Epistemology is the study if knowledge and it is one of the largest and most complex fields of study in philosophy. Composed of multiple theories and perspectives of what knowledge is and how to obtain it is difficult. However, Correspondence Theory and Coherent through provide a simplistic method for both understanding and obtaining knowledge. However, both theories have there one set of weaknesses that provide obstruction to a holistic model of knowledge. The complexity of knowledge is further bolstered by the notions of genuine and false knowledge. By analyzing both these theories and the definition of knowledge, we can hope to broach the surface of the field of epistemology.
Correspondence Theory is the theory that a statement or proposition …show more content…
Correspondence Theory provides a practical method for determining the truth of a statement. Statements like fire will burn a human’s skin can be tested for truth by exposing a person’s skin to fire. Thus, Correspondence Theory provides a readily available structure for measuring and obtaining truth. However, there are many issues with Correspondence Theory. Correspondence Theory assumes that the observations and measurements by the person are correct and not error prone (Pecorino, 2000). In addition, humans ae not capable of experience or seeing beyond their senses. Thus, proclamations about the universe or subatomic particles cannot be verified because it is beyond the ability of a human to experience or witness galactic or subatomic events (Pecorino, 2000). Lastly, sentence or proclamation interpretation can determine whether a statement is true for one person and false for another. Objectivity is difficult in a subjective forum such as sentence interpretation. Therefore, while Correspondence Theory is beautiful in its simplicity, it faces many difficulties in …show more content…
However, there are two kinds of knowledge, genuine knowledge and false knowledge. Genuine knowledge can be defined as a justified true belief (“The Meaning of Knowledge: Crash Course Philosophy #7”, 2016). What this entails is that one’s belief corresponds to reality and that reality is justified or proven to be true by evidence (“The Meaning of Knowledge: Crash Course Philosophy #7”, 2016. Evidence can be as simple as testimony from someone who has extensive experience or understanding of a field (“The Meaning of Knowledge: Crash Course Philosophy #7”, 2016. For example, a math professor’s testimony on a math problem can be considered genuine knowledge. Evidence can also come from first person observation or measurement (“The Meaning of Knowledge: Crash Course Philosophy #7”, 2016. False knowledge is when someone can have justified true belief, but no knowledge (“The Meaning of Knowledge: Crash Course Philosophy #7”, 2016. For example, if you look in the distance and see a dog that you mistake for a wolf and make the proclamation that there is a wolf in the distance. You thus have a justified belief that there is a wolf in the distance. However, behind that dog there actually is a wolf that is not in your sight. You thus have false knowledge. Your proposition of there being a wolf in the distance is correct and it is based on justified true belief, but it’s based on the false pretense that you
Correspondence Theory is the theory that a statement or proposition …show more content…
Correspondence Theory provides a practical method for determining the truth of a statement. Statements like fire will burn a human’s skin can be tested for truth by exposing a person’s skin to fire. Thus, Correspondence Theory provides a readily available structure for measuring and obtaining truth. However, there are many issues with Correspondence Theory. Correspondence Theory assumes that the observations and measurements by the person are correct and not error prone (Pecorino, 2000). In addition, humans ae not capable of experience or seeing beyond their senses. Thus, proclamations about the universe or subatomic particles cannot be verified because it is beyond the ability of a human to experience or witness galactic or subatomic events (Pecorino, 2000). Lastly, sentence or proclamation interpretation can determine whether a statement is true for one person and false for another. Objectivity is difficult in a subjective forum such as sentence interpretation. Therefore, while Correspondence Theory is beautiful in its simplicity, it faces many difficulties in …show more content…
However, there are two kinds of knowledge, genuine knowledge and false knowledge. Genuine knowledge can be defined as a justified true belief (“The Meaning of Knowledge: Crash Course Philosophy #7”, 2016). What this entails is that one’s belief corresponds to reality and that reality is justified or proven to be true by evidence (“The Meaning of Knowledge: Crash Course Philosophy #7”, 2016. Evidence can be as simple as testimony from someone who has extensive experience or understanding of a field (“The Meaning of Knowledge: Crash Course Philosophy #7”, 2016. For example, a math professor’s testimony on a math problem can be considered genuine knowledge. Evidence can also come from first person observation or measurement (“The Meaning of Knowledge: Crash Course Philosophy #7”, 2016. False knowledge is when someone can have justified true belief, but no knowledge (“The Meaning of Knowledge: Crash Course Philosophy #7”, 2016. For example, if you look in the distance and see a dog that you mistake for a wolf and make the proclamation that there is a wolf in the distance. You thus have a justified belief that there is a wolf in the distance. However, behind that dog there actually is a wolf that is not in your sight. You thus have false knowledge. Your proposition of there being a wolf in the distance is correct and it is based on justified true belief, but it’s based on the false pretense that you