(March 19, 2017 at 6:41 am)Stimbo Wrote:(March 18, 2017 at 5:11 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: No wonder you're so confused.
What we honestly believe is merely what we honestly believe.
To know something we must not only honestly believe it but it must also be true, it must be justifiably true and we must not merely have the knowledge by accident (the Gettier problem).
Justified true belief that one is lucidly aware of=knowledge, IMO.
It would also be demonstrable, at least to a certain extent. I could say I believe Miss Anne Other loves me and I might be justified in that, but I couldn't say with any safety that I know it unless she gave me some indication that she does in fact love me. The interesting bit is she could be lying to me right down the line and my perception would still be justified.
You would be justified in thinking that you perceived what you thought you perceived. But that's the same thing as honest belief which is the same thing as belief. You would not be justified that it was true in reality unless you really had knowledge that she in fact did love you.
Of course if the evidence can't distinguish between her lying and not lying then it's not really a testable claim. There would have to be some way to know when she was and wasn't lying otherwise it's just guesswork and certainly not knowledge.
Like does she have any tells?
Is she good at poker?
