PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Virtue Epistemology [HD]

[@sosunfreak]

The amount of times I have seen this video as a refresher... thanks so much for making it!

[@BJohnDoyle]

the speaker states that virtue epistemology will put epistemology back into a central position in philosophy, but is that really the case? Doesn't it rather put ethics at the center of philosophy?

[@chinggis_khagan]

Well, it doesn't all coincide with the traditional domain of ethics. Jumping to conclusions shows a lack of epistemological virtue, but it is not usually considered unethical (unless it's motivated), just stupid.

[@BJohnDoyle]

sinbadbuddha It depends on whether or not you accept the idea of intellectual virtue as a part of ethics.

[@chinggis_khagan]

B. John Doyle I made an objective claim (about what *most people usually* consider ethics, not what I think about it), so it doesn't depend on anything, it's either true or false.

[@geoffpynn]

That's an interesting question. Some virtue epistemologists (e.g. Linda Zagzebski) argue that epistemology really should be understood as a branch of ethics. So I think you have a good point.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Life is what makes values possible. Virtue is the act of gaining or keeping values. Values and virtues are a part of epistemology.

[@elijahpedroza9347]

How do I know that what I've been watching on this channel is true knowledge and not just false claims? Am I actually learning or am I memorizing unverified knowledge?

[@periteu]

Interesting, I was thinking the same thing with anything that I read.

[@VictoriaSobocki]

Agree

[@esalim]

Why not go and take a class? Try see a different video and compare? Maybe read the books from people mentioned in the video and actually follow the whole logical structure of the argument rather than a tidbit on KZbin made to get you into it. Don't be that intellectually lazy. People before us have had to work hard to come to these conclusions and we should be thankful by giving them a good read. Who knows, 4 years have passed, maybe you already have done this.

[@jakebarnes28]

So, have you endeavored to answer your question?

[@novalis791]

Excellent synopsis

[@JohnBrown-tf1dl]

no

[@Nikklas57]

Is this a repost?

[@WirelessPhilosophy]

Yes - good eye! We made a few edits to the previous version.

[@aaryag5427]

Rati ko 12 bajey cha tara momo khana man lagiracha. Hera random comment ho yo..tei pani bhok lagyo. BTW cool video learned something new

[@drxyd]

Any theory of epistemic virtue must account for the sufficient conditions of knowledge formation as drawing conclusions based on inadequate evidence is not virtuous.

[@drxyd]

I do like the theory though, epistemology should be normative. It's just incomplete.

[@easternpondhawk9776]

How does virtue epistemology solve the Gettier Cases? For example, Smith is the personification of intellectual virtue. He reads the correct time on a broken clock. According to Zagzebski, he has dumb luck, but not knowledge. Does this mean dumb luck is simply the failure intellectual virtue? If not, then why does intellectual virtue get credit for successes, but not for failures?

[@hossskul544]

6:48 you never gave a rebuttal to the radical skeptics charge that we don’t know what we know because it could be that were just brains in a jar you then just move on to say that we still know what we know, you never gave a reason to the radical skeptic to show that they’re wrong . Which is why the theory that we’re all just simulations in some giant computer Is gaining in popularity. How do we know that we’re not simulation in some giant computer and that everything we think we know it’s just part of the simulation, there’s no way to disprove it, isn’t it up to the skeptic to prove that we’re actually brains in a jar, isn’t that the counter argument?

[@williampinkston2373]

Does it matter? If our reality is someone else's simulation it is still our reality. As long as we have free will to make choices does it matter whether we are in a simulation or a real world?

[@ExistenceUniversity]

The only proper response to a radical skeptic is to pretend he doesn't exist, just give him what he wants.

[@QuesadillaGaming]

"Fricker" lol

[@TheGerogero]

But what if our "intellectually virtuous" methods are like "herp a derp derp" to those outside the matrix? What if all of our logic has been set up to to seem sound when it really is not? We may still say that it is possible to be intellectually virtuous, as it is possible to know this and that, but is it anything we should be proud of, then? Not sure where I'm going with this.

[@tonycallender7670]

Thats a fair objection. However, note that if all our logic has been set up, then the logic that you are using to object to logic would also be victim to this and thus be self defeating. We cannot deny logic using logic!

[@TheGerogero]

@@tonycallender7670 Indeed haha. I would say too, now, that whatever "herp a derp derp" is to "those outside the matrix" it must have some kind of intelligibility, otherwise how could it have been "set up".

[@ruvstof]

They are taking a mere analogy too seriously. The result is additional confusion. Epistemological judgments can suffer the interference of moral prejudices, but this does not change their nature. Epistemic responsibility is something assumed in our arguments, but this does not make responsibility an epistemic term.

[@MartinHaumann1]

Claudio Costa yes. Seems like epistemology would then be getting infused with a bit of adventurous terminology to force it into the social. That has hardly fared well in other fields.

[@triggerwarning2101]

So doesn't this make Virtue Epistemology just another kind of discrimination used to discount what somebody believes because they don't think using the approved means?

[@Starcrash6984]

It could be. One could claim that you or I don't know what we're talking about because we're being too dismissive, a trait that we _ought not to have_, rather than looking at our skepticism as a trait that either does or doesn't lead to "more reliable" knowledge.

[@triggerwarning2101]

But how is "more reliable" as judged by one group better than how it is judged by another group? Either way it's still the thought police. It seems to me that skepticism is claiming an absolute that doesn't exist and virtue epistemology is simply claiming its absolute is better than the bad one the skeptics are using. It really sounds mostly like two religious factions arguing over what's the best way to get to heaven.

[@Starcrash6984]

TriggerWarning That's why I put "more reliable" in quotes... it's not technically a thing. There's nothing objective about it. This is a hard issue to debate with someone who disagrees, because we're arguing about axioms (pre-supposed premises), rather than conclusions from reasoned arguments. Those axioms are what determine how reliable knowledge is. So yes, I agree that "it really sounds like... arguing over what's the best way to get to heaven".

[@polipsych4214]

Virtue Epistemology is definitely another kind of discrimination. Its purpose is to discriminate between knowledge claims. But it is not necessarily the negative kind of discrimination that your question suggests, the kind used to belittle others. There is a meaningful distinction between means which are approved because of personal preference and means which have demonstrated results. If I adopt a means that brings consistent results, I would not necessarily 'discount' what someone believes on the grounds that they use a means that has inconsistent results. That would be either a genetic or ad hominem logical fallacy. But I have established objective grounds for claiming that their claim to knowledge is not as strong as mine. I can make that claim without attaching a value judgment to it.

[@triggerwarning2101]

+Poli Psych - How about you give an "acceptable" definition of knowledge before you ramble on about how your knowledge is stronger. The fact you use a comparative adjective while claiming you are not making a value judgment is very suspicious to say the least. What are you going to do when others don't buy your metric? Belittle them or just admit you don't have the knowledge you claim?

[@BelegaerTheGreat]

*This is utter blabber. I love this series, but this video is just... what the hell?*

[@DilipKumar-yb6bz]

Belief is not knowledge

[@Zarathustran]

Not when it’s factually or theoretically/hypothetically inaccurate, but because there is theoretical knowledge we cannot prove the door is unfortunately opened to the logically fallacious and rationally reckless. Belief that responsibly judges evidence without bias Is experiential knowledge

[@ExistenceUniversity]

@@Zarathustran No, knowledge is not a type of belief and belief is not a type of knowledge.

[@keystothebox]

virtue epistemology is easily dismissed subjective dribble in an objective reality.

[@actualfirstname1079]

Yeah dude I agree, these's absolutely no trends in Epistemic behaviour that more reliably produce truth than other behaviour, very smart point good job

[@Cobra77775]

You have muddled philosophy with ignorance of what truth and knowledge actually are. Epistemology must be Foundationalist.

[@nathansgreen]

Nice axiom there…

[@CMVMic]

+nathansgreen lol

[@jamiedorsey4167]

So the Dalai Lama is de facto better at math than Hitler? To call the study of knowledge a normative discipline about oughts instead of is's, is more simply a reworking of the study of ethics and morals to make them seem more absolute. Personally I think its better to keep separate the study of what is and the study of what ought to be or we risk trying to make what ought to be fit into the real world of what is, often at the expense of truth, justice and order. I think we only need look back at all the misery caused by humanity when it used religious beliefs to tell us truths about the material world.