This episode is devoted to finding the difference between knowledge and wisdom (or, as Aristotle might have said, the difference between phronesis and sophia). In the process, Christabel learns a lot about the casting stats of various Dungeons and Dragons classes and Steve lets us in on his narrative theory of Star Trek. According to Steve, the presence of Spock is a necessary condition for any successful spin-off series. This brings Christabel to discuss Oushinar Nath’s theory of ‘epistemic essentialism’, according to which the presence of knowledge is a necessary condition for wisdom. 

The rival theories of epistemic reductionism (or the view that knowledge is a sufficient condition for wisdom) and epistemic nihilism (which separates knowledge from wisdom entirely) are considered, as is Dennis Whitcomb’s characterisation of Mephistopheles as evil but wise. Steve offers an insightful theological conjecture that demons, like naked mole rats, cannot be judged by human standards; for them, every day is opposite day. Our hosts embrace the psychological profile of wisdom provided by Monkia Ardelt, but raise some doubts for Shih-ying Yang’s and Leonard Jason’s claims that the paradigmatically wise person must maintain a sunny outlook on life. 

The last part of the episode digs into the question of what true knowledge consists in. We’re introduced to Dharmottara and the Gettier cases, and to the epistemic dangers of counting sheep-shaped rocks. Christabel differentiates between propositional knowledge, or ‘knowing-that’, and procedural knowledge, or ‘know-how’. Steve presents us with some excellent examples of the latter, advising us both on how to construct the perfect pub quiz and on the best way to avoid being accosted by street epistemologists. By the end of the episode, we certainly know more, but are we any the wiser?

Email us the impossible questions children ask you at [email protected]

Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com

Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane