knowledge

Cannot really say that I understand what you mean. Do you mean "Is true belief the same as justified knowledge?"?

If so I would say no. It is not the same. What is true belief? The only right thing to believe? No matter what it is, it is untruthful if you cannot do more than believe it. "True" and "belief" do not seem to go too well together. They sort of deny eachother.
Knowledge is simply the amount of facts learned. Nothing more. It will not help you if you do not have the wisdom to use it.

0 Replies

What about knowledge you dont use?

0 Replies

Burden?

0 Replies

Agrote:

I do not think that knowledge is simply justified belief.

Belief, in my definition, is what goes on when one opens ones eyes - you must believe there is a computer monitor in front of you.

You can choose at that point to assent to that belief or not. If you chose not to assent to that belief - it cannot become knowledge. (In other words you can say - I see a monitor in front of me - but I choose not to assent to it because I have other evidence that I am delusional - or whatever.)

From this assent to belief you can choose to contruct other peices of evidence that allow you to justify this belief.

However, there seems to be another type of knowledge entirely that does not need assent nor does it need independant verification for its truth to be seen. A priori types of knowledge seem to be this way - once an apriori statement is uttered (mentally or verbally) - such as 'all triangles have three sides' - the mind has no choice but to assent to its obviousness.

So in the case of a posteriori knowledge - knowledge consists of justified assent.

But in the case of a priori knowledge - it seems to be self justifiable.

TTF

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Cannot really say that I understand what you mean. Do you mean "Is true belief the same as justified knowledge?"?

No. I mean "Is justified true belief the same as knowledge?" Or, is the following true...

A knows that P if and only if
1. P is true
2. A believes that P
3. A's belief that P is justified (or has adequate evidence to support it, perhaps)

So what's your point of view on that, Cyracuz?

0 Replies

TTF, are you thinking about Kant and his forms of perception? A tiangle has three sides, hence the word tri-angle. I am not aiming at your post. I think you're right. But what about Kant. A priori: It either rains or it does not. Reminds me of children's games. That's why philosophy is fun:) Smile

agrote, I apparently misread your post. Sorry. I'll try again though I thing TTF is close. I enterpet A as being a person and P as being statement or an object. If so it is a pattern of actions starting with no. 2. Then no. 3, and at last, if it checks out, one can state no. 1. You start off with a belief, then you collect adequate evidence to support it, and then conclude that is is true. So I guess you can say that when your beliefs are proven true they become knowledge, but even knowledge can be faulty if not outright false. I believe there is a degree of belief in all facts, and there is something behind the intent of the method that has to be the judge. Better now, or am I still out there?

0 Replies

First I want to assume we are not going to get into sophistry here.

I disagree strongly with ThinkFactory on what "belief" is.

"Belief"...especially when used in a religious context...is nothing more than guesswork about the unknown. A person who "believes" there is a God...or a person who "believes" there are no gods...is merely guessing about the unknown Ultimate REALITY of existence. They are guessing about what ACTUALLY EXISTS.

Saying that one "believes" these things...rather than saying one is GUESSING them...is merely a disguise.

One does not have to "believe" there is a monitor in front of him...or that he is using a keyboard. or that 2 + 2 = 4. Absent sophistry arguments...a person KNOWS those things.

I have no idea of what you mean by "true belief"...but any guess is a guess.

So what is your point.

0 Replies

I agree with Frank's take on belief.

They say "seeing is believing," but in fact it is knowing.
Faith (or accepting a "guess about the unknown") is believing.

If I am sure in my own mind - but cannot prove - that Osama Bin Laden
is holed up in Pakistan, that is my belief. If they actually find the SOB
there, then it becomes knowledge.

0 Replies

Frank, by relegating belief to a guess, does not allow for that belief to ever be justified. Thus, any believer is just guessing and invalid.

Opinion seems to be the same as Franks definition of belief. When I don't know whether say - my car is in the parking lot - I take a guess and give you my opinion.

If knowledge then is justified opinion - and opinion is a guess - and any guess is a guess.

There appears to be no way to get to knowledge of anything.

Also, if it is true that when I see the monitor in front of me I 'know' it is in front of me - seeing IS knowledge. So when I see a plane take off and get smaller in the sky - it is actually getting smaller. When I see - I know.

That is ofcourse absurd - so how do we get from perception - or opinion - to knowledge?

TTF

0 Replies

I think knowledge is what is verified. If you cannot verify it, then it is
theory (or faith or guess or opinion).

Obviously we do not "know" that the plane becomes physically smaller.
We know that it appears to, but we can verify that in fact it is moving
away from us. Still, it is possible for the senses to be fooled.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Frank, by relegating belief to a guess, does not allow for that belief to ever be justified. Thus, any believer is just guessing and invalid.

Okay...so what is wrong with that.

However...simply because it is a guess...does NOT mean it is necessarily wrong.

Last year...early in the year...I guessed the New England Patriots were gonna win the Super Bowl. It was just a guess.

But it turned out to be correct.

Quote:

Opinion seems to be the same as Franks definition of belief. When I don't know whether say - my car is in the parking lot - I take a guess and give you my opinion.

No problem with that. Sometimes a guess is an opinion. Sometimes a guess is an estimate.

However...if a person says "I guess..." or "I opine..." or "I estimate..."...that does not make it a belief. A "belief" only really occurs when a person trys to disguise the fact that he/she is making a guess...an estimate...stating an opinion.

Stated otherwise: It appears that all beliefs are guesses...but not all guesses are beliefs!

Quote:

If knowledge then is justified opinion - and opinion is a guess - and any guess is a guess.

There appears to be no way to get to knowledge of anything.

This makes no sense...or I simply am unable to understand what you are saying. Chose one!

Quote:

Also, if it is true that when I see the monitor in front of me I 'know' it is in front of me - seeing IS knowledge. So when I see a plane take off and get smaller in the sky - it is actually getting smaller. When I see - I know.

That is ofcourse absurd - so how do we get from perception - or opinion - to knowledge?

Once again...I do not understand what you are getting at here?

Look...we can get into a very detailed sophistry laden discussion of what it means to actually "know" things.

I really do not want to do that...and I do not think it is at all necessary for the scope of this discussion.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

No. I mean "Is justified true belief the same as knowledge?" Or, is the following true...

A knows that P if and only if
1. P is true
2. A believes that P
3. A's belief that P is justified (or has adequate evidence to support it, perhaps)

I am on record as having already accepted this definition of "knowledge" (at least as a working definition), and, despite some reservations, I see no reason to discard it now.

To examine this definition, let's look at some beliefs that would not constitute "knowledge." Take, for example, a person's belief in the existence of unicorns. Although the person may sincerely believe in their existence, there would be no indicia of truth that would allow the person to assert that his belief was either "true" or "justified." Likewise, a belief that one is possessed by demons would lack the necessary elements of truth and justification.

On the other hand, let's suppose that a person believes that she is the queen of Portugal, and further let's suppose that she actually is the queen of Portugal, but her belief is based upon messages that she has received from magic pixies. Now, her belief is true and it is a sincerely held belief, but, because her belief is not based upon the truth of the proposition (it is, instead, based upon a phantasm), it is not justified. In other words, although she believes something that is true, she can't be said to know that she is the queen of Portugal. The fact that her belief actually coincides with the truth is, in this respect, merely that: a coincidence.

In contrast, my belief that I am currently typing this text on a computer that is in front of me satisfies all three conditions: (1) I sincerely affirm that proposition (in that I believe it to be true); (2) the proposition is "true" (in that it satisfies the criteria of "trueness"); and (3) my affirmation is based upon the truth of the proposition (or, in other words, it is "justified"). I can, therefore, affirm that I know (insofar as it is possible to know anything) that I am currently typing this text on a computer in front of me.

0 Replies

Joe~

Followed your link to the source of "Justified true belief".
Thank you for putting it in context. My difficulty comes from my definition
of belief. In that context belief is "affirmation of, or conviction regarding,
the truth of a proposition, whether or not one is in possession of evidence
adequate to justify a claim that the proposition is known with certainty".

My definition would be more restrictive, limiting belief to an affirmation of
truth without possession of adequate evidence. This points out the
necessity of a definition of term.

As we used to say, "semper distingue".

0 Replies

George wrote:

Joe~

Followed your link to the source of "Justified true belief".
Thank you for putting it in context. My difficulty comes from my definition
of belief. In that context belief is "affirmation of, or conviction regarding,
the truth of a proposition, whether or not one is in possession of evidence
adequate to justify a claim that the proposition is known with certainty".

My definition would be more restrictive, limiting belief to an affirmation of
truth without possession of adequate evidence. This points out the
necessity of a definition of term.

As we used to say, "semper distingue".

George,

The problem I see with Joe's argument is that using that particular definition of "knowledge" essentially leads back to the notion that noone can ever claim to know anything.

"P"...has to be true.

In order to establish a claim that one knows P...P has to be established as true.

In his illustration...Joe simply asserts that his "P" (typing at a keyboard) is true...in order to meet one of the criteria he established for "P" being true.

I see the problem clearly...but I am no longer competent to put it into a coherent argument.

In our last few interactions, Joe, has made a point of calling attention to these intellectual shortcomings of mine...so I am reluctant to discuss the issue directly with him. I understand that the explanation he has given here is pretty much what he was asking me to do...in order to be considered deserving of participating in these kinds of discussions...but I honestly see very little difference between what he just did with his keyboard...and some assertions I made regarding 2 + 2 = 4 and whether or not I knew what my name is...other than the fact that I will never claim that I "firmly believe" (whatever the hell that means) that 2 + 2 = 4 or that my name is Frank Apisa.

If he is right, however, and "believing" is something essential to knowledge...you can understand my consternations, because in that event, I am shyt out of luck in the knowing department.

Perhaps you see where I am heading with my observations and comment. In the meantime, I will attempt to get Fresco over here to take a look at the issue. He's pretty much as sharp as Joe in these areas...and he may be able to help me.

0 Replies

Thanks for the invitation Frank !

I have not fully thought this through yet but at the outset I would say there can be differences between "know" "belief" and "guess" depending on the context or "stakes". Secondly I would say there are major philosophical problems concerning the words "true" and "justified" which some of you may know (!) I hold to be negotiable.

Therefore on balance I would say that the original definition of "knowledge" is philosophically flawed and is covertly based on "naive realism". Certainly the application of formal logic is unhelpful in this matter since it rests on "fixed" set boundaries which is antithetical both to the communicative "flux"and to the selectivity of perception involved in epistemological progress (growth of knowledge).

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Thanks for the invitation Frank !

I have not fully thought this through yet but at the outset I would say there can be differences between "know" "belief" and "guess" depending on the context or "stakes". Secondly I would say there are major philosophical problems concerning the words "true" and "justified" which some of you may know (!) I hold to be negotiable.

Therefore on balance I would say that the original definition of "knowledge" is philosophically flawed and is covertly based on "naive realism". Certainly the application of formal logic is unhelpful in this matter since it rests on "fixed" set boundaries which is antithetical to the communicative "flux"
and selectivity of perception surrounding epistemological progress (growth of knowledge).

Jeez...ya took the words right out of my mouth. :wink:

0 Replies

So we can know things, but how do we know that we know?

0 Replies

George asks what "is" knowledge.

Suppose we start with the working definition ...

" Knowledge is the ability to predict or retrodict outcomes of our interactions with a certain degree of confidence"

then

(1) the differentiation beteween "know" "believe" and "guess" are aspects of the "confidence level"

(2) "truth" is equivalent to a "successful prediction".

Note that (2) pushes the problem of definition from "truth" to "success" which calls into question the status of "evidence". This is where the "negotiation" takes place. However also note that in the flux "knowledge" is essentially concerned with "what to do next". i,e. The statement "I know there is a chair in the next room" has NO epistemological import unless it has effects on the ongoing actions...(chair requirement etc). This is the "meta-semantic trap" that philosophers fall into when they seek to define "knowledge" as context-free. It is the relevance to ongoing actions where "justification" resides.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Suppose we start with the working definition ...

" Knowledge is the ability to predict or retrodict outcomes of our interactions with a certain degree of confidence"

then

(1) the differentiation beteween "know" "believe" and "guess" are aspects of the "confidence level"

(2) "truth" is equivalent to a "successful prediction".

Suppose A states: "I am confident that the current US president's last name is 'Bush.'" Suppose further that A bases his assertion upon the mistaken notion that George H.W. Bush is still the president of the United States. Now, A's "prediction" is, in fact, accurate: it's beyond cavil that the president's last name is "Bush." But although A's statement is "true" by your definition (in that it is a successful prediction), it seems odd to say that A knows the president's last name when he doesn't even know who the president is. In this case, then, isn't A's successful prediction more in the nature of a random assertion rather than actual "knowledge?"

0 Replies

knowledge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know