Q8 - Essayist: Knowledge has been defined

[linzru86]

I can see why A is true and it makes sense to me, but why is E wrong? Isn't it true that the definition of knowledge is not undermined by the case of clairvoyance simply because clairvoyance does not fit the definition because it fails to meet the condition of being "a reliable process"? So at least based on that the evidence that the critics of the definition of knowledge are using simply does not hold b/c clairvoyance is not knowledge as E says. I am having a hard time essentially seeing the difference between A and E.

[aileenann]

I think you are asking a really tough question to answer here! That said, I'm going to try my best ;p This is tough to explain because (E) is just written pretty darn cryptically if you ask me.

I see your confusion, in the sense that both (A) and (E) point to something having to do with an objection to clairvoyance (as in the original argument) relating to knowledge and process. But, since these rather abstract terms are being used in a specific way, let's try to pay attention to this. In particular, the argument sets up a definition of knowledge and then uses a hypothetical about clairvoyance to say that this definition of knowledge has been objected to. The author says essentially that this example is not a problem for our definition of knowledge because it is clairvoyance we reject, not some form of knowledge.

(A) gets at this nicely by keeping in mind precisely what is at issue - that is that there is some underlying belief about clairvoyance the author is citing to make his point - and that this has nothing to do with the definition of knowledge.

(E) is hard to get rid of, but I'd be very suspicious of the wording "the case of clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge." Not to be overly picky/lawyerly, but what exactly is a "case of knowledge?" The argument hasn't told us, and I'm not inclined to fill in a somewhat random or assumption-filled guess. To my mind, this is more than enough to get rid of (E).

Does that make sense? Please let me know if you have follow-up questions or comments on this one. I'd love to hear more from you and chat about this

[linzru86]

Hmmm. Ok I can see how "case of knowledge" is a little strange but to me I took it as an "example of knowledge" and it still made sense to me to leave as an option. I like that A has the term "belief" in there because that is more what the essayist is talking about but I see the verb "demonstrating" in E almost as effective because the essayist is demonstrating that clairvoyance wouldn't qualify as knowledge by stating that b/c people don't believe it is a reliable process it does not fit that key stipulation of the definition. I guess this question is why they say pick the "best" answer.

[geverett]

This is a good question, and I think merits further discussion. I would love to hear more thoughts on this as well. I picked A over E and here is why:

E used the word demonstrating which I thought was a bit too much to describe what the author actually did. Demonstrating seems to denote a much more thorough logical process than what we have been given here. I realize that's a bit loose. The other thing I would say is the the author makes the point that clairvoyance is not a reliable process and as such does not fit the definition of knowledge. This is different then demonstrating that something is not a case of knowledge and so does not fit the definition of knowledge.

Aileen was definitely on to something good when she mentioned the "case of knowledge". come to think about it the phrase "case of knowledge" becomes funnier to think about the longer you dwell on it and cases, instances, examples of knowledge are not mentioned in this stimulus.

Would love to talk more about this one if anyone has any additional thoughts. It definitely was not fun to do this early on in the test.

[giladedelman]

Good points!

Even if we take "case of knowledge" to mean an instance that conforms to the definition of knowledge -- that is, "a true belief formed by a reliable process" -- (E) still doesn't make sense. Why? Because the essayist's point is not that clairvoyance is not a true belief formed by a reliable process, it's that we don't believe clairvoyance to be a reliable process in the first place. Knowledge, according to the argument, is a belief. Clairvoyance is a process. So the argument doesn't say clairvoyance isn't knowledge -- this wouldn't make sense -- it says that clairvoyance is not accepted as a process that could lead to knowledge.

(Plus, yeah, it doesn't "demonstrate" anything about clairvoyance, it just says points out a belief that "we" hold about it.)

[etwcho]

I am so very confused about this question. I got the correct answer for this one but at the same, I'm not sure if my thought process was entirely correct. Could someone please check if I'm on the right track?

I thought the author was addressing the shift in scope argued by the critics. Because having a reliable power of clairvoyance is different from establishing it as having a reliable process, I thought it was this shift in scope the author was pointing out, that it is the lack of belief in clairvoyance as a reliable process that makes clairvoyance an unacceptable knowledge.

Thanks in advance!

[sumukh09]

Let's try this out conditionally

Knowledge ---> Reliable Process

In other words, in order for there to be knowledge, we need a reliable process.

Critics are saying: Clairvoyance ---> ~Knowledge Claims

Essayist is saying: Yeah, we wouldn't accept the knowledge claims made by those who have clairvoyance, but it's because we don't think clairvoyance is a reliable process ie) the contrapositive the definition of knowledge [~Reliable Process --> ~Knowledge]

So, in other words, it's not because of the definition of knowledge, but because we don't believe clairvoyance to be a reliable process.

I think the shift between "power" and "process" is inconsequential.

[etwcho]

Thanks sumukh09, it's all clear now. I don't know why I had such a hard time grasping this problem. :S

[leroyjenkins]

Huh? It seems like the previous posts are talking about something that could or could not be the case.

But consider this: we are told to identify the method of reasoning the essayist uses to defend the definition against the objection.

Answer choice (E) merely states the objection (at least it's the conclusion of the critics). The objection is that clairvoyance would not be accepted as knowledge, even if someone had a reliable power of clairvoyance. Thus, the objection is essentially that clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge.

And the essayist agrees with this conclusion, but does so by undermining the premise that we would accept clairvoyance as reliable (which is what A states).

[tommywallach]

Hey Leo,

Yes, that's what Gilad was getting at near the end of his post. (E) explains the objection, rather than undermining the objection in any way.

-t

[xw73]

I don't think E describes the objection.

For me, the objection's rationale is:

clairvoyance fits the definition of knowledge but it's not a case of knowledge.

They try to come up with a counterexample of the current definition of knowledge.

I prefer A to E because A describes the essayist's reasoning process whereas E only shows the essayist's final conclusion.

Could someone tell me whether my thoughts are off?

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree with you.

(E) does not describe the objection.

As you correctly said, the objection is that "clairvoyance would FIT the definition of knowledge, but NOT be a case of knowledge".

The essayist is saying "clairvoyance does NOT fit the definition of knowledge, and so it is NOT a case of knowledge".

There are couple problems with (E) though:
- the author doesn't actually DEMONSTRATE that clairvoyance is not a case of knowledge. He's not proving whether clairvoyance actually IS or ISN'T knowledge. He's only speaking about WHY we would be inclined to believe that clairvoyance is not knowledge
- this answer doesn't do as good a job as (A) at describing how the author defends the original definition.

Nice catch!

[Mab6q]

I thought the author was addressing the shift in scope argued by the critics. Because having a reliable power of clairvoyance is different from establishing it as having a reliable process, I thought it was this shift in scope the author was pointing out, that it is the lack of belief in clairvoyance as a reliable process that makes clairvoyance an unacceptable knowledge.

I actually think understanding the question from this angle makes the distinction between A and E easier to understand. The original definition is talking about Knowledge defined by true belief formed by a reliable process, and the critics focus on the reliable power of clairvoyance. It seems to me that the author is pointing out this distinction indirectly by highlighting the importance of reliable process in his response.

A) says that the essayist is showing that the objection is based on a belief about reliability of clairoyance, which matches what the critics were saying: "someone had reliable power of clairvoyance."

That's how I understood it.

[deedubbew]

(A) has the phrase "nature of knowledge" and (E) has "case of knowledge." Even in recognizing that E was wrong, I couldn't rule out A because it seemed to have also shifted it's scope. The essayist never says anything about the nature of knowledge in his rebuttal. I ended up choosing E anyway because of the word "demonstrate" which seemed to be the more accurate description of the essayist's method as he/she gives the consequences of believing clairvoyance to be a reliable process.

edit: after spending half an hour on this question, I have reached the conclusion that the key words in A are "rather than." The essayist never has to specifically speak about anything after the "rather than" cause and the answer choice would still be within scope.

[Jahma002]

Answer E says: the hypothetical example is NOT knowledge.

Author didn't say the example doesn't fall into the definition of "knowledge". It just says that we (maybe) wrongly believe that it's not a reliable source.

So, meaning that the definition is true but we just don't accept the example.

EXAMPLE: Any process of physics that always holds try is actual Law of the Physics (Scientific Law)
A new theory is found by Ahmad and that theory always holds true but the scientific community do not call it a Scientific Law.
Case: Not because it is NOT a Scientific Law but we just didn't believe (maybe wrongly) Ahmad.

Hope this helps,
Ahmad