What is knowledge?

The traditional definition in Western philosophy (following Socrates) has been "justified true belief". Should we accept this basic definition? If we should, what makes a belief "justified"?

Logikos

Knowledge is the assumption we are right. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Note, knowing a thing does not make one correct.

Relative knowledge, sure, but I think we were talking about absolute (or just knowledge as a general thing) knowledge here.

The "justified true belief" argument is fine for most forms of knowledge, but it has a flaws, as shown by Edmund Gettier:

Quote:Smith has applied for a job, but, it is claimed, has a justified belief that "Jones will get the job". He also has a justified belief that "Jones has 10 coins in his pocket". Smith therefore (justifiably) concludes (by the rule of the transitivity of identity) that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket".
In fact, Jones does not get the job. Instead, Smith does. However, as it happens, Smith (unknowingly and by sheer chance) also had 10 coins in his pocket. So his belief that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket" was justified and true. But it does not appear to be knowledge.

(April 25, 2010 at 10:52 am)Tiberius Wrote: Relative knowledge, sure, but I think we were talking about absolute (or just knowledge as a general thing) knowledge here.

The "justified true belief" argument is fine for most forms of knowledge, but it has a flaws, as shown by Edmund Gettier:

Quote:Smith has applied for a job, but, it is claimed, has a justified belief that "Jones will get the job". He also has a justified belief that "Jones has 10 coins in his pocket". Smith therefore (justifiably) concludes (by the rule of the transitivity of identity) that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket".
In fact, Jones does not get the job. Instead, Smith does. However, as it happens, Smith (unknowingly and by sheer chance) also had 10 coins in his pocket. So his belief that "the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket" was justified and true. But it does not appear to be knowledge.

Yeah, the Gettier cases are interesting, but I've always found them a bit suspicious. E.g. in this example, how are Smith's initial beliefs justified? We're not told. Why should we conclude that JTB is not a sufficient set of criteria, rather than concluding that in fact Smith wasn't justified in believing that "Jones will get the job"? Perhaps Smith needed stronger criteria for holding a belief about a future contingent event.

Well those things don't matter for the example. You can come up with numerous answers to them. For instance:

- Smith knew Jones at school, and Jones was always getting better grades.
- Jones is the son of the boss.
- Jones has a more detailed CV, and has more experience.

As for the belief that Jones has 10 coins in his pocket, there are numerous answers to that.

- Jones told Smith he only had 10 coins, and Jones is a trustworthy guy.
- Jones emptied his pockets looking for something, and Smith counted the coins.
- Jones exchanged the only money he had (a £1 coin) for 10 10p coins that Smith had.

All the above beliefs are justified, and indeed, justifying the belief isn't the problem here. It's when a justified belief is true yet is not knowledge.

(April 25, 2010 at 7:54 am)Saerules Wrote: Knowledge is the assumption we are right. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Note, knowing a thing does not make one correct.

Surely that is a reasonable assumption?

(April 26, 2010 at 3:55 am)Fluké Wrote:

(April 25, 2010 at 7:54 am)Saerules Wrote: Knowledge is the assumption we are right. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Note, knowing a thing does not make one correct.

Surely that is a reasonable assumption?

I would think so, yes

I am an existential nihilist... and as such:

(April 26, 2010 at 6:03 am)Saerules Wrote:

(April 26, 2010 at 3:55 am)Fluké Wrote:

(April 25, 2010 at 7:54 am)Saerules Wrote: Knowledge is the assumption we are right. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Note, knowing a thing does not make one correct.

Surely that is a reasonable assumption?

I would think so, yes

I am an existential nihilist... and as such:

I once debated with someone who was trying to assert that everything requires faith and knowledge isn't truth. Which is sort of true. But in order to argue this, you have to dispose of our understanding or reality.

He was trying to show how faith is a reasonable position, which I disagreed.

It makes an interesting debate subject, but it gets very baffling at times.

Quote:I once debated with someone who was trying to assert that everything requires faith and knowledge isn't truth. Which is sort of true. But in order to argue this, you have to dispose of our understanding or reality.

A claim to knowledge is a faith position Knowledge is also not necessarily true

Our understanding of reality is probably fine However, if we are not somewhat humble about our knowledge, all we have become is arrogant.

Faith is a reasonable position inherently. If I do not have faith that our orbit around the sun and revolutions will continue every day... then I've got precious little to count on, and am easy prey for death and suffering.

Not so baffling IMO... http://atheistforums.org/thread-2934.html for example.

(April 26, 2010 at 6:30 am)Saerules Wrote: Faith is a reasonable position inherently.

Belief that lacks evidence is reasonable?! :S

Quote: If I do not have faith that our orbit around the sun and revolutions will continue every day... then I've got precious little to count on, and am easy prey for death and suffering.

There's plenty of evidence for that of course... so you are not having faith by believing it. It certainly doesn't lack evidence.

EvF