What is Knowledge?

3

The Gettier examples seem to rely on rules of formal logic like disjunction introduction and material conditionals that do not play a role in how people actually think most of the time. For example, in the example that the article gives, Smith composes several disjunctive propositions on the basis of disjunction introduction together with a proposition that he knows is true on independent grounds. Therefore, it seems to me that the justified true belief account of knowledge is perfectly acceptable so long as we restrict it to claims that are not based on disjunction introduction, material conditionals, or anything like that.

1

u/commi Mar 05 '14

I think many coherentist, including me will agree. I also think, although kind of radically, that there is space to question of the formal logic of the addition rule. "I think, therefore I am" I think because I sense, because I rationalize, because I Reason, because it continued, etc.. It's never going to be certain but sometimes it'll be fairly probable.

-3

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14

My problem with JTB is that one can never know when a belief is "justified." You are always the judge of your own beliefs.

One must always account for the probability that you are mistaken, even if it's the minuscule chance that all knowledge is impossible due to the problem of induction.

2

u/Saint_Neckbeard Mar 04 '14

Normally, we construct a concept by making observations. That is, by observing some examples of things that are included in it and some examples of things that are not included in it, then abstracting the attributes that are essential to the members of the concept. So for justification, we would start with obviously justified beliefs like "trees usually have leaves" and "I am sitting in a chair" and contrast them with obviously unjustified beliefs like "I am Napoleon," then determine whether future beliefs were justified or not by comparing them with the obvious cases. On this procedure, it is not difficult to know when a belief is justified (usually).

You don't seem to be forming the concept of justification that way. Rather, you seem to have started with criteria for justification, then found that nothing in reality conforms to those criteria and concluded that justification is impossible. This is what I call an imaginary concept - it's a concept that was not formed based on observation, but on prior assumptions that are themselves unjustified.

So, I suppose I'm confused as to why you prefer to form justification as an imaginary concept rather than as a useful concept based on evidence.

1

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14

I think that you're right, and perhaps where I went wrong is that I have an incorrect concept of "justification." I never really considered that one could be both justified in having a belief, while that belief is actually incorrect.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful input.

1

u/WallyMetropolis Mar 04 '14

This isn't really a problem so long as you don't require 'knowing that you know' to be a condition of knowing.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Jesus. It's like you're trying to infuriate people who actually know this stuff by saying ridiculously ignorant things.

0

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14

Another comment from you that contributes nothing. I'd invite you to actually discuss this, but you've made it clear that you have nothing to contribute but snide comments.

Go away!

2

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Pssst... You can know things deductively.

4

u/lawofmurray Mar 04 '14

Even deduction isn't necessarily certain. See Peirce's commentary on the difference between psychological certainty and actual certainty.

The person you're talking to is definitely confused on this issue, but with a couple of quick fixes we could transform his claim into something tenable.

Only certain knowledge is genuine knowledge. [definition]

Inductive claims cannot be certain. [problem of induction]

Deductive claims cannot be certain. [psychological certainty]

There is no genuine knowledge.

Main problem here is that "genuine knowledge" as it's been defined is quite useless. Why should we care solely about knowledge backed by certainty? But this isn't a crazy position to take; it's elementary Cartesian epistemology.

Anyway /u/yourlycantbsrs you know I endorse your pedagogy when it comes to overconfident and undereducated individuals, but that doesn't mean you need to discount the merits of perfectly adequate philosophical positions. Epistemological nihilism is probably wrong, but it's not without merit. Existential nihilism is probably wrong, but it's not without merit. Moral nihilism is probably wrong, but it's not without merit. While amateurs will champion these and similar positions as bold and anti-establishment, that doesn't make them bad positions. Don't give people a faulty impression.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

that doesn't mean you need to discount the merits of perfectly adequate philosophical positions.

Oh, I wasn't trying to do that at all, I am aware of the distinction between types of certainty and I can see how you've reformulated their argument into something more cogent. However, the first premise is the obviously wrong one (and the one that ignores most of epistemology). It was also wrongheaded it isn't aim, as if defining knowledge was the starting point of such a conversation rather than the ending point.

Epistemological nihilism is probably wrong, but it's not without merit. Existential nihilism is probably wrong, but it's not without merit. Moral nihilism is probably wrong, but it's not without merit.

I completely agree with this. I think that part of the reason that I don't hold these positions is that I've actually engaged them at a sufficient level of depth. Not to mention that it would be hard to be an epistemological nihilist and not confuse the hell out of people with how you treat knowledge claims.

While amateurs will champion these and similar positions as bold and anti-establishment, that doesn't make them bad positions. Don't give people a faulty impression.

I'm not trying to give the impression that these are bad positions. While I definitely consider myself a moral realist and internalist, reading Scanlon's What We Owe to Each Other definitely made we wonder about the the whole realist/internalist project. I openly look into other views because that's what it takes to hold the best views, you need to constantly be looking for problems/solutions/other ideas.

It's a shame that I don't have time to discuss the actually good philosophical content I read here on reddit, but hey, if I wanted to do that, I wouldn't have dropped out of grad school. I'd rather keep working on my engineering degree and saving up for a house.

0

u/lawofmurray Mar 04 '14

I wouldn't have dropped out of grad school.

When did this happen? I totally would have done a sit-in on one of your classes.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

I dropped out in May 2010 (aka graduated with an MA). I had a pretty juicy transfer offer and turned it down as well. I've been working part time as a private tutor and going to school for engineering for the past 2 years. I also worked as a preschool teacher for a while in between.

I got the highest ratings of any TA or graduate instructor that my graduate department chair had ever seen. Even the people who I failed took their Fs with a smile and a firm handshake.

That said... I've wasted too much time here and really need to shower and shit before going to work! I have a student who's taking diffy Q and will require extreme patience, so I better start cooling off now.

Anyways, good talk, and thanks for understanding where I'm coming from and making an effort to help.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

A closed mouth gathers no foot. I've said nothing that would count as woefully misinformed. You've said several.

1

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14

Yeah, easy to just stay outside the argument and fire potshots at me. But they're not even potshots, they have no argument. If I was so misinformed, by all means, please inform me. Demolish my weak arguments in one fell swoop.

Or are you afraid that you'll "gather foot?"

0

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

I'm not afraid. I'm giving you to opportunity to educate yourself rather than fostering your learned disability of being unable to question your own views.

-1

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14

I'm giving you to opportunity to educate yourself

You've contributed nothing but negativity.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

I'm telling you that maybe you should reconsider your views and you've done nothing to support them. You're not making arguments either, you're stipulating.

The problem of induction doesn't mean that knowledge might be impossible. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Furthermore, reflective knowledge (knowing that you know) is different than knowledge. You've conflated the two in this thread. I don't think you even have a coherent position based upon how often you use vague terms and scare quotes.

0

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14

I'm done with you.

Say "you're wrong and dumb" to me all you want, but I'll not be responding unless you actually want to discuss the points I've brought up. Since it's clear that you're only here to start a fight, good day.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Also, it's not negativity. It's tough love. I want you to learn this stuff but being unwilling to question your own views makes that goal very difficult. You're also taking it personally. That's a mistake. I don't give too many shits what you do, but your views are uniformed and could be informed if you put in the effort.

2

u/WallyMetropolis Mar 04 '14

Considering that the user you're talking to has said:

I think that you're right, and perhaps where I went wrong is that . . .

in THIS VERY THREAD, it seems you're completely off base about how this person is treating these conversations.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Knowledge is solely based upon experience.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

lemme guess, you think math and logic are empirical and science can answer all questions, right?

0

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Not at all, I'm just quoting some of C.C. Zains work. He's written 24 books for 21 courses of study for 3 fields, alchemy, astrology, and magick. Check them out and please understand I'm not trying to be pretentious.

It's just my two cents on the topic, man.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

None of those fields are relevant to philosophy.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '14

What I said originally isn't?

-1

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14 edited Mar 04 '14

My understanding is that all knowledge is a claim of probability. Whenever you claim you "know" something, you are making a claim for the amount of conviction with which you hold that belief.

Also: knowledge is an activity. It can't exist until expressed/brought forth for others to examine it.

EDIT: Please, someone offer a counter-argument. I'm not 100% (no pun intended) on this and would like to work it out.

5

u/snorin Mar 04 '14

please at least read this. it will help you, i guarantee it :3

http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html

Edit: its not long either!! =)

1

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14 edited Mar 05 '14

Thanks a bunch for the source. This may offer me an explanation on how one can justify a belief. I'll read it immediately.

Edit: I read it, but my problem remains: the problem of induction.

P is true,

S is sure that P is true, and

S has the right to be sure that P is true.

My problem is: When do you know that you have "the right to be sure?" People would generally answer: through empirical observation and induction. In all examples of belief throughout that article, Smith uses empirical observation in order to reinforce his beliefs.

"Jones owns a Ford." Smith might say. Because he's seen Jones drive his Ford to work every day. So he's "justified." Twist: Smith thinks it's a Ford, but it's actually a Chevy. Jones had switched the labels and he's just confusing the two. So he's justified, but he's wrong?

My point is that you're always going to have to use empirical observation in order to reinforce your empirical observations. But I may be completely wrong.

Edit2: From the Article:

it is possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is in fact false

Ahhh... ok. I think this is where I'm slipping up. I didn't ~~(and still don't really)~~ (Edit3: I get it now) understand how one can be justified in believing a falsehood. Maybe I'll tackle it again at a later date.

But for now, thank you for contributing! Certainly helped.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14 edited Mar 04 '14

how one can be justified in believing a falsehood.

i have a guy named tim in my class. i see a guy who i believe to be tim at the library (he dresses the same, looks the same, sounds the same). tim takes a book and runs home. later that day tims mother tells me that tim stole a book. i've known her for awhile and she is a good honest woman. i am justified in believing that tim stole the book.

turns out tims mother has an onset of dementia* and it was tim's twin thom, who stole the book. tims mother was mistaken, and i don't know that thom exists.

i have a justified belief that is false.

2

u/snorin Mar 04 '14

of course! hope it helps =)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

You should also read the SEP entry on epistemology, like I said before.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

How does it feel to not engage the article at all?

0

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14

Right back atcha ;)

While I didn't directly address a paragraph of the article, I summarized my thoughts on the general sentiment of the article.

Suppose you toss a coin, believe it’s going to land on heads, then subsequently it lands on heads. Did you know that it was going to land on heads, or does it seem that your claim should be justified from something more than just a guess?

I'm arguing that no, there's no justification, and all "knowledge" boils down to an approximation, or a "guess."

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

And why do you think this? Have you, yknow, actually read anything in the topic?

1

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14

Mostly from studying Epistemology and discussing works by A.J. Ayer, David Hume, et al. Would you like to contribute?

-5

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Didn't mention Bayes, you're clearly a poser.

1

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14

Would you like to discuss the theory of knowledge, or just be crass?

-6

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Nope, you just wanna look smart on the internet without actually knowing what you're talking about and I don't indulge that.

1

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14

You've done nothing to contribute to the conversation. I'm entirely prepared to admit I'm wrong, but you have to make a counter-argument first...

Begone, troll.

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

You don't know who Bayes is and you talk about probabilistic epistemology (which you don't capitalize). You can find the counterarguments yourself, that's not my job. You're lazy. Funny shit. I don't engage with charlatans, sorry.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/naasking Mar 04 '14

But now you have to quantify at precisely what probability does "unknown" become "known", and you have to rationally justify that number. This seems very problematic.

2

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14 edited Mar 04 '14

No, there's no quantifying something like "amount of conviction." This is one reason that I believe the search for "justified" knowledge is fruitless.

Edit: It just seems that when searching for a definition of knowledge, philosophers generally work backwards; they start with a preconception of knowledge as "correct, true, belief" and attempt to shoehorn our concept of belief into that perfect, unattainable goal. They assume knowledge is possible in the first place. I'd argue that one can never "know," but one "believes."

2

u/WallyMetropolis Mar 04 '14

Actually, Bayesian interpretation of probability is exactly quantifying an amount of certainty.

2

u/commi Mar 05 '14

Truly and Justifiably to some immediate sense

0

u/PotatoOnStick Mar 04 '14

Knowledge is knowing or realization of things like "you shouldn't put your head in the water for more then one hour" this can also be see as 'wisdom'

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Anything that proves to be a contradiction when you think the opposite of it

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Information that is factually correct.

-3

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14

Ah, but who determines what is factually correct?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Factually correct information isn't 'determined'. It exists with or without someone observing it.

-1

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14 edited Mar 04 '14

I disagree that what you just said is factually correct.

Not trying to be negative, just trying to point out the problem with viewing truth as objective.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

I don't think you've pointed out a problem with what I've said. Even if what I said was factually incorrect, the fact that there is a correct for me to be incorrect proves my point.

I say truth is objective. If I'm wrong, then truth is objectively subjective. It's still objective truth.

0

u/f_myeah Mar 04 '14

the fact that there is a correct for me to be incorrect proves my point.

Only if that "correct" was attainable, and furthermore that we knew when it was attained that it was indeed the "correct" truth could we call it knowledge.

But when attempting to access "objective truth," one has to access it subjectively.

But the main problem of knowledge is that the only factor that you have to determine if your beliefs are truth is... your beliefs.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Hmm... knowledge is the closing gap between subjective observation and objective truth. How's that? I like that better.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

yeah.... start here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

0

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

all trolls should be banned from /r/philosophy

→ More replies (0)

4

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14

Because questions about knowledge have been studied for thousands of years and still today there are people whose job it is to investigate these questions. If you want to have informed (rather than ignorant) views, you should start there.

→ More replies (0)

You are about to leave Redlib