Philosophy

Epistemology 1.1

The Nature of Knowledge 1.1.1

The Gettier Problem 1.1.1.4

Reliabilism 1.1.1.4.3

Another addition to traditional analysis of knowledge is the idea of reliabilism. From an earlier summary I know that it involves a reliable cognitive process. What is that, and how does it justify a believe?

Reliabilism is a theory of knowledge that focuses on the reliability of the cognitive processes that lead to knowledge. According to reliabilism, a belief is justified if it is formed through a reliable cognitive process**, regardless of whether the belief is true or false.

A cognitive process is reliable if it tends to produce true beliefs in a wide range of circumstances. For example, perception is generally considered a reliable cognitive process because it tends to produce true beliefs about the external world. If I see a red apple on a table, my visual perception of the apple is likely to produce a true belief that there is a red apple on the table.

Reliabilism argues that if a belief is formed through a reliable cognitive process, it is likely to be true, and therefore justified. This means that even if the belief turns out to be false, it can still be considered justified if it was formed through a reliable process.

Critics of reliabilism argue that it is difficult to determine which cognitive processes are reliable, and that the reliability of a cognitive process may depend on the context in which it is used. However, proponents of reliabilism argue that it provides a useful framework for understanding how knowledge is acquired and justified.

I wonder if the application of deterministic approaches supports the idea of a reliable cognitive process. For instance, if I were to justify a believe by using Mathematics, propositional logic or any other processes that won’t allow any ambiguity. Is the application of such methods reliable?

Deterministic approaches like mathematics and propositional logic can be reliable cognitive processes because they have clear rules and procedures that allow for precise and unambiguous results. However, it’s important to note that the reliability of a cognitive process is not solely determined by its deterministic nature but also by its ability to consistently produce accurate results in a given context. In other words, a reliable cognitive process is one that consistently produces true beliefs when applied to the appropriate domain.

In the case of mathematical or logical reasoning, these processes can be reliable in domains where they are applicable, but they may not be reliable in other domains that require different cognitive processes. For example, using mathematical formulas to predict the behavior of a complex system like the stock market may not be reliable because there are many variables at play that cannot be accurately modeled using deterministic approaches alone.

Therefore, while deterministic approaches can be a reliable cognitive process in some domains, their reliability must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in relation to the specific context in which they are being applied.

Is there a way to determine whether or not there is even a reliable cognitive process available? Let’s say I want to predict the outcome of what I believe to be a complex system by observing it, but in reality the outcome is random. You said that perception, although it’s known flaws is usually considered a reliable cognitive process. However, it doesn’t help, if the object I am observing hides certain truth, such as the fact that it acts randomly.

That’s a good point. In some cases, it may not be possible to determine if there is a reliable cognitive process available, especially if the system being observed is too complex or inherently unpredictable. In such cases, it may be more appropriate to acknowledge the limitations of one’s knowledge and rely on other sources of information or methods for making decisions.

However, even in complex or unpredictable systems, there may still be patterns or regularities that can be observed and used to make predictions or inferences. In such cases, it may be possible to identify reliable cognitive processes that can be used to make accurate predictions or draw reasonable conclusions.

It’s worth noting that reliabilism is not just about the reliability of individual cognitive processes, but also about the reliability of the overall cognitive system. This includes factors such as the reliability of our senses, memory, reasoning abilities, and so on. In some cases, we may need to rely on multiple cognitive processes or methods of inquiry to arrive at reliable knowledge.

Can you provide a rather complex example?

Sure, here’s an example:

Suppose you want to predict the outcome of a stock market investment. You have some knowledge of the market and some analysis tools at your disposal, which you believe to be reliable cognitive processes. You use these processes to make a prediction that a certain stock will perform well in the next few months. However, there are many factors that could affect the stock’s performance, some of which are unpredictable or random, such as natural disasters, political events, or changes in consumer behavior.

In this case, even if you use a reliable cognitive process to make your prediction, there may still be factors outside of your control that affect the outcome. This means that your prediction may not be accurate, even if you used a reliable cognitive process. It’s important to recognize that while reliable cognitive processes can increase the likelihood of arriving at true beliefs, they don’t guarantee it, especially in complex situations where there are many variables at play.

Would you say, that knowledge is generally relative and a matter of likelyhood or probability, rather than a true fact?

In some philosophical perspectives, such as fallibilism or contextualism, knowledge can be seen as a matter of likelihood or probability, rather than absolute certainty. These views hold that knowledge claims are always open to revision or subject to contextual factors such as background beliefs, evidence, and social or cultural factors. Therefore, the truth of a particular claim may be relative to a specific context or point of view.

However, other philosophical perspectives, such as foundationalism or certain forms of realism, hold that knowledge can be grounded on absolute, indubitable facts or evidence, and that there are objective, mind-independent truths that can be discovered and known with certainty.

In general, the question of whether knowledge is relative or absolute is a topic of ongoing debate in epistemology, and different philosophers have proposed different answers depending on their theoretical and practical concerns.