Knowledge and Belief

[Willamena]

I understand. JTB is a theoretical definition made up by philosophers to try and grasp at certainty. But in real life, people use the word belief most often to describe a truth which is both justifed and true. Why would a person believe something if he didn't consider it justified and true?

JTB just tries to assert that known things are 'true' exterior to the one who holds knowledge. That's my problem with it. It deceives people.

So it works much better to define knowledge as great personal psychological certainty. (The GPPC Theory of knowledge, concocted by yours truly.)

JTB says we don't believe things to be true without reason, and that a "justified" belief has a good, strong reason supporting it. Belief is upholding something as true; the significance difference between ordinary belief and JTB is that knowledge is something that is true.*

The problem with certainty is its taint of doubt that denies a thing its truth value. Imagine certainty as a thing floating around in the air. Everything it touches is tainted with a colour 'doubt' (doubt informs certainty). Even if the touch is the slightest and the shade of colour the palest, so pale it can't be seen with the eye, there is still doubt. Only those things certainty doesn't touch are untainted. Certainty and uncertainty are like a toggle ready to flip at a moment's notice--the toggle may be in an on or off position, but you still have introduced a toggle to the picture.

Tell me, is it true that there's certainty? I think it is. Are they the same thing? Not if it's possibly untrue that there's certainty, because in that case there's no certainty but there's still "true."

True wins every time.

It's not good enough for you, but it's perfectly justified and true for those who believe it. Do you acknowledge that? Or do you argue that no one can know that Jesus is Lord?

That's the fundamental question at the heart of JTB. How do we view other people's truth?

Ah, but something believed is "justified and true for those who believe it" because of JTB. The same discussion that gives us a definition for "knowledge" based on truth gives us the picture that suggests that "things that are believed are true." We don't believe false things, we abandon beliefs when they can no longer be seen as true. The moment we can no longer justify to ourselves that "Tuesday" is a good enough reason why "Jesus is the Lord," out the window that belief goes.

You're using JTB to argue against JTB.

It's a shortcut way of saying 'objectively and apart-from-human-opinion True.'

Substitute 'the universe' for 'God'. When you say that knowledge must be 'correct', are you saying that that universe agrees with
that correctness -- that it is objectively true?

Well, I no longer buy into all this 'exterior' and 'interior' stuff since reading up on Zen Buddhism. Suffice it to say that JTB doesn't require one to uphold 'exteriors', just truth. 'Exteriors' only complicate matters.


* All things, whether 'exterior' or not.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm confused. That's just what knowledge is, yes? A mental disposition toward a fact -- namely, that of accepting it as true? (And justified, of course, but all beliefs are obviously justifed or else the believer wouldn't hold them.)

A belief is a mental disposition towards a proposition (not a fact), and since knowledge is a sub-set of belief, as I've said repeatedly, it is also such a mental disposition- but not "just" that. It is a mental disposition towards a proposition- in particular, one that is true, or corresponds to a fact.

Thanks for the clear answer. Here's my problem. You agree that knowledge is a mental state of confidence wherein the known thing is justified and true. Now my question: In whose opinion must the known thing be justified and true?

Same confusion once again. It's not a question of whose opinion the thing is justified or true according to, but whether the thing is actually justified and true. Someone's opinion of whether a belief is justified and true is a belief about a belief (or about knowledge)- a meta-claim- or, the knowing that one knows bit you're systematically confusing with knowing. And can one ever know that a belief is "actually justified and true"? Perhaps not- but that is knowing that one knows, not knowing.

Seriously, how many times are you going to conflate what should be a somewhat simple distinction? Is the confusion intentional, or are you simply not grasping it?

In whose opinion must the known thing be justified and true? I say it's just each individual person's opinion, perhaps flavored with a bit of majority opinion.

If knowledge is "just each individual person's opinion", then someone could know that the Earth is flat, know that Martha Stewart is the President of the US, and know that 2+2=5; in other words, either we systematically misuse the word "know" in practice (since what you're claiming here is simply not how the word is used), or else it follows that there are no facts, that things are not a certain way- that, for instance, the Earth doesn't have any particular shape, so each person's opinion of its shape is equally valid as any other.

I understand it.

No, as you demonstrate once again, you don't. Everything you've argued here would apply to knowing that one knows, but not simply knowing.

Yes, I'm aware that you haven't said it. But it seems a necessary conclusion from the other things you've said.

Such as what, and why? It appears to have nothing to do with what I've said- and barring some argument from you to the contrary, let's call things that quack and waddle "ducks".

Both belief and knowledge are mental states of confidence held by some individual. It's the 'held by some individual' which bothers you, yes?

No, as I've said repeatedly, its the "mental state of confidence" bit which bothers me, because it isn't anything I've said, and on which I've explicitly corrected you.

You want to believe that knowledge can be objectively true, don't you?

"Objectively true" is redundant.

It's that magical thinking which I'm here to argue against.

Curious, then, that you've neither specified what, if anything, is "magical", nor have you argued against it.

Who knows. I happen to disagree with her knowledge in this particular case, tentatively, but I'm open to new information about the earth's shape.

So, the Earth does have some shape or other after all?

That question perplexes me. My whole mission here is to argue that any and all of us could be mistaken about anything, anytime.

And I won't disagree with that claim. However, your application of it is misguided- its directed at a chimera, a strawman. Your argument (such as it is) basically looks something like this- "Knowledge as justified true belief must be infallible, but people are always fallible, therefore knowledge as justified true belief doesn't exist".

Unfortunately, infallibility is nothing I've claimed, this is your addition.

That's interesting. So you are not denying yesterday's brainstate of knowing?

No, since knowledge is, as a species of belief, a mental disposition towards a proposition or linguistic item.

Why would I deny that someone won the Super Bowl? That would be silly.

Indeed. And yet, you need to in order for your position to work. If someone won the Super Bowl, then necessarily, some claim "X won the Super Bowl" will be true. And all we need now to get knowledge is justification- and this part doesn't appear particularly tricky; having watched the Super Bowl, or read the box score, would probably suffice as proper warrant in this case.

Of course, I would deny that the universe necessarily agrees with me about the Super Bowl..

Indeed- and if "the universe' doesn't agree with you, then you do not know. And knowing whether the universe does or doesn't agree with you would be knowing whether you know- not simply knowing. Knowing that one knows vs. merely knowing, once again.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So, frequently you believe you know where you left your wallet.
Previously, you believed you knew where you left your wallet.

Please illustrate the difference. These seem identical to me.

The difference is that in one case I was mistaken. Another way I could believe but not know is if I believed my wallet was on the table, and it actually is, but my belief has no reasonable or sufficient basis and is not warranted.

Your examples were dissatisfying to me. You picked things that only a lunatic would believe. It is pretty difficult to examine a belief that no one actually holds.

Not really, since what is pertinent is the difference between a true belief and a false belief- how realistic it is doesn't affect this. But, as I said, we've all likely held and encountered false beliefs before, so you can fill in the blank yourself. For instance, most of us used to believe that the xmas presents that showed up on xmas morning came from a fat man who cruises about on a flying sled.

***

I could be wrong, but I don't think Sir Doom's question is about Guy's argument. It may be wise not to conflate your opponents' arguments (especially as Doom's hasn't been made yet).

It doesn't have to be "about" his argument to be guilty of the same confusion; and, as I said, that appears to be the only way that it would be relevant whether the belief is currently held or not.

 

[Willamena]

Does one have to be conscious of knowledge and/or beliefs? Can one know or believe without being aware of said knowledge or belief?

best,
swampy

I would say that most beliefs (most of the world) are things we are not conscious of. For a thing to be knowledge according to JTB, one does not have to have examined their reason for believing, but hopefully are capable of examining it when called to.

 

[Willamena]

Thanks for the clear answer. Here's my problem. You agree that knowledge is a mental state of confidence wherein the known thing is justified and true. Now my question: In whose opinion must the known thing be justified and true?

Makes me laugh every time you do that. Is it not possible to uphold a piece of the world and have no opinion about it?

 

[Willamena]

It doesn't have to be "about" his argument to be guilty of the same confusion; and, as I said, that appears to be the only way that it would be relevant whether the belief is currently held or not.

I don't know what "knowing that ones knows" would constitute, so I can't disagree.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

JTB says we don't believe things to be true without reason, and that a "justified" belief has a good, strong reason supporting it.

Sure. Why would anyone embrace a thing as true if they didn't have good reason or didn't think it justified? Really it seems hardly worth mentioning that people only believe what seems right to them to believe. Same with their knowledge. People don't know things or believe things unless they feel that they have good justification, do they?

In my experience, it's extremely rare to hear a person declare that he has no good reasons, no justification, for either his beliefs or his knowledge.

the significance difference between ordinary belief and JTB is that knowledge
is something that is true.*

I fear that I still have no solid idea what you mean by 'true.' As I say, most people think of truth as 'being the case outside of human opinion.' And you surely can't be using that definition in your claim above.

The problem with certainty is its taint of doubt that denies a thing its truth value.

Um... that's like saying that the problem with Superman is his strength, his flying, his X-ray vision and his invulnerability.

Doubt is the engine and essence of wisdom, at least in my view of intellectual life.

(Do you mean that the problem with 'uncertainty' is its taint of doubt?)

Imagine certainty as a thing floating around in the air. Everything it touches is tainted with a colour 'doubt' (doubt informs certainty). Even if the touch is the slightest and the shade of colour the palest, so pale it can't be seen with the eye, there is still doubt.

A marvelous image. God sends the uncertainty, to help us grow.

Only those things certainty doesn't touch are untainted.

Yes. They are lifeless. Untouched.

Certainty and uncertainty are like a toggle ready to flip at a moment's notice--the toggle may be in an on or off position, but you still have introduced a toggle to the picture.

I'm sorry. I just have no idea what you are saying. My certainty and uncertainty are not a toggle. The uncertainty is my boon companion. I never leave home and couldn't face life without him.

Tell me, is it true that there's certainty? I think it is.

I just don't know what you mean by 'true.' You're welcome to write me an essay about how you understand it.

Are they the same thing? Not if it's possibly untrue that there's certainty, because in that case there's no certainty but there's still "true."

I'm totally lost. Sorry.

Ah, but something believed is "justified and true for those who believe it" because of JTB.

I dunno. It almost seems like you are gliding around in pure words, without any real tether to the ground. That's my best explanation of how your arguments seem to me at times. I'm not saying it's 'true' that you are floating untethered in the words. Just saying it seems that way to me.

Well, I no longer buy into all this 'exterior' and 'interior' stuff since reading up on Zen Buddhism. Suffice it to say that JTB doesn't require one to uphold 'exteriors', just truth. 'Exteriors' only complicate matters.

OK. Me, I'm still attached to the physical universe which we seem to inhabit. I wish I could escape the exterior stuff sometimes, but the hurtling bus and the hunger pains don't seem to care the least about my wishes, alas.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Makes me laugh every time you do that. Is it not possible to uphold a piece of the world and have no opinion about it?

Uphold a piece of the world? I'm sorry but I don't understand what that means or what you are asking.

Are you saying we can assert a thing as true without actually having an opinion about that thing's truth? If so, yes. Cynical politicians do that all the time.

 

[Sir Doom]

The difference is that in one case I was mistaken.

lol, of course. But what was the difference before you acted on either belief?

Another way I could believe but not know is if I believed my wallet was on the table, and it actually is, but my belief has no reasonable or sufficient basis and is not warranted.

M'kay... Weird...

Not really, since what is pertinent is the difference between a true belief and a false belief- how realistic it is doesn't affect this. But, as I said, we've all likely held and encountered false beliefs before, so you can fill in the blank yourself. For instance, most of us used to believe that the xmas presents that showed up on xmas morning came from a fat man who cruises about on a flying sled.

The wallet examples will be just fine. Don't you worry your pretty little head about it.

 

[Willamena]

Uphold a piece of the world? I'm sorry but I don't understand what that means or what you are asking.

By "to uphold" I mean "to believe in."

Are you saying we can assert a thing as true without actually having an opinion about that thing's truth? If so, yes. Cynical politicians do that all the time.

We do assert things as true when we believe in them.

Opinions are some of those things.

 

[Willamena]

Sure. Why would anyone embrace a thing as true if they didn't have good reason or didn't think it justified? Really it seems hardly worth mentioning that people only believe what seems right to them to believe. Same with their knowledge. People don't know things or believe things unless they feel that they have good justification, do they?

In my experience, it's extremely rare to hear a person declare that he has no good reasons, no justification, for either his beliefs or his knowledge.

It is "hardly worth mentioning." JTB is a common sense theory.

I fear that I still have no solid idea what you mean by 'true.' As I say, most people think of truth as 'being the case outside of human opinion.' And you surely can't be using that definition in your claim above.

Just the plain, ordinary definition of 'true.' And, yes, I am.

If I'm walking down the street, whistling and swinging my arms, then 'true' in that case is me walking down the street, whistling and swinging my arms.

Um... that's like saying that the problem with Superman is his strength, his flying, his X-ray vision and his invulnerability.

Doubt is the engine and essence of wisdom, at least in my view of intellectual life.

(Do you mean that the problem with 'uncertainty' is its taint of doubt?)

Certainty and uncertainty are two sides of the same coin. Like a teeter-totter, when one side goes up the other side goes down, but there's never not two sides. (Unless you cheat and move the fulcrum.)

There's certainty a case to be made for wisdom in doubt, but knowledge that's in doubt is another matter.

A marvelous image. God sends the uncertainty, to help us grow.

Yes. They are lifeless. Untouched.

If doubt is life, then stress is joy.

I'm sorry. I just have no idea what you are saying. My certainty and uncertainty are not a toggle. The uncertainty is my boon companion. I never leave home and couldn't face life without him.

I just don't know what you mean by 'true.' You're welcome to write me an essay about how you understand it.

I'm totally lost. Sorry.

Okay. Sorry.

I dunno. It almost seems like you are gliding around in pure words, without any real tether to the ground. That's my best explanation of how your arguments seem to me at times. I'm not saying it's 'true' that you are floating untethered in the words. Just saying it seems that way to me.

OK. Me, I'm still attached to the physical universe which we seem to inhabit. I wish I could escape the exterior stuff sometimes, but the hurtling bus and the hunger pains don't seem to care the least about my wishes, alas.

Gliding around in pure words, without any real tether to the ground, is life. Is existentialsm.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

By "to uphold" I mean "to believe in."

OK. So you asked me, "Is it not possible to believe in a piece of the world and have no opinion about it?"

My answer is probably not. If we believe in a piece of the world, that seems to me like having an opinion about it, at least about its existence.

We do assert things as true when we believe in them.

I agree. I see people doing that all the time.

Opinions are some of those things.

So we do assert opinions as true when we believe in them?

Sure. All the time. At least, if I can trust my ears.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There's certainty a case to be made for wisdom in doubt, but knowledge that's in doubt is another matter.

Knowledge that is not in doubt is the bane of human civilization. A curse, a blight.

Think about morality. In my experience, the most immoral folks are those who will not consider and reconsider their own behavior. These people know that their behavior is right, so why think about it.

That's just one example. Lots more.

If doubt is life, then stress is joy.

Uncertainty in the physical world is sure stressful and non-joyful. But in the intellectual world, it's the most powerful engine of personal growth that I can name. I find lots of joy in doubting my knowledge. It lets me explore. And create.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

....and since knowledge is a sub-set of belief, as I've said repeatedly, it is also such a mental disposition- but not "just" that. It is a mental disposition towards a proposition- in particular, one that is true, or corresponds to a
fact.

But since you refuse my question about who determines what is true, I can only conclude that under the JTB definition, each person gets to decide what is true (and justified) for himself.

Therefore each person actually knows what he knows. After all, it is a true and justified belief (according to the judge of those things: the knowledge claimer).

So knowledge is merely a personal opinion which the knower believes to be justified and true.

So then why do you deny that I can know that Martha Stewart is president?

When you do that, you're asserting your own infallibility, yes? You're arguing that you are the one who gets to judge the truth of my knowledge, yes?

Same confusion once again. It's not a question of whose opinion the thing is justified or true according to, but whether the thing is actually justified and true.

Mercy me. Whether the thing is actually justified and true.

The broken clock can only know the correct time if its knowledge is actually justified and true.

OK, man. I have to say that I'm finding the JTB definition of knowledge even more worthless now than previously.

And can one ever know that a belief is "actually justified and true"? Perhaps not- but that is knowing that one knows, not knowing.

OK. So you may not 'really' know who won the SuperBowl in 2012. But I have to say that you sure seem to insist that you know it.

If knowledge is "just each individual person's opinion", then someone could know that the Earth is flat, know that Martha Stewart is the President of the US, and know that 2+2=5; in other words, either we systematically misuse the word "know" in
practice....

I definitely agree with that and have said so from the beginning. People use the word as if they really are capable of magic...especially with that "You didn't really know; You only thought you knew."

That's part of why I'm here -- to help people understand how they're misusing the word. How'm I doing?

No, as I've said repeatedly, its the "mental state of confidence" bit which bothers me, because it isn't anything I've said, and on which I've explicitly corrected you.

How marvelous. You've corrected me. Helping me to understand the word 'know' accordingly to the one and only definition which you embrace. Yikes. You want to make a poet-philosopher use his words right, do you?

Well, thanks for your concern, I guess.

"Objectively true" is redundant.

In your conception, I have no doubt. (Well, an iota of doubt maybe, but hardly worth mentioning.)

Curious, then, that you've neither specified what, if anything, is "magical", nor have you argued against it.

You should read some of the messages which I post to you. I've argued thoroughly, convincingly, even irrefutably for JTB as magical
thinking.

So, the Earth does have some shape or other after all?

Well, so far as my eyes tell me, the earth seems to be a physical object, and we generally describe physical objects as having 'shape.' But who knows. I could be hallucinating the whole thing.

How about you? Can I hear you admit the possibility that you could be hallucinating the 2012 SuperBowl? (Betcha this will be one of my questions which you ignore.)

And I won't disagree with that claim. However, your application of it is misguided- its directed at a chimera, a strawman. Your argument (such as it is) basically looks something like this- "Knowledge as justified true belief must be infallible, but people are always fallible, therefore knowledge as justified true belief doesn't exist". Unfortunately, infallibility is nothing I've claimed, this is your addition.

You constantly argue for infallibility. Look at your OP in this thread. You believe that your knowledge about the Superbowl winner could not possibly be untrue... yes?

If so, that's arguing for your own infallibility.

Indeed. And yet, you need to in order for your position to work. If someone won the Super Bowl, then necessarily, some claim "X won the Super Bowl" will be true. And all we need now to get knowledge is justification- and this part doesn't appear particularly tricky; having watched the Super Bowl, or read the box score, would probably suffice as proper warrant in this case.

Ah. I see. So in your world, there is only black and white. Only Yes or No. Either one must assert that someone won the Super Bowl or else he must deny that someone won the Super Bowl.

But my world is nothing like that, so I'm afraid you're mistaken about the necessity of me denying that someone won the Super Bowl.

Indeed- and if "the universe' doesn't agree with you, then you do not know. And knowing whether the universe does or doesn't agree with you would be knowing whether you know- not simply knowing. Knowing that one knows vs. merely knowing,
once again.

You've been ducking my broken clock from the getgo. Maybe you should consider addressing it. We can't learn unless we grapple with the hard stuff, you know.

 

[Willamena]

Knowledge that is not in doubt is the bane of human civilization. A curse, a blight.

Think about morality. In my experience, the most immoral folks are those who will not consider and reconsider their own behavior. These people know that their behavior is right, so why think about it.

That's just one example. Lots more.

Knowledge that is not doubt also allows you to get up, take a step forward, go for a walk, sit down to a meal and enjoy the world. It's not all bad.

Uncertainty in the physical world is sure stressful and non-joyful. But in the intellectual world, it's the most powerful engine of personal growth that I can name. I find lots of joy in doubting my knowledge. It lets me explore. And create.

Fair enough.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Knowledge that is not doubt also allows you to get up, take a step forward, go for a walk, sit down to a meal and enjoy the world. It's not all bad.

OK. But for me, doubted knowledge allows me to do all that stuff just as well as undoubted knowledge. At least, those are the terms which I prefer to use to describe it. All of us have to make our best guesses about reality and act according to those guesses. I just think it can be dangerous to hold undoubted knowledge. The 911 guys knew with fierce certainty that killing a bunch of American citizens in the middle of their workdays was the right and proper will of Allah.

I wish I could have debated with them for a year or two before they decided on that action. Maybe I could have inserted just enough doubt to make them reconsider.

Sometimes I think that the greatest sin is to live an assumptive life, swallowing one's truth whole and then refusing to engage the debate.

So even all the wrong-headed, downright cantankerous folk here in this place are behaving properly.

 

[Willamena]

All of us have to make our best guesses about reality and act according to those guesses.

See, I think that reality is what's in front of our faces, and we don't need to make guesses about it. It's not hidden somewhere in a secret place.

I guess we differ there.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

See, I think that reality is what's in front of our faces, and we don't need to make guesses about it. It's not hidden somewhere in a secret place.

I guess we differ there.

Is there life on Mars? It's not in front of my face but I still have a best guess about it.

Does my dog secretly resent me for giving the cat more scraps than I give him? All I can do is guess, even though he is right there in front of my face. He's inscrutable (or else just realy dumb, I'm not sure.)

The roundness of the earth is not in front of my face. It looks very flat to me. But my best guess is that it's actually round.

But maybe you would agree with all that. i don't know. Maybe we just have different ways with our words.

 

[Willamena]

Is there life on Mars? It's not in front of my face but I still have a best guess about it.

Does my dog secretly resent me for giving the cat more scraps than I give him? All I can do is guess, even though he is right there in front of my face. He's inscrutable (or else just realy dumb, I'm not sure.)

The roundness of the earth is not in front of my face. It looks very flat to me. But my best guess is that it's actually round.

But maybe you would agree with all that. i don't know. Maybe we just have different ways with our words.

Mars is in front of your face, yes, no less than the life on Mars, the (relative) roundness of the earth, or the secret resentment of dogs.

 

[Falvlun]

But humans have no six sense by which we apprehend this mysterious quality, truth- it is not given in any experience. We judge truth by how the world looks to us; by reviewing the relevant evidence. And our judgments are fallible. Thus, it easily can be (and often is) the case that we judge that a proposition is true, and thus that believing it (with warrant) constitutes knowledge- only to find evidence which shows that the proposition is false after all. Not sure why this should be "Orwellian", or even counter-intuitive- except that you appear to have some sort of bizarre Platonic notion of truth or knowledge as something eternal and unchanging.

I haven't read through this thread yet from where I left off, but I had to comment on this, particular the last line, which I have bolded, due to its rather astounding display of your misunderstanding of my position.

Seeing as I consider truth and knowledge to be fluid, based upon our current understanding of the world and our certainty about it, I would have expected your conclusions to be the exact opposite. I am essentially proposing that truth and knowledge is relative.

It is your position that necessarily requires an eternal and unchanging truth and knowledge.

It is your position that believes that truth exists separate from human understanding, to which human understanding is measured against.

It is your position that knowledge is not a state of human understanding, as mine is, but that it is some concrete, unchangeable entity.

In my system, one day we can know, and the next day, upon receiving different information, we can decide that we no longer know, or that we know something else. This is about as far from a Platonic notion of perfect consistency as one can get.