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>
	Because the concept of knowledge is so central to epistemological theorizing, it is necessary to briefly discuss knowledge before proceeding. Knowledge enjoys a special status among beliefs and mental states. To say that a person knows something directly implies that the person is not wrong, so knowledge implies truth. But knowledge is more than just truth. <OpenstaxTerm>Knowledge</OpenstaxTerm> also implies effort—that the person who has knowledge did more than just form a belief; they somehow <OpenstaxEm>earned</OpenstaxEm> it. Often, in epistemology, this is understood as justification. These features of knowledge are important to keep in mind as we continue. First, we will look at the different ways of knowing.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Ways of Knowing</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The distinction between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge reveals something important about the possible ways a person can gain knowledge. Most knowledge requires experience in the world, although some knowledge without experience is also possible. <OpenstaxTerm>A priori knowledge</OpenstaxTerm> is knowledge that can be gained using reason alone. The acquisition of a priori knowledge does not depend on experience. One way to think of a priori knowledge is that it is logically <OpenstaxEm>prior</OpenstaxEm> to experience, which does not necessarily mean that it is always prior in time to experience. Knowledge that exists before experience (prior in time) is innate knowledge, or knowledge that one is somehow born with. Theorists disagree over whether innate knowledge exists. But many theorists agree that people can come to know things by merely thinking. For example, one can know that 4 × 2 = 8 without needing to search for outside evidence.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm>A posteriori knowledge</OpenstaxTerm> is knowledge that can only be gained through experience. Because a posteriori knowledge depends on experience, it is empirical. Something is empirical if it is based on and verifiable through observation and experience, so empirical knowledge is knowledge gained from sense perception. If my belief that there’s a bird on the branch outside my window is knowledge, it would be a posteriori knowledge. The difference between a posteriori and a priori knowledge is that the former requires experience and the latter does not.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	While a priori knowledge does not require experience, this does not mean that it must always be reached using reason alone. A priori knowledge can be learned through experience. Think of mathematical truths. While it is possible to figure out multiplication using thinking alone, many first understand it empirically by memorizing multiplication tables and only later come to understand why the operations work the way they do.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00001" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/b9a74f06fb3d4ffdcb3d34c36b7ab2a3d0812684" alt="An elementary classroom. A man wearing a suit and tie stands in the center of the room. Students in the foreground hold their hands in the air, waiting to the be called on." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="684" height="587" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="684">
	Figure 7.2 Some facts that students are asked to memorize in school, such as multiplication tables, fall into the category of a priori knowledge—knowledge gained through reason alone. Knowledge about the shortest route to the nearest restroom, while possibly informed by looking at a map, typically is grounded in a posteriori knowledge—knowledge that can only be gained through experience. (credit: modification of work “Ventura Elementary-12” by US Department of Education/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxH3>Things You Can Know: Types of Knowledge</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Philosophers classify knowledge not only by source but also by type. <OpenstaxTerm>Propositional knowledge</OpenstaxTerm> is knowledge of propositions or statements. A proposition or <OpenstaxTerm>statement</OpenstaxTerm> is a declarative sentence with a truth value—that is, a sentence that is either true or false. If one knows a statement, that means that the statement is true. And true statements about the world are usually called facts. Hence, propositional knowledge is best thought of as knowledge of facts. Facts about the world are infinite. It is a fact that the square root of 9 is 3. It is a fact that Earth is round. It is a fact that the author of this chapter is five feet, one inch tall, and it is a fact that Nairobi is the capital of Kenya. Often, philosophers describe propositional knowledge as “knowledge that,” and if you look at the structure of the previous sentences, you can see why. Someone can <OpenstaxEm>know that</OpenstaxEm> Nairobi is the capital of Kenya, and “Nairobi is the capital of Kenya” is a true proposition. <OpenstaxTerm>Propositional knowledge</OpenstaxTerm> can be a priori or a posteriori. Knowledge of our own height is clearly a posteriori because we cannot know this without measuring ourselves. But knowing that 3 is the square root of 9 is a priori, given that it’s possible for a person to reason their way to this belief. Propositional knowledge is the primary focus of traditional epistemology. In the following sections of this chapter, keep in mind that <OpenstaxEm>knowledge</OpenstaxEm> refers to propositional knowledge.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	While traditional epistemology focuses on propositional knowledge, other types of knowledge exist. <OpenstaxTerm>Procedural knowledge</OpenstaxTerm> is best understood as know-how. Procedural knowledge involves the ability to perform some task successfully. While a person may <OpenstaxEm>know that</OpenstaxEm> a bicycle stays erect using centrifugal force and forward momentum caused by peddling, and that the forces of friction and air resistance will affect their speed, this does not mean that they <OpenstaxEm>know how</OpenstaxEm> to ride a bicycle. Having propositional knowledge concerning a task does not guarantee that one has procedural knowledge of that task. Indeed, one could be a physicist who studies the forces involved in keeping a bike upright, and therefore know many facts about bicycles, but still not know how to ride a bike.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00002" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/8abf32a234e2158b83fe6e05ffdb8d7972136242" alt="Diagram of a person riding a bicycle, with various labels for air resistance, friction, rolling resistance, and weight." mediaType="image/png" width="1357" height="882" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="1357">
	Figure 7.3 Several forces are at work when a person rides a bicycle. Understanding the physics of cycling does not guarantee that one knows how to ride a bicycle. (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm>Knowledge by acquaintance</OpenstaxTerm> is knowledge gained from <OpenstaxEm>direct</OpenstaxEm> experience. A person knows something by acquaintance when they are directly aware of that thing. This awareness comes from direct perception using one’s senses. For example, I have knowledge by acquaintance of pain when I am in pain. I am directly aware of the pain, so I cannot be mistaken about the existence of the pain.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	British philosopher Bertrand <OpenstaxTerm>Russell</OpenstaxTerm> (1872–1970) is credited with first articulating a distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and propositional knowledge, which he called <OpenstaxEm>knowledge by description</OpenstaxEm> (Russell 1910–1911). According to Russell, <OpenstaxTerm>knowledge by acquaintance</OpenstaxTerm> is a <OpenstaxEm>direct</OpenstaxEm> form of knowledge. A person has knowledge by acquaintance when they have direct cognitive awareness of it, which is awareness absent of inference. That knowledge by acquaintance is not the product of inference is very important. Inference is a stepwise process of reasoning that moves from one idea to another. When I feel pain, I am acquainted with that pain without thinking to myself, “I am in pain.” No inference is required on my part for me to know of my pain. I am simply aware of it. It is the directness of this knowledge that differentiates it from all other a posteriori knowledge. All knowledge by acquaintance is a posteriori, but not all a posteriori knowledge is knowledge by acquaintance. My awareness of pain is knowledge by acquaintance, yet when I infer that “something is causing me pain,” this belief is propositional.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Russell’s distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and <OpenstaxTerm>propositional knowledge</OpenstaxTerm>, if accurate, has important implications in epistemology. It shows that inference is used even in cases of beliefs that people think are obvious: ordinary beliefs based on perception. Russell thought that one can only have knowledge by acquaintance of one’s sensations and cannot have direct awareness of the objects that could be the cause of those sensations. This is a significant point. When I see the bird on a branch outside my office window, I am not immediately aware of the bird itself. Rather, I am directly aware of my perceptual experience of the bird—what philosophers call <OpenstaxEm>sense data</OpenstaxEm>. <OpenstaxTerm>Sense data</OpenstaxTerm> are sensations gained from perceptual experience; they are the raw data obtained through the senses (seeing, smelling, feeling, etc.). One’s perceptual experience is of sense data, not of the objects that could be causing that sense data. People infer the existence of external objects that they believe cause their perceptual experiences. Russell’s view implies that people always use reasoning to access the external world. I have <OpenstaxTerm>knowledge by acquaintance</OpenstaxTerm> of my perceptual experience of seeing a bird; I then infer ever so quickly (and often unconsciously) that there is a bird on the branch, which is <OpenstaxTerm>propositional knowledge</OpenstaxTerm>.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Not all philosophers think that experience of the external world is mediated through sense data. Some philosophers contend that people can directly perceive objects in the external world. But Russell’s theory introduces an important possibility in epistemological thinking: that there is a gap between one’s experience of the world and the world itself. This potential gap opens up the possibility for error. The gap between experience and the world is used by some thinkers to argue that knowledge of the external world is impossible.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<a href="#table-00001">Table 7.1</a> summarizes the types of knowledge discussed in this section.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxTable id="table-00001">
	<OpenstaxThead>
		 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTh>
				Type
			</OpenstaxTh> 
			<OpenstaxTh>
				Description
			</OpenstaxTh> 
			<OpenstaxTh>
				Examples
			</OpenstaxTh> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
	</OpenstaxThead>
	<OpenstaxTbody>
		 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Propositional knowledge
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Knowledge of propositions or statements; knowledge of facts
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Examples are infinite: “I know that…” the Earth is round, two is an even number, lions are carnivores, grass is green, etc.
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Procedural knowledge
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				“Know-how”; understanding how to perform some task or procedure
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Knowing how to ride a bicycle, do a cartwheel, knit, fix a flat tire, dribble a basketball, plant a tree, etc.
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
		<OpenstaxTr>
			 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Knowledge by acquaintance
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Knowledge gained from direct experience
			</OpenstaxTd> 
			<OpenstaxTd>
				Perception of physical sensations, such as pain, heat, cold, hunger; important to differentiate between the knowledge by acquaintance that is the sensation (e.g., a physical sensation of feeling cold) and related inferences, such as “the air temperature must be dropping,” which is propositional knowledge.
			</OpenstaxTd> 
		</OpenstaxTr> 
	</OpenstaxTbody>
</OpenstaxTable>
<OpenstaxTableTitle>
	Table 7.1 - Types of Knowledge
</OpenstaxTableTitle>

7.1.3 A Preliminary Look at Knowledge

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

Question	Answer
knowledge gained through experience.	A posteriori knowledge
knowledge that can be gained prior to or independent of experience.	A priori knowledge
knowledge gained from direct contact with something and not mediated by inference.	Knowledge by acquaintance
knowledge of how to successfully complete a task.	Procedural knowledge
knowledge of facts that can be expressed as statements.	Propositional knowledge
A declarative sentence that has a truth value, meaning that it must be either true or false.	Statement