Abel Questions.

How does Bertrand Russell differentiate between “knowledge by acquaintance” and “knowledge by description”? (Check out the footnote at bottom of p. 19)
Bertrand Russell differentiates between the two knowledges by saying that acquaintance is only 'raw feels' and that knowledge by description is 'knowing that'. Knowledge by acquaintance is when you know someone; you know how they are feeling by what they do. Knowledge by description is when you know that something is something. What I mean by that is like " I know that the sky is blue". In English these two different types of knowledge have the same word 'to know'. However in other languages it is easier to identify the difference because there are two separate words for each one. For example, in Latin the two words are scire and cognoscere.
How does Abel distinguish between “knowing how” and “knowing that”?
Able distinguishes between knowing how and knowing that by saying that knowing how is something that can not be easily expressed. You cannot tell someone how to breath or how it feels when your foot itches but you know how to do it and how it feels. Knowing that is when you know a fact or something like "I know if I drop something it will fall because of gravity".
What does he mean when he asks: “can knowing how theoretically always be reduced to knowing that? What is Abel’s answer? What do you think?
What he means is to ask if every type of knowing how knowledge can be explained through knowing that, for example: you can know how to ride a bike, and you can also know the physics that make it work. Able doesn't think that every type of knowing how knowledge can be reduced down to knowing that knowledge, and I agree with him. For example: you can know how water tastes but you can not know that water taste the way it dose with out experiencing it.


How does language become a problem of knowledge?
Language becomes a problem with knowledge because, for example: in the English language there is only one word for the word 'to know' while in others there is two to signify knowing that and knowing how. Also words like very, and highly. How can you accurately express how much those mean. Language tends to use words for estimation, which can throw off knowledge when trying to be communicated. Also language limits you to not being able to explain raw feels. For example: if you know how it feels to be in love, you cannot accurately describe this emotion to another person.


What do you think William James means when he says: “Life defies our phrases?”
I think William James is trying to say that our experiences help dictate to what we say and do and know. If we listen to a certain type of music we are able to make a statement on if we like it or not. If we have not heard that type of music, then there is no way we can comment on it.


What, according to Abel, is the difference between “experience” and “propositional knowledge”?
The difference between experience and propsitional knowledge is one id learned by doing and the other is learned from an outside source. For example an experience would be ridding a bike, and knowing hoe to ride it from that. The propositional knowledge here would be knowing the physics of how to make the bike move and why it does.


What are Abel’s Four Conditions for propositional knowledge? Where have we seen this before?


Abel’s four conditions for propositional Knowledge are as follows. His first one is about truth. You can know something because it is true. For example 3+3 = 6, and you can know this because it is true. The second is belife. In order to know something you have to believe it, you can not possibly say that you know the sky is blue but you don't believe it. You can however make the statement that you believe the sky is blue but do not know it. Belief is independent from knowing but knowing is not independent from belife. The third is that in order to have knowledge and or belife there must be a certain amount of justification to this knowledge. For example you can guess the numbers of a lottery ticket, and belive that they are right, and get them right, but you do not know the numbers. The fourth one is knowledge that has no evidence that could make your belife not true. For example, if you look at a clock you know that it is that time. We have heard this from the plationic knowledge that we learned about in class.


Why does he add a Fourth Condition?

He adds a Fourth Condition to show that some knowledge does not need evidence to be knowledge. You can know that it is a certian time without having the evidence that it is.