Michael Daniel

9-13-2006
Sober – The Reliability Theory of Knowledge

Theory: The following justification for knowledge has issues with being relative

to how the problem is stated: ‘S believes that p.’ ‘p is true.’ ‘In the circumstances that S

occupies, if S believes that p, then p must be true.’ It is known as the reliability theory of

knowledge.

Sober begins with a quick review of Descartes. He says that Descartes believed

that clear and distinct ideas are true. In Descartes argument there is a subjective premise,

2 linking premises and an objective conclusion. The subjective premise describes what is

going on in the subject’s mind, ‘I believe that there is a page in front of me.’ The linking

premises consist of the two statements after that. ‘My belief is clear and distinct,’ ‘Clear

and distinct ideas are true.’ The objective conclusion is that, ‘There is a page in front of

me.’ Descartes argument is that all knowledge is internally verifiable.

The reliability theory of knowledge argues that knowledge is not internally

verifiable. In this theory, knowledge requires a direct connection between the knower

and their environment.

The example used in the book deals with how we understand a thermometer. If a

thermometer says that is 70 degrees in a room, the thermometer is correct given certain

conditions. If the thermometer is broken, stuck or insulated in some manner then it

would not be true. Given the circumstance that the thermometer is functional and not

insulated then the thermometer is correct about the temperature.

The argument for the reliability theory of knowledge is that, ‘S knows that p if

and only if,’ ‘S believes that p,’ ‘p is true,’ ‘in the circumstances that S occupies, if S
believes that p then p must be true.’ The third condition can also be restated in two

different ways. The first is, ‘in the circumstances that S occupies, S wouldn’t believe that

p unless p were true.’ The second is, ‘In the circumstances that S occupies, it is

impossible that S believe that p and p be false.’ The reliability theory of knowledge does

not require that a knower recognize that they have knowledge.

There are 3 types of impossibility described in the book. There are a priori logical

impossibilities, such as, “Joe can’t be a married bachelor.” There are physical

impossibilities, such as, “Joe can’t go faster than the speed of light.” The third type of

impossibility requires that we know something about the circumstances of the statement.

“Joe can’t tie his shoes now,” is either true or false depending on what we know about

Joe’s circumstances. Maybe his arms are full of bags so he can’t tie his shoes. That

would make the statement true. Maybe the statement is saying that even if he put down

the bags he can’t tie his shoes. That would make the statement false.

The reliability theory works with relative statements a great deal. Slightly

different statements about the same fact will be either true or false depending on how

they are stated. For example, “There is a barn in that field” is true if the circumstances

are that the viewer of the barn is in some specified location known to be free of fools

barns. A fools barn is a movie set barn. There are no fools barns in Madison, WI, so if

the subject were in that area the statement would be true. There are many fools barns in

Hollywood so if the subject is in Hollywood then the statement does not pass for

knowledge, since the circumstance is such that the subject could be mistaken. If it is

stated that the subject is in the USA then the statement is still false, since they could still

be in Hollywood.