A Virtue Epistemology
Ernest Sosas A Virtue Epistemology (Lecture 2) February 16, 2021 Handout- Schiff Summary of overall claims: We ought to understand knowledge not as a single theory but as coming in two varieties, namely, animal knowledge (apt belief, which hits truth through exercise of competence) and reflective knowledge (apt belief and subject aptly believes apt belief to be apt). Sosa provides a virtue epistemology that distinguishes between aptness and safety of performances generally, and of belief in particular. Such an account allows for a further solution (beyond that offered in Lecture 1) to problems of skepticism such as the dream problem.1. Explains AAA structure An archers shot, like any performance (with an aim), can be assessed in terms of an AAA structure // so too can a belief, which counts as a performance, albeit a long-sustained one: Accuracy- (p) its reaching the aim // (b) its being true Adroitness- (p) its manifesting the skill or competence // (b) its manifesting epistemicvirtue or competence Aptness- (p) its reaching the aim through the adroitness manifest // (b) its being truebecause competent2. Details core ideas of his virtue epistemology (animal vs. reflective knowledge) a) affirm knowledge entails belief; b) understand animal knowledge (K) as requiring apt belief without requiring defensibly aptbelief; and c) understand reflective knowledge (K+) as requiring not only apt belief but also defensiblyapt belief (i.e. the subject aptly believes the apt belief to be apt).3. Analyzes safety and sensitivity of a belief (and of performances generally) A performance is safe iff not easily would it then have failed, not easily would it havefallen short of its aim (25). o That not easily would a belief fail by being false or untrue is required for it to besafe. o A belief p is safe provided it would have been held only if (most likely) p (25). Someones belief p is sensitive iff were it not so that p, he would not (likely) believe that p (25). Since such conditionals do not contrapose: a belief can be safe without being sensitive o e.g. the belief that one is not a brain in a vat fooled by misleading sensoryevidence into so believing (25) Using the pain vs. discomfort example, he qualifies his claim to state that knowledgerequires not outright safety but at most basis-relative safety (see 26). o A belief that p is basis-relative safe iff it has a basis that it would (likely) have onlyif true (26). o A belief that p is basis-relative sensitive iff it is based on a basis such that if it werefalse that p, then not easily would the believer believe that p on that same basis (26).4. Returns to the skeptic to outline a different line of defense The skeptic restricts us to bases for belief that are purely internal and psychological,rather than external; Sosa seeks a virtue epistemology that is compatible with but not committed to content or basis externalism (see 27, a-d, for sketch of the argument steps). o The conclusion of the argument is that the skeptic does not refute common sense oreven locate a paradox within common sense.5. Confronts dream skepticism directly Two ways for the archers shot to fail to be safe:Ernest Sosas A Virtue Epistemology (Lecture 2) February 16, 2021 Handout- Schiffa) due to archers level of competence (e.g. affected by drug) b) due to appropriateness of conditions (e.g. weather) But such scenarios (where the shot is not safe) do not render the shot inapt. So, a performance can be unsafe and apt. A performance can also be safe and inapt: o e.g. angel machine provides gust that compensates for natural gust that initiallydiverts the arrow (that shot is not