In “The Problem of the Criterion,” Chisholm sketches a rough description of two forms of epistemology and seeks to display their interdependence in the designation of knowledge. By demonstrating this interdependence, he seeks to propose the position of the skeptic who asserts what is referred to as “universal skepticism,” the idea that it impossible to know anything. Chisholm begins this discussion by isolating two dividing questions:
A) “What do we know? What is the extent of our knowledge?” B) “How are we to decide whether we know?” The division can roughly be thought of as the distinction between top-down and bottom-up reasoning. Those who claim to have an answer for the first question (A) display a form of bottom-up reasoning. Followers of this line of thought are referred to as particularists and assert that because particular bits of proper knowledge have been isolated, an overarching definition or algorithm of delineating knowledge can be produced to further engage in the pursuit of truth.
…show more content…
Followers of this line of thought are referred to as “methodists” and assert that because a method or theory of delineating knowledge can be described, the extent of knowledge can be ascertained afterwards in a later pursuit of knowledge. Both of these however rely on having some understanding of knowledge, or “meta-knowledge,” to begin with. Chisholm explicates this points with the use of apples, crafting a scenario in which one must decide which apples are “good,” paralleling the epistemological search for “good” beliefs to be understood as