ETEC 530 Discussions

What is knowledge in philosophy?

The classical account of knowledge stemming from the Platonic dialogues, postulates that in having "good reasons" for what one believes is true qualifies them as knowledgeable or in possession of knowledge. Pritchard goes on to state that based on this premise, it might suffice to say that one believes the earth is flat because they are walking on a flat ground, and this would be considered 'having knowledge' - without the consideration of a third variable that might quickly render such true belief invalid, which might be a telescope, or a flight out into the stratosphere.

In this way, true belief, Pritchard says, is considered highly unstable. Thus also its instrumental value is questionable as it resists empirical validation due to its volatile nature. Gettier’s problem quickly also dispels the Platonic classical account of knowledge by hypothesizing the contextual alignment of certain situations that result in the validation of JTB's criteria but still holds meaningless when it comes to any knowledge having been possessed, used or verified.

The fallacy of justified true belief in real world application is immediately visible in EFL education, when students who may believe that the textbook at school that is government mandated, is vetted, reliable and relevant. Which is usually the case, in most other subjects. However, for EFL, let's say the MoE hires unqualified curriculum designers based on nepotistic practices, who choose textbooks at random and it just so happens that, the textbooks chosen by the designers for Grade 1 junior high school are written by qualified, leading experts and is academically sound. This may nor may not be repeated for the other grades.

In such case, does the unreliability of the people involved at a higher level disqualify the knowledge that is now proliferated via questionable curriculum choices?

Do these contextual variables disqualify knowledge from being transferred or from being acquired? Do bad actors diminish the entire educational institution because they have acted in bad faith?

Finally, what does it mean to codify something nebulous such as "language" into a textbook and consider it "knowledge"?

Why is justification important?

Agrippa's Trilemma is an epistemic problem related to justification in knowledge claims. The trilemma posits that in considering the Platonic definition of knowledge, which comprises of truth, belief and justification, the rationale to knowledge can only yield in three possible outcomes, all of which are unsatisfactory and incomplete.

First, the circular argument, which is the foundation for the coherentism theory. Second, the infinite regress for which we have the infinitism theory and lastly, the dogmatic argument that underscores the foundationalism claim, stating that certain knowledge is inherently fundamental to all knowledge and thus justification stops at the foundational unit of knowledge.

It underpins not only philosophical inquiry but also institutionalized knowledge. For instance, in EFL learning, grammar is a critical component of learning and is taught with prescriptive authority. Still, despite the fervent faith in grammar, many idiosyncratic occurrences are prevalent, such as the order of adjectives that might be used before a noun.

If we assume that the order of adjectives is a grammatical rule, we might ask why is it considered as such. The justification might follow as: "for clearer communication" -- which if we were to press further, might follow as 'it's what we have learned and are used to', reflecting usage or convention. If we continue to clarify the justification for its convention claims, it might follow in a circular fashion, back to "for clearer communication". In this way, a lot of what we consider "correct" or "knowledgeable" in regards to English grammar might be arbitrary rules that might have arisen due to contextual needs and may not hold up to epistemological scrutiny.