Nature of knowledge

The branch of philosophy that studies knowledge — what it is, where it comes from, and its limits.

Knowledge = justified true belief: you believe it, it's true, and you have a good reason — all three at once.

To rule out lucky guesses: being right by chance isn't knowledge because you had no good reason.

Factual knowledge you could put into words — 'I know that water boils at 100°C'. JTB is about this.

A skill in the body — 'I know how to ride a bike'. You can do it without stating any fact.

Knowing something by direct personal contact — 'I know Paris', 'I know my friend' — not a fact or a skill.

Odd cases tick all three JTB boxes yet still feel like luck — so JTB may not be the whole story.

A belief can be false, or true only by luck; knowledge also needs truth and a good reason.

A statement is true when it matches the way the world actually is (the cat really is on the mat).

A statement is true when it fits consistently with your other beliefs — no contradictions.

A belief is true when acting on it works reliably in practice and gets results.

We can never step outside our own minds to check the match between belief and reality directly.

A made-up story can be perfectly coherent inside itself yet still be false.

Some false beliefs are useful and some true facts are useless — 'works' and 'true' can come apart.

The deepest truth isn't a statement matching facts — it's lived, a way of harmony (the Tao) you realise.

Correspondence says what truth IS; coherence and pragmatism are how we TEST for it.

The view that reason is the main source of knowledge, and some ideas are innate (built into the mind).

The view that all knowledge starts from sense experience — nothing is built into the mind.

They can deceive (bent sticks, dreams), so reason — not the senses — is the surest source of knowledge.

Ideas the mind has built in rather than learned from experience — central to rationalism, denied by empiricism.

The mind at birth is an empty sheet; experience writes every idea onto it. No innate ideas.

Even big ideas like 'cause' trace back to experience; if an idea can't be traced to the senses, be suspicious of it.

7 + 5 = 12 — certain, yet you don't check it by counting the world; that looks like reason, not the senses.

Knowledge needs both: the senses supply raw material, the mind shapes it with built-in structures.

Perception (the senses), reason (thinking things out), and testimony (what others tell you).

What you learn directly through your senses — seeing, hearing, touching.

What you work out by thinking — logic, maths, drawing conclusions.

Knowledge you get from what others tell you — teachers, books, news. Most of what you know runs through it.

Yes — if the source is reliable. Distrust all testimony and you'd know almost nothing, which is absurd.

Not 'did I check it myself?' but 'is the source reliable?' — a trusted source gives genuine knowledge.

A sudden flash of intuitive insight — knowing something all at once, without deducing it or being told.

Insight can be true belief, but the 'justification' is hard to spell out — 'I just saw it' isn't a stated reason.

Reasoning from a general rule to a particular case; if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true (certain).

Reasoning from many cases to a general rule; the premises make the conclusion likely, never certain.

'All humans are mortal; Socrates is human; so Socrates is mortal' — the conclusion is guaranteed.

'The sun has risen every day so far, so it will rise tomorrow' — likely, but not certain.

Induction assumes the future will resemble the past, but proving that would itself use induction — a circle.

Induction can't be proven yet we can't live without it — so world-knowledge is reasonable belief, not certainty.

You can't easily be wrong about how you FEEL, but understanding your own motives and character is often hard-won.

Section B is a stimulus-free essay on an optional theme; you argue the question, weigh views and conclude.