Consider The Following Scenario: Farmer Joe Is Concerned Abo ✓ Solved

Consider The Following Scenariofarmer Joe Is Concerned About His Cow

Consider the following scenario: Farmer Joe is concerned about his cow, Daisy. In fact, he is so concerned that when his wife tells him that Daisy is happily grazing on the field, Farmer Joe wants to see for himself. He doesn't want merely to have a 99 percent probability that Daisy is safe, he wants to be able to say that he knows that Daisy is safe. Farmer Joe then goes out to the field and, standing by the gate, sees in the distance, behind some trees, a white and black shape that he recognizes as his Daisy. He goes back home and tells his wife that he knows that Daisy is safe on the field.

Yet, at this point, does Farmer Joe really know it? Discuss why or why not you think that Farmer Joe has knowledge or his cow’s whereabouts. What do you think is required of Joe to be able to say that he knows that Daisy is on the field?

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The scenario involving Farmer Joe and his cow Daisy raises fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge, belief, and perception. At first glance, it may seem straightforward that Farmer Joe knows Daisy is in the field once he visually identifies her from a distance. However, philosophical analysis reveals that the specifics of what constitutes knowledge require a nuanced examination of perception, justification, and the conditions for certainty.

Initially, Farmer Joe's belief that Daisy is in the field appears to be well-founded, grounded in his visual perception. He sees a white-and-black shape in the distance behind some trees, which he recognizes as Daisy—a characteristic that aligns with his mental image and prior knowledge of her appearance. This immediate perception seems to provide justification for his belief, satisfying one aspect of the traditional tripartite definition of knowledge: justified true belief. According to this view, knowledge requires that the belief be both true and justified.

Yet, the critical question pertains to whether Joe’s belief qualifies as genuine knowledge, or merely as a justified true belief. Philosophers such as Edmund Gettier have argued that justified true belief alone is insufficient for knowledge, as it is possible for a belief to be true and justified but still be incidentally correct without genuine knowledge—what is popularly called a Gettier case. For instance, Joe might have mistaken the shape for Daisy when it was actually another white-and-black object, and due to coincidental circumstances, his belief turns out to be true. In such a case, he would be justified in believing Daisy is in the field, and his belief would be true by coincidence, but he would not know it in the strictest sense.

Furthermore, the question of perception is critical in evaluating whether Joe truly knows Daisy’s whereabouts. Visual perception can be fallible; environmental factors such as lighting, distance, and obstructions can lead to misperceptions. When Joe sees the shape behind the trees, he might be mistaken, or his perception may be unreliable due to reasons beyond his control. For instance, perhaps the brown-and-white shape is an animal resembling Daisy, or the trees could cast shadows that distort the view. From a philosophical perspective, knowing must involve some reliable method of obtaining information—perception, in this case—that can be trusted under normal conditions. If perception is fallible, then the certainty of knowledge diminishes.

To claim that Farmer Joe truly knows that Daisy is in the field, certain conditions must be met beyond mere perception. His perception must be reliable and verifiable; ideally, it should include some form of corroboration—perhaps seeing Daisy directly or confirming her presence through other sensory evidence. Eyesight alone, especially at a distance or through potential obstructions, may not suffice. The standards of epistemic justification require that Joe’s belief be based on evidence that is both sufficient and reliable for establishing truth.

Moreover, the level of certainty required for knowledge varies depending on philosophical interpretations. Some argue that casual perceptions require a degree of skepticism about their reliability; therefore, knowledge might necessitate additional evidence, such as tactile confirmation, proximity, or multiple witnesses. Others advocate for a more permissive view, accepting perceptual evidence as sufficient in ordinary contexts. In Farmer Joe’s case, since he returned home and confidently asserted Daisy’s presence, he would need to have been certain that his perception was accurate and that no misperception or deception was involved.

In conclusion, while Farmer Joe has a justified belief that Daisy is in the field based on his perception, whether he truly knows it hinges on the reliability of his perception and the certainty of his evidence. Philosophically, the question illustrates the difference between belief and knowledge and underscores the importance of justification and verification. For Joe to genuinely claim that he knows Daisy is on the field, he must have reliable, corroborated evidence that excludes the possibility of error—a standard that is often difficult to meet with visual perception alone at a distance. Therefore, in strict philosophical terms, Joe’s claim to knowledge may be unjustified unless additional evidence or certainty is established.

References

• Analysis, 23(6), 121-123.
• Sense and Sensibilia. Oxford University Press.
• Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 73(19), 771-791.
• Perception and Knowledge. Routledge.
• Knowledge and Power. Routledge.
• Epistemic Luck and the Knowledge Norm of Belief. Oxford University Press.
• A Virtue Epistemology. Oxford University Press.
• Epistemology: Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses. Wadsworth Publishing.
• Theories of Knowledge. Prentice Hall.
• Skepticism and the Foundations of Epistemology. Oxford University Press.