I think Gettier used a very lax “justification” for his criticism of JTB theory, correct me if I’m wrong. Essentially, almost anything was justified, but when it turns out… what one considers justifiable to be believed and what one considers justifiable for knowledge, are two different things. Based on the definition of knowledge provided, I am ascribing justification that knowledge is understood, reasonable, logical. Belief’s in Gettiers theory - allowed for weaker justification to past through his test. Knowledge needs to be understood to be true, they need not have sound reason. Do you have any insight on this?
“I contest that belief is never justified. I contest that belief is not a step towards knowledge. I contest that understanding, logic and reason is the prerequisite for knowledge”.
I contend that they are mutually exclusive. If belief is merely something that is thinking a proposition is true, then I agree. However, I don’t think a requirement for knowledge is “thinking a proposition to be true”. My point being that knowledge is not merely thinking something to be true, that knowledge is understanding something to be true. That being it is reasoned, understood, familiar in a manner that constitutes it being knowledge. This differnce, albeit subtle, leads to a separation of exclusivity. I think the generalization of the"attitude" of both belief and knowledge being true isn’t necessarily the same within the mind, if pressed. Therefore, I think it is an over generalization to consider knowledge to be believed. I think this key difference leads to a deeper understanding of knowledge and belief as a whole, and in turn, separately.
“However, why does that mean that knowledge is also belief? Knowledge is accepted as true, for good reason. Knowledge is not merely accepted it as true, it is understood.”
I disagree that I answer my own question here. It’s easy to say understanding and accepting things both entail thinking one or more propositions are true, which is what belief is, but knowledge is not about accepting. I think you’re missing the difference I am making between belief and knowledge in this manner - and that is easy to do so. It is very easy to attempt to just lump them together as acceptance, but I do not think I am splitting hairs either. There may be benefit to our minds to separate these as I have proposed, in that we solidify our epistemic frame of reference in a more coherent, although subtly different - that can essentially lead to much greater understanding when realized.
" If someone asked, “Do you know, or do you believe that 1+1=2”, the answer for most should be know."
I understand that, but that may very well be to not examining belief and knowledge as I laid out.
“If someone merely believes that 1+1=2, then they imply that they don’t have understanding of how 1+=1=2.”
I contend that it does, when compared to knowledge. Keep in mind the totality of my argument. I contend that I have a higher standard, and would need to then go into a theory of justification for how a “truth idea” becomes knowledge, or how knowledge is knowledge as well, but this is just a start here.
Based on my response here, does that change anything for you - as to your understanding of my thesis?
Yeah, he gave examples of beliefs that were justified, and also true, but did not constitute as knowledge.
Beliefs need to be understood to be beliefs. It doesn’t make any sense to me that a person would have a belief that they didn’t understand. They might not understand the full implications, or they might not understand why a thing is true, but they know what it is that they believe in all cases. A person doesn’t need to have sound reasoning to believe something, whether that something is true or not. A person does need to have sound reasoning to know something, that’s what the ‘justification’ is in the 'Justified True Belief" equation.
“Being a requirement for” and “being merely” are two different things. We agree that knowledge it not merely thinking something to be true. But that is a part of it. In order to know something, one of the criteria is that you think it is true. You cannot know 1+1=2 if you don’t think that 1+1=2. The ‘thinking that’ referred to is what is meant to ‘have a belief that’.
And also it has to be true. You can reason yourself to a position that is well understood and familiar to you, and also false. That’s not knowledge either.
Of course it isn’t. Just as the attitude of ‘seeing a fish’ and ‘seeing a shark’ isn’t necessarily the same within the mind. Imagine if you’re swimming in the ocean with a friend, and they point behind you and say “Oh look, a fish”. If it turns out that the fish in question was a great white shark, you may find yourself wishing that they said “Oh look, a shark!” instead. You might even think that they were being misleading, in a sense, for saying what they did. Nevertheless, sharks are fish. Yes, when you add justification and truth and warrant to get knowledge, you wind up with something that may be experientialy quite different from a ‘mere’ belief. This is acknowledged through the usage of the word ‘mere’; it doesn’t mean that knowledge isn’t a sort of belief.
Not just about accepting. You began this by talking about the idea of justified true belief being knowledge. There it is- the acknowledgement that in addition to belief there are at least two more criteria for something to be knowledge. You keep saying that knowledge is more than belief as if this is a revelation, when the mere statement ‘knowledge is justified true belief’ already acknowledges this.
I am interested in good arguments, not merely saying things because they will have a positive impact on society or whatever.
I am quite sure that epistemology as a field is not guilty of failing to examine belief and knowledge.
“Truth idea” in the above seems like a transparently desperate way to not say ‘belief’ in a place where everybody else would say it, despite you meaning the same thing. And yes, knowledge has a higher standard than mere belief or even true belief, that is what “Justified true belief” is alluding to.
Gettier gave examples of beliefs that were “justified” but justified how? To what criteria is this justification? Was it the same as knowledge? I think that epistemology is lacking in this arena - justification for what is belief and justification for what is knowledge. It is certainly ambiguous and I know of no real theory that sets forth to parse these. I mean, anybody can consider anything to be justified if they have low standards. So what are the standards and why?
Beliefs need to be understood to be beliefs, but that is rather redundant. They need not understand however, what they are believing. That is what separates knowledge from belief. You can believe 1+1=2, and have no idea why it is the case, but to know why, you must understand what 1+1=2, make sense?
Now being a requirement for and being merely are two different things, however, I contend that belief is mere… compared to knowledge. Again, keep in mind I am separating attitude from belief not only in justification, but also in attitude. Thinking 1+1=2 is rather ambiguous, is it believed or is it known? Thinking doesn’t imply either, it is just a general term in this case that really has no bearing on the matter at hand.
I contend that knowledge dose not have to be true. No part of the description of knowledge lays out a requirement for truth, as shown in my OP. Knowledge does not equal truth, truth is at times beyond knowledge. Do we know we live on earth? Yes. But do we know that is the truth? Perhaps not, there is a logical possibility that we are in the matrix. Not reasonable, however, but we are justified in stating we know we live on earth, in regards to the standard of what constitutes knowledge. We can contest it is true that we live on earth, regardless of that… however, we lack an objective all knowing eye and can only go off of the best probability based on the information we have. However, truth might be another thing to theorize on; Aristotle claims that knowledge must also be truth. However according to the SEP “Another possible avenue of resistance to the truth condition on knowledge derives from our apparent knowledge of false empirical theories. For example, it is intuitively plausible that Newtonian Physics is part of our overall scientific knowledge. But Newtonian Physics is false. So is it possible to know something false after all?” I contest that as we do not have an objective all knowing state of mind we cannot necessarily grasp truth even with knowledge, although most oft we probably can and do.
Knowledge as previously described being
“a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.
Knowledge can refer to a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); it can be more or less formal or systematic.[1] In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology; the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as “justified true belief”, though “well-justified true belief” is more complete as it accounts for the Gettier problems. However, several definitions of knowledge and theories to explain it exist.”
Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, communication, and reasoning; while knowledge is also said to be related to the capacity of acknowledgment in human beings"
Please note that this shows no indication here that truth is of a matter to knowledge. I do not wish this to be a linguistic matter strictly either, as there is good reason we should not constitute truth with knowledge, I think. Epistemology has classically considered truth to be a necessary condition, but the more we learn and correct our past experiences of “knowledge”, the less likely that seems viable. In fact, it may have never been viable and need not be a condition for knowledge, I attest.
We don’t lack an all knowing eye, We are the Eye (I) who is the Knower of the All.
We know it is the truth we live on Earth, because we defined Earth as the planet which we live on. Even if the Matrix was real, we would still be on the Planet Earth, just it would be a videogame Planet Earth. Planet Earth would exist, and be true. See the parable of the evil genius.
If our consciousness exited the Matrix, and the rendering of Planet Earth ceased, then we would no longer be living on planet Earth, but at one time, we would have been living on planet earth, which is true, and knowledge.
Your part seems to lie on…“How can we verify if other avatars are experiencing the same earth we are?” But the consensus of the sentience behind avatars, is not needed for truth, simply if one sentience sees it is true.
This deepens the topic into the question of spiritual memory - How can we know our memories actually did occur outside of our minds? Perhaps we are in the matrix and they are implanted memories - So there seems to be an essence of spiritual memory, the awareness that memories did infact happen. It doesnt matter if it is a videogame or not, the key thing is, can the memories predict future outcomes, inside that videogame?
If we lived in a reality with no constance of structure, or memory, the designation Planet Earth would not refer to a static globe, but perhaps a globe of changing colors and texture. If it was formless, Planet Earth would refer to chaos itself. And, if it was pure chaos, there would not be a word for Planet Earth, but only some sense of a feeling.
So, we must judge the validity of a memory experience by whether or not it can predict the future outcome inside that videogame. If planet Earth refers to an orange, and inside that reality, oranges don’t exist, then planet Earth is a false concept. For example, free will is a false concept, because it has no consistent definition only an illusion. So, if Newton Equations says it roughly predicts behavoirs of large piles of atoms, it is true. If Netwon is a vague definition that implies it predicts behavoirs of small or single atom units, it is false.
Knowledge serves us well and is always subjective, dynamic, flowing. It often points to the truth, it is very easily considered truth - but when knowledge is not, does that knowledge stop being knowledge, or does truth simply become elusive to knowledge? Who is the arbiter of that and why? Truth is said to be elusive in the physical, not necessarily the axiomatic logical or conceptual. If all of this is but the matrix, is our knowledge truth? No, it is not. But is it logically possible to be in the matrix? Yes, it is. Is it probable? I would say, no, but how do we know if we don’t have the full objective all knowing standpoint?
So why should knowledge suffer from truth, when it doesn’t necessarily matter. The more we learn about the world, the more elusive truth becomes to knowledge. So why consider knowledge as always truth? Perhaps we shouldn’t and perhaps it is good to separate belief, opinion, knowledge and truth in very justifiable, reasonable ways that allow for a better parsing of our thoughts, instead of muddying up everything as JTB does and most commonly contemporary epistemology philosophy. There we have no justification, no standards for belief or knowledge, no standard for truth. It’s time we lay down some viable framework that helps us all comprehend how we think and how we can think better. Justifiably, reasonably, better.
It would be truth. You would know how to navigate it and what the world is within the matrix realms.
If I am playing a videogame, and I am in a level, the level is the truth. If I am on drugs, and my consciousness merges into the game, the level is the truth. If I snap out of it, and am not on drugs, and know I am outside of the game, the level is still the truth.
You already suspect Earth is a simulation, so popping out of it should be no suprise. The Earth is still the truth, only you know how to navigate it better, and if the Matrix exits, you have the ability to see the underlying code of the Earth, which is a different truth. Still, the Earth in of itself is a complete truth, just as a videogame polygon is a complete and self sufficient truth.
Like, I’d still know how to move in the level and so my knowledge would still have relevance within the context of the game, and be true. If I stepped out of the game I could see the game code and I would have access to more power, but the prior knowledge of the experience of the game would even still be relevant at that scale.
If we have a belief, our mind has generated for us something to see, which is of course a knowledge.
So belief is a type of knowledge. It is like a wispy version of knowledge. We know for a fact that gravity exists. But we do not know for a fact that gravity will continue to exist. So, any knowledge that is a mental extrapolation of future events, is automatically a belief. Some beliefs are better than others. So they call it knowledge, when in fact is just a belief that has a high probability of occuring. The idea that gravity will occur 100 years from now, is not a knowledge, but a belief. But people make the error of calling it knowledge.
I don’t think you can hold a maintainable discussion - the matrix isn’t the truth consideration, the earth is. Let it be known, that I am not willing to muddy up this thread with this level any further. For that I will no longer respond to these types of illogically flowing sentiments and should have not responded to begin with, but oh well, this is a public forum.
Well, I think you are an unenlightened idiot, and we shall leave it at that. Go to bed, think about it for several days, and what i said should eventually make sense to you.
Evidence, reason, the absence of an apparent defeater. The usual things.
No, mere justified belief isn’t knowledge. The point of the Gettier paper was to show that mere justified true believe isn’t knowledge either.
Rationalism, empiricism, coherentism, classical foundationalism all seek to answer questions like this.
Are you asking me to give you a history of the field of epistemology, or just outline my favorite theory?
1+1=2 is a bad example because it’s commonly held to be self-evident. The difference between ‘know’ and ‘know why’ is blurry or non-existent with a priori truths. But yes, in general, you can believe something without understanding the reasons why it is the case, and knowledge would probably require understanding why something is the case- that would be justification.
Insofar as this makes sense, I don’t think anybody disagrees with you. Having a belief is a mere component, a single criteria of several, for knowledge.
Well, then you’re using the word ‘knowledge’ in a way that nobody else but you is using it.
Look, you can use words how ever you want. You can say that knowledge isn’t a kind of belief, it’s some other thing. You can say that some false beliefs (oops, some false thingies) are knowledge if you want to. None of this is an argument for a position.
Well, considering the standard definition of knowledge is justified true belief (plus a widget to solve Gettier problems), that’s transparently false. Again, you haven’t shown anything except a desire to use common terms in creative ways.
Of course we do. Knowing something and knowing that the something is true are the same thing. What you meant to ask was “Can we know that something is the truth and be wrong”, and the answer to that question is no, since knowledge is justified true belief.
Earlier in your post you made it appear as if you were skeptical of the idea of ‘justification’, didn’t know what it was, thought the standards were obtuse, and wanted me to describe them to you. Here you seem to know what justification is.
None of this has anything to do with knowledge being a type of belief, which it is. It just depends on if you’re willing to call things that aren’t immune to Cartesian doubt ‘knowledge’ or not.
It can also refer to justified true belief. The fact that a word can be used in multiple ways is not an argument that one of those ways is invalid.
Knowledge being ‘well-justified true belief’ shows no indication that truth is a matter to knowledge? Now I have to ask if this is some kind of joke.
OK, so knowledge isn’t a belief and it isn’t necessarily true either. It may be time to consider that you are making up a completely new thing, and you should seek a word for this thing you are making up, instead of abusing the word ‘knowledge’ which has a fairly standard and useful definition. Maybe file this ‘it’s not a belief and it’s not necessarily true’ thing that you want to call knowledge off as intuition or understanding or some other word.
I disagree, knowledge is rooted in understanding, belief is rooted in thinking something is true, its an attitude. Knowledge is more than just an attitude, it is understanding of the matter at hand. In fact, the attitude is the least important aspect of knowledge; that being the attitude of thinking it is true, or of certainty.
I disagree, because “understanding” and “thinking something is true” are processes that belong to the same root(s). Animals with a primitive (not complex enough) brain do not distinguish between “understanding” and “thinking something is true”. You need to have a well enough working complex brain in order to distinguish between “understanding” and “thinking something is true”.
Evidence can be anything, reason sure but what standard? That doesn’t really answer a question. It seems there needs to be a standard. My question “was it the same as knowledge” is was the justification the same criteria as knowledge as I defined it? A more complex manner. However the process Gettier used would have some intricacies that I would need clarification on - do you know where I can find that?
As I understand it, Gettier showed that some justified belief is knowledge, essentially, but not all. I do not agree with that conclusion, but was enough to disprove JTB nonetheless.
I would ask if you can give me your favorite theory on the justifications and standards for what constitutes knowledge - I would certainly appreciate that. However I would rather it not be a personal philosophy - but if that is all you have I will take that as well. Thank you~ I would also be interested in theories on justifications for what constitutes belief, opinion and truth if you know of them.
Rationalism, empiricism, coherentism are all very myopic I would say compared to what I propose here. Correct me if you see it otherwise. They only take aspects of knowledge, not an entire foundation for a standard of what is knowledge. Foundationalism itself is based on JTB as well so is rather… meh.
I don’t agree that belief is a mere component of knowledge as I have already explained. I would rather understand how belief is a component of knowledge aside from what I already shown and attempted refutation on in my greater OP. I parsed belief and knowledge apart - noting that attitude of certainty was not sufficient enough to consider knowledge a component of belief, or vice versa. There may be differences in attitude of certainty nonetheless in knowledge and belief. So that something that is known doesn’t really have the same attitude of certainty as something that is believed, in any case. It’s possible that the mind itself may separate knowledge and belief at least at an unconscious level, that is if the mind is healthy and functioning logically.
Contending that knowledge isn’t always true isn’t a way that nobody else uses it. In this very board I’ve already seen this sentiment that knowledge is not truth. You can see it anywhere online as well,
There is legitimate reason to consider that as well. Even the definition of knowledge that was presented has no requirement of truth. It isn’t even implied. So no, I don’t agree that everyone uses or views knowledge as necessarily the truth. However then you argue that knowledge is true belief after already noting that Gettier refuted it, to make it seem like there is truth aspect to it. Which is it, knowledge is JTB or it isn’t? Or is it simply Justified Truth now? You’re not being very clear and consistent here.
I do have a standard of justification. I would have to present a theory on justification of knowledge, truth, belief and opinion however. Simply because the field epistemology doesn’t have clear standards or comprehensive standards, but rather myopic and if not vague standards, it does not mean that I don’t value justification of knowledge, truth, belief or opinion and have a model. Some of which that model has already been presented. I am not sure where you have refuted what I stated in the OP other than providing varying philosophy that isn’t what I stated. The field seems ripe for the picking on this matter.
You claiming knowledge to be a type of belief, which it is, is merely a claim of course. What reason is it a type of belief that refutes what I have stated in the OP?
Now finally - you are misunderstanding what I am stating here:
“It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); it can be more or less formal or systematic.[1] In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology; the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as “justified true belief”, though “well-justified true belief” is more complete as it accounts for the Gettier problems. However, several definitions of knowledge and theories to explain it exist.”
Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, communication, and reasoning; while knowledge is also said to be related to the capacity of acknowledgment in human beings"
Please note that this shows no indication here that truth is of a matter to knowledge."
When you responded:
"Knowledge being ‘well-justified true belief’ shows no indication that truth is a matter to knowledge? Now I have to ask if this is some kind of joke. "
We already got beyond knowledge being justified true belief. But yet again you come back to it as if its viable. Again, I am seeing a lack of consistency on your end. I contend that knowledge is justified in a certain ways through the definition I provided, and please note that definition is not Justified true belief
Thinking something is true is not a similar process as understanding something to be true. Perhaps in your mind it is though? Perhaps in my mind it is not. How can we know? Interesting thought there.
On Animals and very young children - how do you know they don’t? What if they do? Perhaps it is a matter of a well enough working complex brain to distinguish, but perhaps they just can’t communicate it either. Is this whole matter only justifiable for my brain? Does everyone need to parse knowledge, belief, opinion and truth their own way or can we get a reasonable generalization, and if so why not the one I am proposing in its infancy?
I would not, but you can. I will then compete against you. Please note I would thoroughly destroy that sentiment, as would Uccisore, as would any known philosopher or thinker of the history of civilization perhaps. I may even raise you up to think you are worthy of a challenge, or at least motivate you to challenge, only to destroy you like a little peon fly that you are. Of course, I jest, or do I? In honor of your post, I reply apropos
"More the knowledge lesser the ego, lesser the knowledge more the ego.” - Albert Einstein
There is much truth to that sentiment. I would contest while it can be generally true, it isn’t necessarily true. I think it can lead to confidence as very related to ego, yet knowledge certainly builds confidence.
In dealing with complex matters, such as what myself and Uccisore are discussing here, our ego can and might have already gotten in the way of some things. I’m not sure if I am at fault of if he is. Its possible none of us are. But there is frustration when lack of understanding each other occurs - and if there isn’t a good way to fully explain onself to another based on lack of knowledge or understanding, ego can and oft does get in the way of noble intellectual discussion.
