A Primer on Epistemology, 4 Kidz!

Central question: What does it mean to know something? How can we know that we know?

Objective: By the end of the discussion(s), one will have a better understanding of the limits of knowledge and be prepared to engage critically with varying points of view, including one’s own.

Materials: Facts vs. Opinions vs. Robots by Michael Rex, The Three Little Pigs by TBD, The True Story of the 3 Little Pigs by Jon Scieszka, The Stinky Cheese Man and other Fairly Stupid Tales by Jon Scieszka

Intro lesson on facts, opinions, and knowledge

Introduction: Facts vs. Opinions vs. Robots by Michael Rex

Overview: Define “fact” and “opinion.” Lay the foundation for defining “knowledge.” Determine how we know (or think we know).

Duration: 1 hour

Teaching goal: Introduce the concept of knowledge.

Learning goal: Evaluate facts and opinions as a basis for knowledge.

Sequence

1. What are facts? What are opinions?

Facts	Opinions
1. anything that can be proven true or false (p5) (Can a fact be false? Can a fact be both true and false? Idiom: get your facts right/wrong) 2. may require more information before being decided (pp8, 12) (What about opinions?) 3. can’t be argued over (p17) (Really? E.g., theories/scientific method)	1. something that you feel and you believe but cannot prove (p7) (Are feelings true; can they be false? Can a belief become a fact?) 2. make us unique (p7) (Can everyone share the same opinion? Can an opinion be forced?) 3. can be argued over (p17)

Do you agree? Would you add anything else? Would you change anything?

4. objective: say something about the world (2+2=4.) 5. exist regardless of us 6. are equal …

4. subjective: say something about ourselves (Math is fun.) 5. exist because of us 6. are not equal (informed vs. uninformed) …

2. Discussion: Can a fact be an opinion? Can an opinion be a fact? How we phrase a statement could make it hard to tell. E.g., I feel cold (fact about an opinion). I think stars are smaller than the moon because they look so tiny compared to a full moon (opinion based on fact, which is misleading because it is not actually true). All animals are either cats or dogs (not a fact (simply untrue), and not an opinion). So, a statement can be both or neither, depending how you look at it!

How are facts and opinions the same? They both deal with information à knowledge (of an objective or subjective sort).

But, then, what is knowledge? It’s information, which could be facts or opinions, contained in a thing, e.g., a person’s brain or a book.

3. Prompt: Think of some things that you know as facts. Use the structure “I know . . .”

Possible responses: I know . . . that the sky is blue. …that 2+2=4. …that my pen is on my desk. …that dogs are animals. …that an elephant is heavier than a mouse. …who/where I am. …what I’m wearing. …when I woke up. …how to swim.

How do you know these things? Can you prove it?

Possible responses: the senses, a teacher, thought of it on my own

Can you trust the proof? Is all proof equally valid?

4. Conclusion and review: Facts are the way things are. Opinions are our feelings and beliefs about the way things are. It seems like we can know facts, but that may require some information. We can also know our opinions, but that information is in our own mind. While facts are by definition true, there seem to be different levels of truth-value to opinions. Some opinions are based on more information and seem closer to being fact than other opinions. But why does this matter? Ask yourself what sort of opinions you should trust and what sort you should form for yourself, and what could go wrong if we mistake an opinion for a fact, or a fact for an opinion.

Assignment

1. Experiment: You’ll need something to take notes (e.g., pencil and paper), a pencil, and a clear glass of water. First, take some notes about the pencil. List some facts about it. List your opinions about it. Second, place a portion of the pencil in the water at an angle. Add to your notes. Have the facts changed? Have your opinions changed? Without doing any research or asking for help, can you explain why the pencil appears a certain way underwater? Is your explanation a fact or an opinion?

2. Thought experiment: Using your imagination and your current knowledge, describe what it is like to be a pig. As a pig, what do you think and feel? When you see a wolf, what goes through your mind? Then imagine yourself as a wolf and do the same. When you see a pig, what goes through your mind?

2-part lesson on perspectivalism/perspectivism and reality

Part 1: The Three Little Pigs

Overview: Familiarize student with classic fairy tale The Three Little Pigs and the role of the narrator as storyteller with a point of view.

Duration: 30 minutes

Teaching goal: Introduce epistemology, esp. perspectivalism, to spur discussion on evaluating claims.

Learning goal: Analyze The Three Little Pigs in terms of roles/portrayal (protagonist vs antagonist) and points of view

Sequence

1. Intro: How do you determine fact from fiction? Truth from untruth?

a) In 3LP, we get testimony (also, possible responses: perception/senses, introspection, memory, reason)

b) Who’s telling the story of 3LP? From what POV?

i. Narrator: third-person, omniscient (assumed to be truthful for the sake of the story)

ii. Author: authorial intent

2. Motive/Hook: What are the claims/judgements/opinions of the narrator?

a) First pig: “very lazy”

b) Second pig: “somewhat lazy”

c) Third pig: implied to be hard working

d) Wolf: “greedy”

3. Prime: From this, what can we guess about the writer’s point of view?

a) Laziness, greed, and hedonism are negative traits, and you will be better off (more secure) if you work hard.

4. Add: Is this POV true? Is it a fact, an opinion, or something else? How do you know?

a) True/fact: Building a house does require work, and a straw house does blow over more easily than a brick house. But from this, does it follow that hard work is good and laziness is bad? Can there be a situation in which a straw house would be better than a brick house (e.g., plastic vs. biodegradable material)?

b) Opinion (true or false): What might inform this opinion? Experience. Examples: When people exercise, they become stronger. When they don’t, they deteriorate. But too much exercise or improper exercise, while still hard work, can be injurious.

5. Challenge: Consider the POV of the writer. Come up with examples that support it and examples that contradict it.

6. Check understanding: If 3LP were non-fiction instead of a fairy tale, how could we determine the truth of the story? We could take the testimony of witnesses (in this case, the narrator) as true. But should we? What if the narrator were unreliable? We could use reason and experience to determine if the story sounds reasonable/plausible. But even then, we’re relying on our own points of view about what the writer says, and the writer has a point of view too. So, how can we understand objective reality if we only have our subjective points of view to work from?

Assignment: Consider the claims made by the narrator in The Three Little Pigs about the character/motivations of the pigs and the wolf (e.g., the first pig was very lazy, the second little pig was somewhat lazy, the wolf was greedy). Make your own alternative claims about the pigs and the wolf (e.g., the first pig wasn’t lazy, he was just tired from working very hard the day before).

Part 2: The True Story of the 3 Little Pigs by Jon Scieszka

Overview: Reinterpret initial take on classic fable given new information, a competing perspective.

Duration: 30 minutes

Teaching goal: Continue on perspectivalism and the issue of reconciling variable POVs.

Learning goal: Synthesize perspectives to arrive at a conclusion.

Sequence

1. Intro: How can we determine what’s true when confronted with competing accounts of an event?

a) In 3LP, the pigs are innocent victims of the “big bad” wolf.

b) In TS3LP, the pigs are not so innocent, and the wolf is not so big and bad.

2. Motive/Hook: Does the narrator of TS3LP have a POV that differs from that of 3LP’s narrator?

a) TS3LP: first-person, limited; Alexander T. Wolf (bias? memory?)

b) 3LP: third-person, omniscient

3. Prime: Where does TS3LP overlap with 3LP? Where do the two diverge?

3LP	Both	TS3LP
1. Wolf happens to pass by and smells pig 2. Wolf intends on eating pigs 3. Wolf demands entry 4. Wolf intends to blow houses down	1. Wolf approaches pigs’ homes 2. Wolf blows down straw and stick houses 3. Wolf can’t enter brick house	1. Wolf is neighbor seeking favor (sugar) 2. Wolf only eats pigs due to circumstance 3. Wolf knocks politely 4. Wolf sneezes and accidentally blows houses down

4. Add: What’s more likely to be true? Why?

a) Should we believe that where the two accounts line up is true? Could they both be untrue?

b) Say Alexander T. Wolf is always honest; he never tells a lie. Would that make his testimony more believable? Would it make his testimony true?

5. Challenge: Imagine that you are on the jury for the trial of Alexander T. Wolf. He’s being charged with murdering two little pigs, and attempting to murder a third. But the wolf claims it was an accident (partly due to his cold and partly due to the pigs residing in unfit housing), though he doesn’t deny eating them once they were dead. What kinds of evidence would convince you to believe the wolf’s testimony? What about that of the narrator of 3LP?

6. Cultivate independent practice: Be on the lookout for claims of truth. When you encounter them, try to identify what justifications are being used to make such claims. Then, determine whether those justifications are satisfactory for you to accept them as truth or to hold them as beliefs of your own.

7. Conclusion and review: The two stories offer competing and conflicting accounts of a particular event. One story is told by an omniscient narrator. The other story, by someone who was present and participated in the event. Both narrators have a POV: the former seeks to teach a lesson; the latter seeks to clear his name and explain how and why things happened the way they did. Determining which account is true is difficult when we have limited knowledge, but there are methods to justifying one version over the other. We can judge the reliability of the source, and we can investigate the foundations of claims. Ultimately, we should ask ourselves what it is that makes us prefer one explanation over another. And are those reasons justified?