Is Knowledge Built, Connected, or Contextual?

Warm Spring Greetings to All,

Join Plato's Cave philosophers and Orlando Stoics on Zoom this Sunday morning, March 29 at 9:00. (Informal chat at 9:00, forum at 9:15)

Plato's Cave members can reserve a place and receive zoom login information on this site and receive e-mail confirmation.

Every Sunday, a new forum. Our meeting starts at 9:00 AM with friendly wakeup chat; then our select topic panel briefly introduces the subject at 9:15, followed by member discussion and Q&A.
Volunteer introduction panelists will meet following each forum.

This Week: Is Knowledge Built, Connected, or Contextual?

Is Knowledge the sum total of our awareness, understanding, familiarity with facts, truths, skills, and information acquired through experience, education, or observation? Does our Knowledge evolve by updating justified beliefs, while limited by perspective and information gaps?

This week, we explore a simple but important question: Is knowledge grounded in something secure, or does it emerge from how our beliefs fit together, or even shift depending on the situation? This raises a deeper puzzle: do disagreements about knowledge reveal errors in our thinking, or do they reveal something about how justification actually works?

We begin with Roderick Chisholm, who argued that knowledge must rest on a foundation. Chisholm held that some beliefs are basic. They do not need support from other beliefs because they are grounded in direct awareness, such as our own thoughts and experiences. Without these starting points, justification would continue indefinitely and never actually begin. In this view, knowledge depends on something stable that stops the regress.

Next we turn to Willard Van Orman Quine, who challenges the idea of a fixed foundation. Quine argues that our beliefs form a network, where each belief is supported by others. No belief is completely immune from revision. When new evidence appears, we adjust the system as a whole rather than relying on a single secure base. Knowledge, in this view, is not built from the ground up but maintained through coherence across the system.

Finally we look at Keith DeRose, who argues that what counts as knowledge depends on context. In everyday situations, we often say we know things without hesitation. But in high-stakes or skeptical situations, the standards for knowledge become much stricter. This means that justification is not fixed. It shifts depending on what is at stake and how the question is being asked.

Together these thinkers suggest that knowledge is not explained in just one way. It may begin with a foundation, hold together as a system, or shift depending on context. The deeper insight is that our understanding of knowledge reflects different ways of resolving the same problem. We seek certainty, coherence, and practical adequacy all at once, even though these aims can pull in different directions. Understanding this tension may be part of understanding knowledge itself.

Links

Roderick Chisholm — basic beliefs and stopping the regress
IEP: Roderick Chisholm's Epistemology: IEP: Roderick Chisholm's Epistemology
IEP: Foundationalism in Epistemology: IEP: Foundationalism in Epistemology
SEP: Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification: SEP: Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification

W.V.O. Quine — the web/network of belief
Two Dogmas of Empiricism — free PDF (original paper): Two Dogmas of Empiricism — free PDF (original paper)
SEP: Willard Van Orman Quine: SEP: Willard Van Orman Quine

Keith DeRose — context-shifting standards
SEP: Epistemic Contextualism: SEP: Epistemic Contextualism
IEP: Contextualism in Epistemology: IEP: Contextualism in Epistemology
Contextualism: An Explanation and Defense DeRose, "Contextualism: An Explanation and Defense" — free PDF

Hosted by:
Plato's Cave and Orlando Stoics
https://www.meetup.com/platoscave/

Orlando Stoics are Welcome
https://www.meetup.com/orlando-stoics/

=======================================================