Chinese, Mandarin

Spanish

English

Hindi

Arabic

Portuguese

Bengali

Russian

Japanese

Punjabi

German

Javanese

Malay

Telugu

Vietnamese

Korean

French

Marathi

Tamil

Urdu

Turkish

Italian

Chinese, Yue / Cantonese

Thai

Gujarati

Chinese, Jin

Chinese, Min Nan

Persian, Dari

Persian, Western

Polish

Pashto

Kannada

Chinese, Xiang

Malayalam

Sundanese

Hausa

Odia

Burmese

Chinese, Hakka

Ukrainian

Bihari, Bhojpuri

Tagalog

Yoruba

Bihari, Maithili

Uzbek

Sindhi

Amharic

Fula

Romanian

Oromo

Igbo

Azerbaijani

Chinese, Gan

Dutch

Kurdish, Central

Kurdish, Northern

Kurdish, Southern

Malagasy

Lahnda, Saraiki

Nepali

Sinhalese

Chittagonian

Zhuang

Khmer

Turkmen

Assamese

Madurese

Somali

Marwari

Bihari, Magahi

Haryanvi

Hungarian

Chhattisgarhi

Greek, Modern

Chewa

Dakhini

Akan, Twi

Akan, Fante

Kazakh

Chinese, Min Bei

Sylheti

Zulu

Czech

Kinyarwanda

Marwari, Dhundhari

Haitian Creole

Chinese, Min Dong

Ilocano

Quechua

Kirundi

Swedish

Hmong

Shona

Uyghur

Hiligaynon

Mossi

Xhosa

Belarusian

Balochi

Philosophy

<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Like other areas within philosophy, epistemology begins with the philosophical method of doubting and asking questions. What if everything we think we know is false? Can we be sure of the <OpenstaxTerm>truth</OpenstaxTerm> of our beliefs? What does it even mean for a belief to be true? Philosophers ask questions about the nature and possibility of <OpenstaxTerm>knowledge</OpenstaxTerm> and related concepts and then craft possible answers. But because of the nature of philosophical investigation, simply offering answers is never enough. Philosophers also try to identify problems with those answers, formulate possible solutions to those problems, and look for counterarguments. For example, in questioning the possibility of knowledge, philosophers imagine ways the world could be such that our beliefs are false and then try to determine whether we can rule out the possibility that the world really is this way. What if there’s a powerful evil demon who feeds you all your conscious experiences, making you believe you are currently reading a philosophy text when in fact you are not? How could you rule this out? And if you can’t rule it out, what does this say about the concept of knowledge?
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	In answering epistemological questions, theorists utilize <OpenstaxTerm>arguments</OpenstaxTerm>. Philosophers also offer <OpenstaxTerm>counterexamples</OpenstaxTerm> to assess theories and positions. And many philosophers utilize research to apply epistemological concerns to current issues and other areas of study. These are the tools used in epistemological investigation: arguments, conceptual analysis, counterexamples, and research.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Conceptual Analysis and Counterexamples</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	One of the main questions within epistemology pertains to the nature of the concepts of <OpenstaxEm>knowledge</OpenstaxEm>, <OpenstaxEm>justification</OpenstaxEm>, and <OpenstaxEm>truth</OpenstaxEm>. Analyzing what concepts mean is the practice of <OpenstaxTerm>conceptual analysis</OpenstaxTerm>. The idea is that we can answer questions like “What is <OpenstaxTerm>knowledge</OpenstaxTerm>?” and “What is <OpenstaxTerm>truth</OpenstaxTerm>?” by using our grasp of the relevant concepts. When investigating a concept, theorists attempt to identify the essential features of the concept, or its <OpenstaxTerm>necessary conditions</OpenstaxTerm>. So, when investigating <OpenstaxEm>knowledge</OpenstaxEm>, theorists work to identify features that all instances of knowledge share. But researchers are not only interested in isolating the necessary conditions for concepts such as knowledge; they also want to determine what set of conditions, when taken together, always amounts to knowledge—that is, its <OpenstaxTerm>sufficient conditions</OpenstaxTerm>. Conceptual analysis is an important element of doing philosophy, particularly epistemology. When doing <OpenstaxTerm>conceptual analysis</OpenstaxTerm>, theorists actively endeavor to come up with counterexamples to proposed definitions. A <OpenstaxTerm>counterexample</OpenstaxTerm> is a case that illustrates that a statement, definition, or argument is flawed.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxNote>
	<OpenstaxNoteTitle> Connections </OpenstaxNoteTitle> 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		<a href="./fe58be6f-3b61-4e16-b3b6-db6924f0b2f2@a904be0:3967085c-8986-4766-8b97-e820664129b0.xhtml#sect-00012">The introductory chapter</a> provides an in-depth exploration of conceptual analysis. Counterexamples are discussed in the chapter on <a href="./fe58be6f-3b61-4e16-b3b6-db6924f0b2f2@a904be0:b0f9c507-49c0-4a77-a524-25c520a021eb.xhtml#sect-00002">logic and reasoning</a>.
	</OpenstaxParagraph>
</OpenstaxNote>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Counterexamples to definitions in epistemology usually take the form of hypothetical cases—thought experiments intended to show that a definition includes features that are either not necessary or not sufficient for the concept. If a counterexample works to defeat an analysis, then theorists will amend the analysis, offer a new definition, and start the process over again. The counterexample method is part of the philosophical practice of getting closer to an accurate account of a concept. Understanding the process of <OpenstaxTerm>conceptual analysis</OpenstaxTerm> is key to following the debate in epistemological theorizing about knowledge and justification.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	For example, a theorist could contend that certainty is a necessary component of knowledge: if a person were not completely certain of a belief, then they could not be said to know the belief, even if the belief were true. To argue against this “certainty” theory, another philosopher could offer examples of true beliefs that aren’t quite certain but are nevertheless considered to be knowledge. For example, take my current belief that there’s a bird on a branch outside my office window. I believe this because I can see the bird and I trust my vision. Is it <OpenstaxEm>possible</OpenstaxEm> that I am wrong? Yes. I could be hallucinating, or the so-called bird may be a decoy (a fake stuffed bird). But let’s grant that there is indeed a real bird on the branch and that “there is a bird on that branch” is true right now. Can I say that I <OpenstaxEm>know</OpenstaxEm> there is a bird on the branch, given that I believe it, it’s true, and I have good reason to believe it? If yes, then the “certainty” thesis is flawed. Certainty is not necessary to have <OpenstaxTerm>knowledge</OpenstaxTerm>. This chapter includes several examples such as this, where a theorist offers an example to undermine a particular account of knowledge or <OpenstaxTerm>justification</OpenstaxTerm>.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Arguments</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	As with all areas of philosophy, epistemology relies on the use of <OpenstaxTerm>argumentation</OpenstaxTerm>. As explained in the chapter on <a href="./fe58be6f-3b61-4e16-b3b6-db6924f0b2f2@a904be0:2ef161f6-f767-4478-a452-bfe94fbc4022.xhtml">logic and reasoning</a>, argumentation involves offering reasons in support of a conclusion. The aforementioned counterexample method is a type of argumentation, the aim of which is to prove that an analysis or definition is flawed. Here is an example of a <OpenstaxTerm>structured argument</OpenstaxTerm>:
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxOl>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		Testimonial injustice occurs when the opinions of individuals/groups are unfairly ignored or treated as untrustworthy.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		If the testimony of women in criminal court cases is less likely to be believed than that of men, then this is unfair.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		So, if the testimony of women in criminal court cases is less likely to be believed than that of men, this is a case of testimonial injustice.
	</OpenstaxLi>
</OpenstaxOl>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The above argument links the general concept of testimonial injustice to a specific possible real-world scenario: women being treated as less believable by a jury. If women are considered less believable, then it is problematic.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Research</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Notice that the above argument does not say that women are in fact considered less believable. To establish this thesis, philosophers can offer further arguments. Often, arguments utilize empirical research. If a theorist can find studies that indicate that women are treated less seriously than men in general, then they can argue that this attitude would extend to the courtroom. Philosophers often search for and utilize research from other areas of study. The research used can be wide-ranging. Epistemologists may use research from psychology, sociology, economics, medicine, or criminal justice. In the social and hard sciences, the goal is to accurately <OpenstaxEm>describe</OpenstaxEm> trends and phenomena. And this is where philosophy differs from the sciences—for epistemology, the goal is not only to describe but also to prescribe. Philosophers can argue that unjustifiably discounting the opinions of groups is bad and to be avoided. Hence, epistemology is a normative discipline.
</OpenstaxParagraph>

7.1.1 How to Do Epistemology

1 Introduction to Philosophy

1.1 What Is Philosophy?

1.1.1 Historical Origins of Philosophy

1.1.2 How It All Hangs Together

1.2 How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth?

1.2.1 Sources of Evidence

1.2.2 Logic

1.2.3 Conceptual Analysis

1.2.4 Trade-offs

1.3 Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher

1.3.1 “The Life Which Is Unexamined Is Not Worth Living”

1.3.2 Human Wisdom Is Worth Little or Nothing

1.3.3 The Importance of Doing No Harm

1.4 An Overview of Contemporary Philosophy

1.4.1 What Can You Do with a Philosophy Major?

1.4.2 An Overview of Your Philosophy Textbook

2 Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

2.1 The Brain Is an Inference Machine

2.1.1 The Brain’s Adaptive Ability to Plan Ahead

2.1.2 The Evolutionary Advantage of Shortcuts

2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection

2.2.1 Critical Reflection and Metacognition

2.2.2 Cognitive Biases

2.3 Developing Good Habits of Mind

2.3.1 Strive for Objectivity

2.3.2 Adopt Epistemic Humility

2.4 Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence

2.4.1 Start with a Strong Foundation

2.4.2 The SIFT Method (Four Moves for Student Fact Checkers)

2.5 Reading Philosophy

2.5.1 Prepare to Read

2.5.2 Engaging with Philosophical Texts

2.5.3 Pre-reading

2.5.4 First Read

2.5.5 Close Read

2.6 Writing Philosophy Papers

2.6.1 Identify Claims

2.6.2 Collect Evidence and Build Your Case

2.6.3 Organize Your Paper

3 The Early History of Philosophy around the World

3.1 Indigenous Philosophy

3.1.1 Challenges in Researching Indigenous Philosophy

3.1.2 Indigenous African Philosophy

3.1.3 Indigenous North American Philosophical Thought

3.1.4 Mesoamerican Philosophy

3.2 Classical Indian Philosophy

3.2.1 The Vedic Tradition

3.2.2 Classical Indian Darshanas

3.3 Classical Chinese Philosophy

3.3.1 Early Chinese Philosophical Thought prior to Confucius

3.3.2 Confucianism

3.3.3 Daoism

3.3.4 Mohism

4 The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

4.1 Historiography and the History of Philosophy

4.1.1 Presentist Approach

4.1.2 Contextualist Approach

4.1.3 Hermeneutic Approach

4.2 Classical Philosophy

4.2.1 Egyptian Origins of Classical Philosophy

4.2.2 Ancient Greek Philosophy

4.2.3 The Presocratics

4.2.4 Socrates and Plato

4.2.5 Aristotle

4.2.6 Epicureans

4.2.7 Roman Philosophy

4.3 Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

4.3.1 Defining Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

4.3.2 Early Jewish Philosophy

4.3.3 Early Christian Philosophy

4.3.4 Islamic Philosophy

4.3.5 Late Medieval Philosophy in Christian Europe

4.3.6 Jewish Philosophers in the Christian and Islamic Worlds

4.3.7 The Rise of Reason in the Early Modern Era

5 Logic and Reasoning

5.1 Philosophical Methods for Discovering Truth

5.1.1 Dialectics and Philosophical Argumentation

5.1.2 The Use of Reason to Discover Truth

5.1.3 Testing Hypotheses

5.1.4 Laws of Logic

5.1.5 Normativity in Logic

5.2 Logical Statements

5.2.1 Conditionals

5.2.2 Universal Statements

5.3 Arguments

5.3.1 Getting to the Premises

5.3.2 The Difference between Truth and Logic

5.4 Types of Inferences

5.4.1 Deductive Reasoning

5.4.2 Inductive Inferences

5.4.3 Abductive Reasoning

5.5 Informal Fallacies

5.5.1 Fallacies of Relevance

5.5.2 Fallacies of Weak Induction

5.5.3 Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption

5.5.4 Fallacies of Diversion

6 Metaphysics

6.1 Substance

6.1.1 Fundamentality: The One and the Many