theory of knowledge (epistemology)

lateral thinking: solving problems using unorthodox + illogical means.

anti-relativism: truth relative to community making the statement

necessary condition: condition has to be true for event to take place

sufficient condition: if the condition is there the event would certainly take place

a priori: prior to experience

a posteriori: from/after experience

conceptual scheme inherent from host community, culture.

Davidson: are ways of organizing experience; they are systems of categories that give from to the data of sensation; they are points of view from which individuals, cultures, or periods survey the passing scene

no neutral viewpoint to make an impartial assessment. -can't make pure sense impressions. whats rational to us may not be universally rational. no schemes 'penetrate the phenomena'

Hume- a priori knowledge isn't substantive, doesn't say anything about the world. just definitions =relations of ideas.

like deductive argument -premises guarantees true conclusion

Humes fork -only relations of ideas or matters of fact.

repeated experience ingrains ideas and triggers feelings of expectation we mistake for necessity.

points out one event following another just in the mind.

the man who knows, perceives what he knows. protagoras 'man is the measure of all things' and no 'God's-eye' objective, perspective open to us.

• Whatever seems to be the case to a man is the case. to that man and to that man only = RELATIVISM/ SUBJECTIVISM
• modern relativists/ anti-realists say there's no objective truth
• Rorty -as long as no-one comes up with something better it can count as true
• -all descriptions can be revised later
• don't have any way of knowing how 'near'/ 'far' from truth

BUT -if every opinion is of equal value, then Socrates' opinions things not equal same as Protagorus everything is. these are mutually contradictory, both true? impossible.
and why is he charging for teaching is his opinion is equal value to anyones?