Knowledge

[fast]

The necessary conditions of knowledge are either met or they're not. Whether we know they're met has no bearing on whether they're met. Suppose we have a justified belief. We need not know that the justified belief is true in order to know what we justifiably believe--so long as the justifiable belief is ACTUALLY true, so even though we're POSSIBLY mistaken (since we don't know if the justifiable belief is true), we still nevertheless know what we justifiably believe.

 

[Perspicuo]

Meaningless. Unless you define what you mean by 'knowledge', 'justified', 'justifiable', 'mistaken', 'believe', 'possibly', but especially, 'necessary conditions of knowledge' so that we may know when we have "met" them.

Welcome to philosophy. You may want to contact a mental health professional afterwards.

 

[fast]

Meaningless. Unless you define what you mean by 'knowledge', 'justified', 'justifiable', 'mistaken', 'believe', 'possibly', but especially, 'necessary conditions of knowledge' so that we may know when we have "met" them.

Welcome to philosophy. You may want to contact a mental health professional afterwards.

Have you never heard of the JTB Theory [an analysis] of Knowledge?

I don't define terms. Lexical meanings already exist.

Maybe an example would be beneficial. I saw a cat run into a room, but I can no longer see the cat.

1) do I believe the cat is in the room? Yes.

2) am I justified in believing the cat is in the room? Yes, I was in the room before and never noticed a possible avenue for escape, as there were no other doors and the window was closed; besides, the cat has never escaped from the room before.

3) is it true that the cat is in the room? Might be

Do I know the cat is in the room? The answer depends. I do if all three conditions are met. Let's say conditions one and two are met and not in dispute. It's possible the cat escaped through the window after a ball knocked a hole in it, but I never knew anything about such a thing happening, but it does go to show that I might be mistaken if I claim to know the cat is in the room, but my point is that my possibly being mistaken has no bearing on whether I know the cat is in the room. If the cat is in the room, then all three necessary conditions are met even though I'm possibly (but not actually) mistaken.

 

[Perspicuo]

A proper OP defines its terms. You don't have to overtly do it, you can say, "the terms I use I employ them as defined by [particular author or theory or area of science]".

If someone responds "I am not familiar with x theory/author", it is attentive to give a reference, more so if it is a URL.


BTW,
JTF mentioned plain, is hardly/barely a theory. Perhaps if you're more precise by means of a modern author, so we know we're on the same page?

 

[fast]

A proper OP defines its terms. You don't have to overtly do it, you can say, "the terms I use I employ them as defined by [particular author or theory or area of science]".

If someone responds "I am not familiar with x theory/author", it is attentive to give a reference, more so if it is a URL.


BTW,
JTF mentioned plain, is hardly/barely a theory. Perhaps if you're more precise by means of a modern author, so we know we're on the same page?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

 

[arkirk]

A proper OP defines its terms. You don't have to overtly do it, you can say, "the terms I use I employ them as defined by [particular author or theory or area of science]".

If someone responds "I am not familiar with x theory/author", it is attentive to give a reference, more so if it is a URL.


BTW,
JTF mentioned plain, is hardly/barely a theory. Perhaps if you're more precise by means of a modern author, so we know we're on the same page?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

That link led to a sequence of broken English sentences. That engaged in circular logic. If you can accept that S knows that p and not this P. I think Plato always had trouble with knowledge, living primarily in the "world of forms" an imagined ideal place where ideas had their own perfect and pure reality irrespective of anything in the imperfect world of things. Such thinking tends to make us less attentive to things that are real and in some cases license a kind of authoritarian rebuke of our experience of things. If things tend to match up with preconceived notions, then they are good. If they violate our preconceived ideas of how thing "ought to be" then we consider them bad and horribly flawed. I think Plato himself was a candidate for the errant Psychiatrist's services.

 

[Rilx]

I've posted this on another forum, some wordings may seem strange here.

Over time I've adopted the "justified true belief" as my definition for knowledge. I'm completely satisfied with it, but, of course, it's just a shortcut to the factual definition.

First, the nature of knowledge is to be knowledge of something. It is a description of something and can never be completely that something: the map is not the territory. Therefore, no absolute knowledge exists; at its very best it's only a belief.

True refers to the correspondence theory of truth. Knowledge is a description of a state of affairs; if the description corresponds the state of affairs (which may include other descriptions), we say that the description is true.

Justified refers to the coherence theory of truth. If a new description is ambiguous or contradictory with other descriptions which our worldview consists of, some of them need to be changed. If the new description is coherent with our existing worldview, it becomes justified by the coherence.

I'm emphasizing that correspondence and coherence are the two necessary dimensions of knowledge.

 

[fast]

Edited out

 

[Juma]

Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed and a totally useless concept in most discourses. Justified belief is enough. All that goobliwok about "truth" should be left behind.

 

[fromderinside]

Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed and a totally useless concept in most discourses. Justified belief is enough. All that goobliwok about "truth" should be left behind.

Ok. Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed. If one only uses one's mind and the information it has it may be that justified true belief may be the only recourse for that mind. However if that mind has the power to observe and test JTB becomes largely irrelevant since new information is possible which can remove that which JTB is used to resolve.

 

[Juma]

Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed and a totally useless concept in most discourses. Justified belief is enough. All that goobliwok about "truth" should be left behind.

Ok. Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed. If one only uses one's mind and the information it has it may be that justified true belief may be the only recourse for that mind. However if that mind has the power to observe and test JTB becomes largely irrelevant since new information is possible which can remove that which JTB is used to resolve.

No, the result of the test is just another justified belief. (And ditch the "truth" from JTB, it doesnt add anything useful)

 

[fast]

Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed and a totally useless concept in most discourses. Justified belief is enough. All that goobliwok about "truth" should be left behind.

Ok. Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed. If one only uses one's mind and the information it has it may be that justified true belief may be the only recourse for that mind. However if that mind has the power to observe and test JTB becomes largely irrelevant since new information is possible which can remove that which JTB is used to resolve.

No, the result of the test is just another justified belief. (And ditch the "truth" from JTB, it doesnt add anything useful)

If what we're justified in believing happens to be false, then we shouldn't say we have knowledge of what we're justified in believing.

 

[Juma]

Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed and a totally useless concept in most discourses. Justified belief is enough. All that goobliwok about "truth" should be left behind.

Ok. Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed. If one only uses one's mind and the information it has it may be that justified true belief may be the only recourse for that mind. However if that mind has the power to observe and test JTB becomes largely irrelevant since new information is possible which can remove that which JTB is used to resolve.

No, the result of the test is just another justified belief. (And ditch the "truth" from JTB, it doesnt add anything useful)

If what we're justified in believing happens to be false, then we shouldn't say we have knowledge of what we're justified in believing.

I think we should. Because if we would not allow any of our knowledge to be the tiniest bit of false then there would be no knowledge at all and knowlede would be a ridiciously useless concept.

 

[arkirk]

Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed and a totally useless concept in most discourses. Justified belief is enough. All that goobliwok about "truth" should be left behind.

Ok. Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed. If one only uses one's mind and the information it has it may be that justified true belief may be the only recourse for that mind. However if that mind has the power to observe and test JTB becomes largely irrelevant since new information is possible which can remove that which JTB is used to resolve.

No, the result of the test is just another justified belief. (And ditch the "truth" from JTB, it doesnt add anything useful)

If what we're justified in believing happens to be false, then we shouldn't say we have knowledge of what we're justified in believing.

Human language contains no guarantee of accuracy or objectivity. By learning the language we become privy to symbolic representation hence we become acquainted with and know the concept the false information would indicate. We have taken a verbal fiction as reality, though we may know many facets of a concept if we are clearly not informed whether this is reality or fiction we come to believe we are in possession of the truth...one the basis of our knowledge.

The error is in thinking we know something that is magically the truth. The problem with scientific experiments is that they can be interpreted to have diffent meanings to different people....regardless of what the numerical and measured results happen to be.

 

[PyramidHead]

What fast is describing is called externalism or process-reliabilism, I think. Theologians are fond of it because it lets them claim knowledge about things they don't actually know are true.

 

[Underseer]

I define knowledge as whatever my mechanical pencil (his name is George) tells me. Therefore, anything George tells me is absolute truth.

 

[fast]

Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed and a totally useless concept in most discourses. Justified belief is enough. All that goobliwok about "truth" should be left behind.

Ok. Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed. If one only uses one's mind and the information it has it may be that justified true belief may be the only recourse for that mind. However if that mind has the power to observe and test JTB becomes largely irrelevant since new information is possible which can remove that which JTB is used to resolve.

No, the result of the test is just another justified belief. (And ditch the "truth" from JTB, it doesnt add anything useful)

If what we're justified in believing happens to be false, then we shouldn't say we have knowledge of what we're justified in believing.

Human language contains no guarantee of accuracy or objectivity. By learning the language we become privy to symbolic representation hence we become acquainted with and know the concept the false information would indicate. We have taken a verbal fiction as reality, though we may know many facets of a concept if we are clearly not informed whether this is reality or fiction we come to believe we are in possession of the truth...one the basis of our knowledge.

The error is in thinking we know something that is magically the truth. The problem with scientific experiments is that they can be interpreted to have diffent meanings to different people....regardless of what the numerical and measured results happen to be.

If I know P, then P is true. That's one thing, and that's true. Here's another thing which isn't true: if I know P, then P must be true. That's false.

 

[fast]

Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed and a totally useless concept in most discourses. Justified belief is enough. All that goobliwok about "truth" should be left behind.

Ok. Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed. If one only uses one's mind and the information it has it may be that justified true belief may be the only recourse for that mind. However if that mind has the power to observe and test JTB becomes largely irrelevant since new information is possible which can remove that which JTB is used to resolve.

No, the result of the test is just another justified belief. (And ditch the "truth" from JTB, it doesnt add anything useful)

If what we're justified in believing happens to be false, then we shouldn't say we have knowledge of what we're justified in believing.

I think we should. Because if we would not allow any of our knowledge to be the tiniest bit of false then there would be no knowledge at all and knowlede would be a ridiciously useless concept.

We know things. Some of the things we think we know are in fact true. Granted, I can't be so certain that it's impossible to be mistaken when I think I know things, but that's okay, because there is no necessary condition that requires that I must be correct...only that I am.

 

[fromderinside]

Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed and a totally useless concept in most discourses. Justified belief is enough. All that goobliwok about "truth" should be left behind.

Ok. Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed. If one only uses one's mind and the information it has it may be that justified true belief may be the only recourse for that mind. However if that mind has the power to observe and test JTB becomes largely irrelevant since new information is possible which can remove that which JTB is used to resolve.

No, the result of the test is just another justified belief. (And ditch the "truth" from JTB, it doesnt add anything useful)

Actually results from a material test are objective data points which everyone can examine for themselves. It is the only useful thing. What resides in the mind is just that, stuff that resides within a single mind, of no use to anyone unless it corresponds to what actually exists at which time it becomes a personal data point. Material tests are public, repeatable, falsifiable.

Of course none of this is knowledge since I think we can all agree it is self evident one cannot know.

 

[fromderinside]

Which brings us to ....

Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed and a totally useless concept in most discourses. Justified belief is enough. All that goobliwok about "truth" should be left behind.

Ok. Knowledge is an abstract aspect of being informed. If one only uses one's mind and the information it has it may be that justified true belief may be the only recourse for that mind. However if that mind has the power to observe and test JTB becomes largely irrelevant since new information is possible which can remove that which JTB is used to resolve.

No, the result of the test is just another justified belief. (And ditch the "truth" from JTB, it doesnt add anything useful)

If what we're justified in believing happens to be false, then we shouldn't say we have knowledge of what we're justified in believing.

I think we should. Because if we would not allow any of our knowledge to be the tiniest bit of false then there would be no knowledge at all and knowlede would be a ridiciously useless concept.

We know things. Some of the things we think we know are in fact true. Granted, I can't be so certain that it's impossible to be mistaken when I think I know things, but that's okay, because there is no necessary condition that requires that I must be correct...only that I am.

As I just pointed out we don't know. With material evidence and a reasonable method we can build understanding, but, understandfing is only as good as what we understand here and now.