1
   

Does knowledge need an indubitable basis?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Gilbey
 
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2008 01:32 pm
I would say it does, because in order to obtain unquestionable knowledge, belief cannot be apart of it. There are such things as true justified belief's, but that seems to blur the distinction between belief and knowledge, and it also seems to suggest that there is no such thing as knowledge, just justified belief's.

But I don't think it makes much sense to say that I have a "justified belief" that my laptop in sitting on my lap, rather than "I know" my laptop is sitting on my lap.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 827 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 12:31 am
Quote:
Throughout the occidental history of ideas and right down to our own days, two requisites have been considered fundamental in any epistemological venture. The first of these requisites demands that whatever we would like to call "true knowledge" has to be independent of the knowing subject. The second requisite is that knowledge is to be taken seriously only if it claims to represent a world of "things-in-themselves" in a more or less veridical fashion'

Although the sceptics of all ages explained with the help of logical arguments that both these requisites are unattainable, they limited themselves to observing that absolute knowledge was impossible. Only a few of them went a step further and tried to liberate the concept of knowledge from the impossible constraints so that it might be freely applied to what is attainable within the acting subject's experiential world. Those who took that step were branded outsiders and could therefore be disregarded by professional philosophers.
Von Glazersfeld commenting on Genetic Epistemology.

Epistemology (theories if knowledge) are intimately related to ontology (theories of existence). The analysis of "you and your laptop" involves: investigation of your existence /existence in relationship to a language community/ meaning of "cognition"/ states of consciousness/ status of "self" as an observer of "self"/ causal versus non-causal explanation.

Keep thinking !
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 10:01 am
Re: Does knowledge need an indubitable basis?
Gilbey wrote:
I would say it does, because in order to obtain unquestionable knowledge, belief cannot be apart of it. There are such things as true justified belief's, but that seems to blur the distinction between belief and knowledge, and it also seems to suggest that there is no such thing as knowledge, just justified belief's.

I think you're making too much of the term "belief." To believe something doesn't mean that you have some sort of religious or mystical belief, it just means you accept something as true. So someone can just as easily believe in the existence of computers as believe in the existence of god. Whether the two are equally justified, however, is an entirely different matter.

As for "unquestionable knowledge," you can't get that from induction. The most you can hope for is almost-certain knowledge. That was Hume's great insight.

Gilbey wrote:
But I don't think it makes much sense to say that I have a "justified belief" that my laptop in sitting on my lap, rather than "I know" my laptop is sitting on my lap.

There is, practically speaking, no difference between having a justified belief in something and knowing something. In the case of your laptop, you conclude that it's there on your lap based on your senses and on certain confirmatory deductions. The sum total of that is your justified belief/knowledge.
0 Replies
 
Gilbey
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 11:11 am
Like you said JFC, "belief just means something you accept as true", But that does not mean it is true. And I don't agree with what you said about someone can just as easily believe in the existence of computers as believe in the existence of god, because my senses tell me that computers exist, but none of my senses tell me that God exists. If you know something then belief has no place. And I didn't just confine the term "belief" to a religious of mystical one, I did not even mention religion.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 11:40 am
Gilbey wrote:
Like you said JFC, "belief just means something you accept as true", But that does not mean it is true.

I agree.

Gilbey wrote:
And I don't agree with what you said about someone can just as easily believe in the existence of computers as believe in the existence of god, because my senses tell me that computers exist, but none of my senses tell me that God exists. If you know something then belief has no place. And I didn't just confine the term "belief" to a religious of mystical one, I did not even mention religion.

As I said, whether a belief is justified is a different question from whether one believes in something or not. If you believe in the existence of computers but not in the existence of god, that doesn't mean that the latter isn't a belief, it just means that you think the latter isn't a justified belief.
0 Replies
 
Gilbey
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 12:17 pm
D you know the difference betwen knowledge and belief, and do you think all we can ever have is a justified belief, or do you think we can have knowledge. I think it is either one or the other, justified belief or knowledge.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 01:00 pm
Gilbey wrote:
D you know the difference betwen knowledge and belief, and do you think all we can ever have is a justified belief, or do you think we can have knowledge. I think it is either one or the other, justified belief or knowledge.

I'm not sure I understand your distinction between justified belief and knowledge. If by "knowledge" you mean indubitable or absolute knowledge of empirical facts, then you're out of luck. The most you can hope for is a very high probability of being correct.
0 Replies
 
Gilbey
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 02:01 pm
What exactly have you based this "very high probability of being correct" on? Are you saying that we have absolutely no knowledge of anything?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 03:29 pm
Gilbey wrote:
What exactly have you based this "very high probability of being correct" on?

Probability.

Gilbey wrote:
Are you saying that we have absolutely no knowledge of anything?

Maybe. Depends on how you define "knowledge."
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 03:37 pm
Our desire to deduce absolute truths from axiomatic premises is quixotic to say the least. I believe that an obligation of philosophy is the examination of our culture's presuppositions, and then to discover and examine the presuppositions upon which they are based, and so on all the way to the bottom, as it were. This is impossible, of course, and that is why I call myself an "anti-foundationalist" (after Nietzsche and Rorty). But since I am not concerned to acquire absolute proofs that is no problem for me. As we uncover presuppositions we move--philosophically speaking rather than scientifically speaking--downward and backward toward greater depth or wisdom. Science moves upward and onward toward greater predictive control of the physical world without requiring philsophical insight into its nature.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2008 06:11 pm
Gilbey,

I assume this thread is related to

"A-level Philosophy. Unit 1: The Theory of Knowledge"

Is it an essay question ?
If so, study the agenda for a subscription conference on that module.

Quote:
Theory of Knowledge: 29 February 2008

Programme
Rationalism
Naïve realism
Foundationalism & Coherentism
Certainty
(Synoptic questions discussed in Rationalism and Certainty)


I suggest you research your prescribed literature on those topics before attempting to express your own ideas.
0 Replies
 
Gilbey
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 11:02 am
It isn't an essay question, but I am currently studying unit 1: theory of knowledge, and this question appeared in my reading, and I found it to be a very interesting question, so I thought I'd post it on here.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 12:11 pm
I am sure you are finding out that many questions in philosophy are interesting, not because they yield an answer, but because they yield more questions. Quite often the original question evaporates. Philosophy "teachers" often ask questions like yours rhetorically, in order to test your understanding of such dynamics.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2008 12:53 pm
True, and philosophy has the indispensible function of viewing as problematical much that the everyday consciousness takes for granted. As such it makes life much more interesting.
Most people think of "education" as little more than training for economic success. And this perspective is reflected in education's emphasis on technical skills, often at the expense of the humanities and arts. The latter serve to make life more worthwhile, i.e., interesting.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does knowledge need an indubitable basis?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 11:42:18
▲ ▼