Formal epistemology: use probability theory, epistemic logic, and game theory to sharpen and test epistemological claims.		Engaging epistemology at its frontiers: (1) '''Extended mind thesis''' (Clark & Chalmers): if knowledge can be stored outside the skull (notebooks, phones), what are the boundaries of the knowing self? (2) '''Machine knowledge''': can AI systems "know" things? What would that require? (3) '''Epistemic injustice''': design institutions — scientific, journalistic, judicial — that give equal epistemic standing to all. (4) '''Epistemology of disagreement''': when you discover an equally qualified person disagrees with you, should you revise your beliefs? (5) '''Formal epistemology''': use probability theory, epistemic logic, and game theory to sharpen and test epistemological claims.

	[[Category:Philosophy]]		[[Category:Philosophy]]
	[[Category:Epistemology]]		[[Category:Epistemology]]
	[[Category:Theory of Knowledge]]		[[Category:Theory of Knowledge]]

Wordpad: BloomWiki: Epistemology

2026-04-23T13:03:59Z

BloomWiki: Epistemology

New page

{{BloomIntro}}
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, sources, scope, and limits of human knowledge. Its central questions are ancient and still unresolved: What is knowledge? How do we acquire it? What can we know, and what must remain uncertain? Epistemology sits at the foundation of every academic discipline — every field's methods, standards of evidence, and claims to reliability rest on epistemological assumptions. From Plato's definition of knowledge as "justified true belief" to Gettier's 1963 counter-examples that shook that consensus, to contemporary debates about the role of testimony, perception, and reason, epistemology is where the deepest questions about the human mind's relationship to reality are worked out.

== Remembering ==
* '''Epistemology''' — The branch of philosophy studying knowledge: what it is, how it is acquired, and what its limits are.
* '''Knowledge''' — Traditionally defined as justified true belief (JTB); Gettier cases challenged this definition.
* '''Justified True Belief (JTB)''' — Plato's classic analysis: S knows P if and only if P is true, S believes P, and S is justified in believing P.
* '''Gettier problem''' — Edmund Gettier (1963) showed JTB is insufficient for knowledge using cases where all three conditions are met yet knowledge is intuitively absent.
* '''A priori knowledge''' — Knowledge obtainable independently of experience, through reason alone; e.g., mathematical truths.
* '''A posteriori (empirical) knowledge''' — Knowledge derived from experience and observation; e.g., scientific facts.
* '''Rationalism''' — The view that reason is the primary source of knowledge; associated with Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza.
* '''Empiricism''' — The view that sensory experience is the primary source of knowledge; associated with Locke, Berkeley, Hume.
* '''Skepticism''' — The view that knowledge is impossible, limited, or uncertain; Descartes used skepticism methodologically.
* '''Foundationalism''' — The view that knowledge rests on basic, self-evident foundational beliefs from which others are derived.
* '''Coherentism''' — The view that beliefs are justified by their coherence with a web of other beliefs; no isolated foundation.
* '''Reliabilism''' — Knowledge requires beliefs formed by reliable cognitive processes; Goldman's key contribution.
* '''Epistemic virtue''' — Character traits conducive to knowledge: open-mindedness, intellectual humility, thoroughness.
* '''Social epistemology''' — Studies how social structures, testimony, and institutions affect knowledge production and distribution.
* '''Fallibilism''' — The view that knowledge is possible even if certainty is not; most of our beliefs could be wrong but still count as knowledge.

== Understanding ==
Epistemology's central project is understanding what distinguishes knowledge from mere belief or lucky guessing. Three core debates shape the field:

**The Gettier problem and its aftermath**: Plato's JTB definition seemed self-evident for millennia. In 1963, Edmund Gettier published a two-page paper showing it is insufficient. Classic Gettier case: you see what appears to be a sheep in a field; you believe "there is a sheep in the field"; the belief is justified and true. But it's actually a dog behind a rock, and there happens to be a real sheep hidden elsewhere. You have JTB but not knowledge. The philosophical response has been an industry: add a "no false lemmas" condition, add a causal condition (your belief must be causally connected to the fact), switch to reliability accounts, or abandon the analysis altogether.

**The rationalism-empiricism debate**: Descartes, doubting everything that could be doubted, found one unshakeable fact: "cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). He built an account of knowledge grounded in clear and distinct ideas known by reason alone. Hume, an empiricist, argued that all meaningful ideas trace back to sensory impressions — including our ideas of causation, which he showed we don't observe but project onto the world. Kant's "Copernican revolution" in philosophy attempted a synthesis: the mind structures experience, so some features of experience (space, time, causation) are both known a priori and genuinely about the world.

**Internalism vs. externalism**: Are the factors that justify our beliefs inside our minds (accessible to reflection), or can they be outside (like the reliability of the perceptual process we used)? Internalists say justification must be accessible to the knower; externalists (Goldman's reliabilism) say what matters is whether the belief-forming process is reliable, whether or not the knower can reflect on that reliability. This debate has profound implications for how we think about testimony, perception, and the epistemology of science.

**Social dimensions of knowledge**: Modern epistemology increasingly addresses knowledge as a social achievement. Testimony — we know most of what we know through others — raises questions about when testimony transmits knowledge. Epistemic injustice (Miranda Fricker) identifies how social power structures can undermine people's ability to function as knowers and as sources of knowledge for others.

== Applying ==
'''Working with epistemological frameworks — practical analysis:'''
<syntaxhighlight lang="python">
# Epistemology is primarily a philosophical discipline worked through argumentation,
# but we can illustrate its concepts through formal modeling.

# Modeling a belief network (Bayesian epistemology)
# Bayesian epistemology uses probability to formalize degrees of belief (credences)
# and rational updating via Bayes' theorem

from fractions import Fraction

def bayes_update(prior: float, likelihood_given_h: float, likelihood_given_not_h: float) -> float:
"""
Update belief in hypothesis H given new evidence E.

Prior P(H), P(E|H), P(E|¬H) → Posterior P(H|E)

This formalizes the epistemological claim: rational belief revision
requires updating proportionally to how much evidence was expected.
"""
p_e = likelihood_given_h * prior + likelihood_given_not_h * (1 - prior)
posterior = (likelihood_given_h * prior) / p_e
return posterior

# Example: I believe it is raining (P=0.3 prior).
# I look outside and see wet pavement (E).
# P(wet pavement | raining) = 0.9
# P(wet pavement | not raining) = 0.2
posterior = bayes_update(0.3, 0.9, 0.2)
print(f"Posterior probability of rain given wet pavement: {posterior:.2f}")
# ≈ 0.66 — evidence significantly updates belief

# Modeling Gettier-type cases
class Belief:
def __init__(self, content, is_true, is_justified, causal_connection=True):
self.content = content
self.is_true = is_true
self.is_justified = is_justified
self.causal_connection = causal_connection # Externalist add-on

@property
def is_jtb_knowledge(self):
"""Classical justified true belief — Gettier shows this is insufficient."""
return self.is_true and self.is_justified

@property
def is_causal_knowledge(self):
"""Causal theory: belief must be causally produced by the fact that makes it true."""
return self.is_true and self.is_justified and self.causal_connection

def __repr__(self):
return (f"Belief: '{self.content}' | True: {self.is_true} | "
f"Justified: {self.is_justified} | JTB: {self.is_jtb_knowledge} | "
f"Causal: {self.is_causal_knowledge}")

# Classic Gettier case
gettier_case = Belief(
content="There is a sheep in the field",
is_true=True, # There IS a hidden sheep
is_justified=True, # You saw what looked like a sheep (actually a dog)
causal_connection=False # Your belief was caused by the dog, not the actual sheep
)
print(gettier_case)
# JTB: True (fails as knowledge!) | Causal: False (correctly excluded)
</syntaxhighlight>

; Key epistemological positions and theorists
: '''Rationalism''' → Descartes (''Meditations''), Leibniz, Spinoza, Plato
: '''Empiricism''' → Locke (''Essay Concerning Human Understanding''), Hume (''Enquiry''), Berkeley
: '''Kantian synthesis''' → Kant (''Critique of Pure Reason'') — a priori structures of experience
: '''Reliabilism''' → Alvin Goldman — knowledge requires reliable belief-forming processes
: '''Virtue epistemology''' → Ernest Sosa, Linda Zagzebski — knowledge through intellectual virtues
: '''Social epistemology''' → Miranda Fricker (''Epistemic Injustice''), Alvin Goldman

== Analyzing ==
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Core Epistemological Theories Compared
! Theory !! Justification Source !! Strength !! Weakness
|-
| Foundationalism || Basic self-evident beliefs || Explains structure of knowledge || Disputed which beliefs are foundational
|-
| Coherentism || Mutual coherence of beliefs || No mysterious foundations || Coherent yet false systems possible
|-
| Reliabilism || Reliable cognitive process || Handles testimony and perception well || Epistemic agents may not know if process is reliable
|-
| Virtue epistemology || Intellectual virtues || Integrates ethics and epistemology || Hard to specify virtues precisely
|-
| Pragmatism || What works / has practical consequences || Grounded in action || Can justify useful but false beliefs
|}

'''Classic puzzles''': The problem of induction (Hume: no logical justification for inferring the future from the past). The problem of other minds (how do I know other beings are conscious?). The regress problem (each justified belief requires a justifier — how does this end?). The lottery paradox (justified to believe each lottery ticket will lose; unjustified to conclude all will lose). The paradox of the heap (sorites).

== Evaluating ==
Epistemological claims are evaluated through: (1) **Thought experiments**: testing intuitions against carefully constructed cases (Gettier, brain-in-a-vat, BIV). (2) **Internal consistency**: can the theory avoid self-refutation? (skepticism: "I know nothing" is itself a knowledge claim). (3) **Reflective equilibrium**: balancing theoretical principles with strong intuitions. (4) **Application to science**: does the theory adequately account for scientific knowledge? (5) **Comparative analysis**: does the theory handle the problem cases better than competitors while preserving the benefits?

== Creating ==
Engaging epistemology at its frontiers: (1) **Extended mind thesis** (Clark & Chalmers): if knowledge can be stored outside the skull (notebooks, phones), what are the boundaries of the knowing self? (2) **Machine knowledge**: can AI systems "know" things? What would that require? (3) **Epistemic injustice**: design institutions — scientific, journalistic, judicial — that give equal epistemic standing to all. (4) **Epistemology of disagreement**: when you discover an equally qualified person disagrees with you, should you revise your beliefs? (5) **Formal epistemology**: use probability theory, epistemic logic, and game theory to sharpen and test epistemological claims.

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Theory of Knowledge]]