<p>Who is the author of Knowledge?</p>

<p>The author of Knowledge is Jennifer Nagel.</p>

Education

Knowledge Book Summary - Knowledge Book explained in key points

Listen to the Intro

00:00

Knowledge summary

Name: Knowledge
Rating: 4.2 (105 reviews)
Author: Jennifer Nagel

Jennifer Nagel

A Very Short Introduction

4.2 (105 ratings)

25 mins

Brief summary

'Knowledge' by Jennifer Nagel explores how we acquire, evaluate and justify beliefs. It challenges us to question our assumptions and engage in critical thinking to enhance intellectual skills and knowledge.

Topics

Western Philosophy

Table of Contents

Knowledge
Summary of 8 key ideas

Audio & text in the Blinkist app

Key idea 1 of 8

What’s in it for me? How much do you really know?

Knowledge, so the saying goes, is power. But in the current climate, knowledge can also be extremely confusing. Every day, we’re inundated with information. Some of it is authentic. Some of it is misleading. And much of it is downright false. We circulate select knowledge within social and political bubbles, but rarely tap into the knowledge that exists outside these bubbles.

Perhaps it’s time we got more critical about what we know – or what we think we know. And epistemology offers the perfect starting point for critiquing all things knowledge. This philosophical field studies the concept of knowledge – how it’s generated, circulated, and absorbed. These blinks outline key concepts in the field.

In these blinks, you’ll learn

the intricate ways in which belief connects to knowledge;
the secrets of mind reading; and
why we may or may not know that Mount Everest is the world’s tallest mountain.

The verb “to know” is simple, but carries a complex meaning.

These days, knowledge is within easy reach. The internet is only ever a click away, and media operates on a 24-hour cycle. But that knowledge is intermingled with opinion and propaganda. And in an era of information overload, it’s natural to wonder which is which. Scratch the surface, and you’ll find deeper questions: How do we know what we know? And what is knowledge, anyway?

These questions are at the heart of epistemology, the philosophical field devoted to the study of knowledge.

The key message here is: The verb “to know” is simple, but carries a complex meaning.

There are a few things we need to get straight about knowledge.

For one thing, knowledge is not a naturally appearing resource like gold or coal. It’s generated by a knower. Imagine a coin that's shaken in a box. It lands heads side up. That’s a fact. But until someone looks in the box, this fact isn’t knowledge, simply because it isn’t known. Knowledge is what happens when a person accesses a fact.

For another thing, there’s a difference between knowing something to be true and believing it to be true. Sounds simple enough – but how can you tell whether you know something or merely believe it? Some cynics say that we can’t tell the difference, or even that there is no difference: knowledge is just a label we give to the beliefs of certain elite people like CEOs and scientists. A more generous approach might point out that even expert knowledge can be, and is, challenged. And besides, everyone can know. There’s a reason why “to know” is one of the ten most commonly used verbs in the English language.

Here’s where things get really meta: we can only know things that we are confident are true. But who’s to say what “true” is? Plenty of philosophers think truth is objective, meaning it can’t vary from knower to knower. But the fifth-century Greek philosopher Protagoras thought differently. He posited that truth is subjective. After all, if two people stand in a breeze, one of them can know the breeze is cold while the other, with equal certainty, can know it's warm.

But to take Protagoras’s argument to its logical conclusion, we’re forced to say that everyone is always right about what they feel to be true, and no one is ever wrong. So, then, for the purposes of interrogating knowledge further, let’s side with Plato and countless other philosophers who believe Protagoras is wrong and truth is objective; it’s something that exists as an entity outside any individual human self.

According to skeptics, we might not know what we think we know.

Let’s leave Protagoras’s theories behind and assume that we can only know things that are true. Furthermore, let’s accept that, according to the prevailing philosophy, truth is objective and exists outside of us. Think of truth as an electrical outlet: if we can plug into that outlet, we access knowledge.

But can we plug into that outlet? A skeptic might argue no, not really.

This is the key message: According to skeptics, we might not know what we think we know.

Here’s a thought exercise: Are you wearing shoes right now? You might think you know the answer. But how do you know that you know? How, for example, can you be sure you’re not in a dream? You might feel this line of thinking ties your brain in needless knots. But that’s how skeptics approach knowledge. And, in this approach, even the most apparently straightforward fact becomes problematic.

Skeptical philosophy originated in ancient Greece, where there were two key schools of skepticism. The Academic school believed knowledge was impossible. The Pyrrhonian school simply avoided reaching any conclusions. Both traditions hark back to the earlier Stoic conception of knowledge. Stoics distinguished between impression, or what you perceive, and judgment, which is your decision whether or not to accept what you perceive. A friend walking toward you creates an impression. But is the impression correct? Could the person be someone who simply looks like your friend? The Stoics believed in accepting only correct impressions. That means waiting until your friend is close enough for you to judge whether it's really her.

The Academic skeptics agreed with this approach, but they rejected the idea that any impression could ever be indisputably correct. You could be hallucinating. Your friend could have an identical twin. You never have any way of knowing even the things that you believe you know.

The Pyrrhonians took skepticism even further. To them, the Academic skeptics’ assertion that knowledge can never be indisputably proven was, in itself, a form of knowledge. They refused to be drawn on the question of whether or not humans could ever attain knowledge. In fact, they refused to be drawn on the question of anything. They considered it a virtue to keep an open mind on every topic. A well-known Pyrrhonian skeptic, Sextus Empiricus, even proposed handy catchphrases fellow skeptics could use to prevent them from ever leaving a state of doubt, like “I determine nothing” and “Perhaps it is and perhaps it is not.”

Were we to follow in the footsteps of the Academic skeptics, our discussion of knowledge would end here. The Pyrrhonian skeptics, meanwhile, would say the discussion should never end. Luckily, other influential thinkers come at the topic quite differently.

Descartes’ rationalism and Locke’s empiricism advanced two new understandings of knowledge.

Remember how the skeptics posited that we can never truly know anything? Well, not everyone agreed. On the opposing team, there are two heavyweight thinkers: Rene Descartes and John Locke.

Descartes and Locke were both key figures in the early modern philosophy of the seventeenth century. Both made influential contributions to epistemological thought, refuting the skeptics’ view that knowledge couldn’t be accessed. But that didn’t mean they agreed on everything.

Here’s the key message: Descartes’ rationalism and Locke’s empiricism advanced two new understandings of knowledge.

Unlike the skeptics, Descartes was a rationalist who believed humans could apprehend fundamental truths. The most fundamental of these, as set out in his 1641 treatise Meditations, is this: one can be completely certain about the truth of his own existence. Furthermore, Descartes was certain of the truth of God’s existence. He reasoned that the idea of God was the idea of perfection itself. And the idea of perfection couldn’t come from an imperfect – or, in other words, human – source.

According to Descartes, we know that the self exists and that God exists. In fact, Descartes believed that we apprehend the existence of these things – along with other abstract, rational concepts like numbers, geometry, and truth itself – innately. In other words, humans are born with a set of in-built truths.

Locke was on board with some of Descartes’ work, but he didn’t share Descartes’ high opinion of humankind. After all, do we really behave as though we’re innately supplied with rational ideas? Babies, for example, didn’t strike Locke as beings endowed with innate rational principles.

Locke thought we came by ideas through sensation. As infants, we’re exposed to all kinds of sensations, which, through repetition, we slowly organize into patterns and understandings. From these early sensations we develop powers of reflection, as we learn to observe our own mental workings. Sensation and reflection, according to Locke’s theory of empiricism, make up the fundamentals of human knowledge.

But, as Locke himself acknowledged, we’re each exposed to a unique set of sensations and reflections. By Locke’s logic, Descartes’ idea that we all apprehend concepts like love or justice in the same way just didn’t hold up.

Knowledge and belief have a crucial, yet slippery, relationship.

Why not follow Locke’s train of thought a little further? If we accept that, contrary to Descartes’s view, knowledge isn’t innate, then the conditions through which we come to know something suddenly get more complicated.

Centuries later, in the 1960s, a so-called classical analysis of knowledge was proposed to better explain these conditions. The elements of this analysis claim that a subject can only know a proposition when the proposition is factual, when the subject believes in the proposition, and when the subject is justified in her belief.

This is the key message: Knowledge and belief have a crucial, yet slippery, relationship.

To illustrate, here’s one of Bertrand Russell’s famous philosophical puzzles:

A man is rushing to catch his train. Does he have time? He glances at the station clock. It says 1:17 p.m. It is his true, justified belief that the time is 1:17; therefore, he knows the time. But what if the clock is broken and it’s actually 1:33 p.m.? Can the man still “know” it’s 1:17? Well, no. He’s operating on a false belief.

But there’s a problem with this classical analysis, which suggests that a false belief can’t lead to knowledge. Imagine a detective gathering evidence to show that a man killed his wife. The detective has the gun, and the man’s fingerprints, not to mention several eyewitness accounts. The detective believes, correctly, that the man killed his wife. But one of the eyewitnesses is lying. Is the detective’s knowledge now invalid because it was predicated on a false belief? According to philosopher Edmund Gettier, it’s not. This example proves that you can have knowledge, even if some of the beliefs supporting that knowledge are false.

As Gettier’s example shows, the classical analysis of knowledge isn’t watertight. But could it be made so? Alvin Goldman proposed the theory of causal knowledge, which sidesteps “true” or “false” belief to suggest that belief in a fact must have a causal connection to that fact. If you see a house on fire, for example, your experiential knowledge of what a fire is and how it behaves will create a causal connection to the fire you’re now witnessing. But this, too, is fallible. To channel the skeptics, we could ask: What if what you thought was a house on fire was actually a very convincing hologram?

Since the 1960s, epistemologists have struggled to analyze the relationship between belief and knowledge. Many doubt the relationship is really analyzable at all. But while there might be no exact formula through which to explain it, delving into this relationship continues to produce more insights into how we might know what we know.

Epistemology calls even basic facts into question.

As we learned in the last blink, after Gettier problematized the classical analysis that knowledge rests on justified true belief, Alvin Goldman proposed the causal theory of knowledge. In fact, Goldman’s theory belongs to a broader category of epistemological theory called externalism.

To understand externalism, let’s look at Mount Everest – which you probably know as the world’s tallest mountain. But how do you know this? Unless you received this fact when you were also, say, having your first kiss, you won’t remember exactly how you learned it. You picked it up from a number of sources, and you feel it’s right. According to externalists, you know that Everest is the world’s tallest mountain.

Here’s the key message: Epistemology calls even basic facts into question.

Here’s a problem with the Everest example. Externalists argue that to know this is true, it’s sufficient to have a relationship to the fact that it’s the world’s tallest mountain. But plenty of people have a relationship to the “fact” that Sydney is the capital of Australia – when, really, it’s Canberra. It’s easy to have a false relationship to a fact.

Now, internalists take a different approach. They’re of the “seeing is believing” school. To know something, you must have supporting evidence. Have you measured Everest against all the other mountains in the world? Is there a formula you can use to determine its superior height? No? Then you really don’t know that Everest is the world’s tallest mountain; you’re simply giving your belief the status of knowledge.

In short, externalists believe we can know something without clear-cut evidence, while internalists believe we can’t. Which isn’t to say that internalists believe we shouldn’t think of Everest as the world’s tallest mountain. For all intents and purposes, we should! We should simply, out of philosophical interest, question whether this is something we can really know.

That doesn’t mean that internalists think you can never know anything. In fact, they place great significance on systematic first-person thinking. They believe we can know lots of things, through our senses, our powers of deduction, and our powers of reflection. By thinking carefully through our movements – and perhaps checking the grocery store receipt – we can know what we had for dinner last night.

Externalists believe in the power of first-person thinking as well, though they’re happy to accept the results of automatic thinking as knowledge – meaning that it’s enough to know automatically that pi is roughly equal to 3.14 without understanding the math behind the number.

Testimony is a form of knowledge that divides epistemologists.

Both internalist and externalist schools of thought see first-person thought – though different modes of it – as a reliable source of knowledge. But what happens when we bring another perspective into the equation?

There’s no denying that much of what we know about our world is secondhand knowledge, learned through the accounts of others. We know about life in ancient Rome because we can read about it; we know about events unfolding on the other side of the globe because we see them in the news.

But can secondhand testimony count as a form of knowledge?

The key message here is: Testimony is a form of knowledge that divides epistemologists.

Remember John Locke? His view was that we gain knowledge through perception. Therefore, he thought we could never truly know something we learned from someone else’s account. Locke’s position is pretty hard-core. In fact, by Locke’s own logic, we can assume that a philosopher named John Locke existed in the seventeenth century – but we can’t know for sure.

Other philosophers, known as reductionists, have tried to strike a compromise. They believe we possess critical faculties, like inference, memory, and – Locke’s favorite – perception. These faculties enable us to assess the reliability of testimony, and the knowledge it contains. In this way of thinking, perception is still key – but we can also confidently say that, for example, Mars exists without needing to visit it ourselves.

Some philosophers, on the other hand, take up the opposite position from Locke. They argue that testimony is itself a form of knowledge, and that we can access it without depending on other forms of knowledge, like perception. There’s one condition, though: The person who’s giving the testimony – the informant – has to be telling the truth.

Interestingly, in this school of thought, the informant doesn’t have to believe in the knowledge he imparts in order to be truthful. We can receive true knowledge from a less-than-perfect source, like a creationist teacher who is nevertheless obliged to teach the theory of evolution to his students.

An imperfect source might also collaborate with others. For example, you might be at a dinner party where the topic of top-selling albums comes up. Your partner might have a hunch that Michael Jackson’s Thriller is the best-selling album of all time, then confirm this by checking online. This wouldn’t satisfy Locke, who would argue that we can only probably say Thriller is the world’s best-selling album. But unless your dining partners are Lockeans or reductionists, that online check should settle any dinner-table debate.

Knowledge depends on context.

Some epistemologists consider the question of whether secondhand testimony counts as knowledge, or whether we can ever know something when our knowledge is based on a false belief. But there’s one school of thought, contextualism, that cuts through these questions. As the name suggests, their position is this: It all comes down to context.

This is the key message: Knowledge depends on context.

Imagine a father takes his daughters to the zoo. He points at a horse-like animal with black-and-white stripes and says, “Look, girls, a zebra!” How does he know this zebra isn’t a donkey painted black and white? Well, according to what’s called the relevant alternatives theory, he knows because in the context of a well-maintained zoo, the idea that the creature is a painted donkey simply isn’t a relevant alternative to the idea that it’s a zebra. In a dodgy sideshow attraction, the story might be different. Relevant alternatives are context-dependent.

Building on the relevant alternatives theory comes the idea of contextualism, which suggests that the criteria we have for knowledge are context-dependent.

These criteria are applied differently in different situations. A six-foot-four basketball player might describe himself as tall in his online dating profile. He’s applying broad criteria here: generally speaking, 6’4” is tall. A sports commentator, talking about the same basketball player, might describe him as “not very tall.” The commentator wouldn’t necessarily be wrong. Not according to the stricter criterion of height among pro basketball players.

Contextualism even creates room for the average person and the skeptic to coexist. An ordinary person who is barefoot can say, “I know I’m not wearing shoes.” A skeptic who is barefoot might ask, “How can I know if I am wearing shoes or not? I might just be experiencing a vivid hallucination that I am barefoot right now.” The contextualist would argue that both the average person and the skeptic are right – they’re just applying different criteria to the very concept of knowing.

But even a contextualist can’t please everybody. Some thinkers believe that knowledge is immutable – that truth doesn’t shift from person to person or between situations. For these thinkers, contextualism is a pretty radical idea. And the next idea we explore might be even more radical.

Humans can intuit others’ knowledge.

There’s another method for attaining knowledge that we haven’t discussed yet. And it’s one you use all the time, without even being aware that you’re using it. It’s intuition.

Think about it. If your friend Sam tells you, “I’m in line for a new position at work,” you might report that news by saying, “Sam knows he got the job.” Then again, you might say, “Sam thinks he got the job.” You don’t have to ponder which verb to choose. We don’t need to do that because, subconsciously, we can often intuit what other people know, what they’re unsure about, and what they don’t know.

The key message is: Humans can intuit others’ knowledge.

Through our intuition, we achieve something pretty remarkable: mind reading. We don’t do this in the Las Vegas magician sense; we can’t read people’s thoughts word for word. Epistemologically, mind reading refers to our ability to intuit others’ mental states. We’re able to guess what others know by making subconscious inferences.

In this respect, we’re like many other animals. Chimpanzees use mind reading to assess whether rival chimps have discovered their food stash. But while chimps can keep track of whether their fellow chimps have knowledge or lack it, only humans can manipulate a perceived lack of knowledge. We do this through, for example, practical jokes. When we offer a friend a can of peanuts with a rubber snake inside, we are intentionally playing on her lack of knowledge of what that can really contains.

Even though our ability to intuit knowledge is impressive, it has its limits. We can track more than one mental state at a time. We can intuit, for example, that Rhonda thinks that John knows about the affair she’s having. We can even intuit that John believes that Rhonda thinks that John knows about her affair. But we tend to max out when we’re asked to keep track of more than five mental states.

We’re also egocentric. It’s hard to factor what we know out of the equation when intuiting what someone else knows. It’s been shown that when two people are stock-trading, and one person is given insider information, the more informed participant has difficulty predicting how his opponent will trade. The person with the insider knowledge struggles to subtract that knowledge from what he knows of his opponent’s knowledge.

Despite its limitations, however, our intuition shows just how knowledge connects us, and how we connect through knowledge. Epistemologists still grapple with the idea of what knowledge is. But there’s no denying that knowledge is integral to ourselves, our relationships, and our understanding of our world.

Want more?
Read or listen to the key ideas
from 7,500+ titles

Key ideas in Knowledge

More knowledge in less time

Read or listen

Get the key ideas from nonfiction bestsellers in minutes, not hours.

Find your next read

Get book lists curated by experts and personalized recommendations.

Shortcasts ^New

We’ve teamed up with podcast creators to bring you key insights from podcasts.

What is Knowledge about?

Knowledge: A Very Short Introduction (2014) is an accessible introduction to the complex field of epistemology. Epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowledge itself. What can we know? And how do we know that we know it? Knowledge surveys epistemological thinking from the ancient Greeks to contemporary philosophy, shining a bright light on this fascinating field of thought.

Knowledge Review

Knowledge by Jennifer Nagel (2018) is a thought-provoking exploration of how we acquire knowledge and why it matters. Here's why this book is worth reading:

Offers a comprehensive overview of the main theories and debates surrounding knowledge, providing readers with a solid foundation to understand the topic.
Examines real-life scenarios to illustrate the complexities of knowledge, making the book relatable and relevant to our everyday lives.
Challenges readers to question their own beliefs and consider the implications of different perspectives, fostering critical thinking skills and intellectual growth.

Who should read Knowledge?

Philosophy buffs and newbies alike
Skeptics who take everything with a grain of salt
Knowledge workers interested in delving deeper into knowledge itself.

About the Author

Jennifer Nagel is a professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto. A highly respected epistemologist, her work focuses on the nexus of knowledge and belief. In addition to Knowledge: A Very Short Introduction, she’s written numerous academic articles on the topic of knowledge

Categories with Knowledge

Education Philosophy

Book summaries like Knowledge

The Moral Animal

Robert Wright

Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology

19 min

4.3

Understanding and Responding to Self-Harm

Allan House

The One-Stop Guide: Practical Advice for Anybody Affected by Self-Harm

18 min

4.2

How I Invest My Money

Edited by Joshua Brown and Brian Portnoy

Finance Experts Reveal How They Save, Spend, and Invest

How Millennials Became the Burnout Generation

Get Ideas Out of Your Head and into the World

How to Run a Drug Cartel

24 min

4.5

The Practicing Happiness Workbook

Ruth Baer

How Mindfulness Can Free You from the Four Psychological Traps That Keep You Stressed, Anxious, and Depressed

20 min

4.5

Cleaning Up Your Mental Mess

Caroline Leaf

5 Simple, Scientifically Proven Steps to Reduce Anxiety, Stress, and Toxic Thinking

22 min

4.3

The Stress Paradox

Sharon Horesh Bergquist

Why You Need Stress to Live Longer, Healthier, and Happier

18 min

4.3

The Purposeful Decision Maker

Pádraig Ó Céidigh

A Guide to Making Great Decisions in Life and Business

19 min

3.9

Artificial Intelligence & Generative AI for Beginners

The Secret History of China's Most Powerful Company

The Politics of Feeling Good

The Pathway of Surrender

The Architecture of Belief

Misdiagnosis and Myth in a Man-Made World

21 Great Ways to Stop Procrastinating and Get More Done in Less Time

8 Superpowers for Thriving in Constant Change

27 min

4.0

The Whole Brain Business Book

Ann Herrmann-Nehdi

Unlocking the Power of Whole Brain Thinking

21 min

Brave Together

Chris Deaver & Ian Clawson

Lead by Design, Spark Creativity, and Shape the Future with the Power of Co-Creation

20 min

3.9

Invention and Innovation

Vaclav Smil

A Brief History of Hype and Failure

21 min

I Know What to Do So Why Don't I Do It?

Nick Hall

The New Science of Self-Discipline

How to Get the Best Out of Everything

16 min

Change Anything

Kerry Patterson

The New Science of Personal Success

What the Rich Teach Their Kids about Money – That the Poor and the Middle Class Do Not!

29 min

4.5

Being and Nothingness

Jean-Paul Sartre

A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology

An Unlikely Saga of Raw Fish and Rice

Negotiating Disagreement Without Giving Up Or Giving in

18 min

The 5 AM Club

Robin Sharma

Own Your Morning. Elevate Your Life.

The Comprehensive Guide to Delay, Don't Deny® Intermittent Fasting

17 min

4.5

Bedtime Biography: Vindication

Lyndall Gordon

A Life of Mary Wollstonecraft

A Brief History of Humankind

How a Forgotten Philosophy Can Liberate Kids and Their Parents

19 min

3.8

13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do

Amy Morin

Take Back Your Power, Embrace Change, Face Your Fears and Train Your Brain for Happiness and Success

Transitioning Into a Career You'll Love

The Secret to Achieving More with Less

Schopenhauer's take on will and deliberation

On Reclaiming the Individual and Fighting Oppression

Master the Art of Fearless Self-Promotion

A Global Food Philosophy

22 min

4.3

ReWork

Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson

Unorthodox advice for growing companies

19 min

4.5

This Is Your Brain on Food

Uma Naidoo

A Guide to the Foods that Fight Depression, Anxiety, and More

10 Shifts from Leadership to Teamship

A Brief History of Culture, Sex, War and the Evolution of Us

21 min

4.3

The Danish Way of Parenting

Jessica Joelle Alexander

What the Happiest People in the World Know About Raising Confident, Capable Kids

20 min

4.6

The Seven Tensions of Negotiation

Cash Nickerson

Breathe and Let the Opposition Make the Tough Decisions

Strategies for Getting the Best Out of Virtual Work and Teams

19 min

4.1

The Thin Book of Trust

Charles Feltman

An Essential Primer for Building Trust at Work

15 min

Judgement at Work

Andrew Likierman

Making Better Choices

AI, ChatGPT, and the Race that Will Change the World

26 min

4.2

People ❤️ Blinkist

Sven O.

It's highly addictive to get core insights on personally relevant topics without repetition or triviality. Added to that the apps ability to suggest kindred interests opens up a foundation of knowledge.

Thi Viet Quynh N.

Great app. Good selection of book summaries you can read or listen to while commuting. Instead of scrolling through your social media news feed, this is a much better way to spend your spare time in my opinion.

Jonathan A.

Life changing. The concept of being able to grasp a book's main point in such a short time truly opens multiple opportunities to grow every area of your life at a faster rate.

Renee D.

Great app. Addicting. Perfect for wait times, morning coffee, evening before bed. Extremely well written, thorough, easy to use.