Knowledge and Belief

[Falvlun]

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

JTB is a common sense understanding, yes. I don't think anyone is denying that knowledge should be justified and true in order to be considered knowledge.

The problem is the practicality of application. Truth is a moving target: it changes with our own understanding. Justification is even less solid: who is the objective judge who determines whether something is sufficiently justified or not?

It all boils down to our own personal and collective mental calculations. When we are certain that something is true and sufficiently justified, we will consider it knowledge. Certainty (of truth and justification) is therefore the defining factor, and not actual, objective truth and justification, since none such "Platonic ideals" actually exist.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Justification is even less solid: who is the objective judge who determines whether something is sufficiently justified or not?

Me. And you, if you agree with me.

Certainty (of truth and justification) is therefore the defining factor, and not actual, objective truth and justification, since none such "Platonic ideals" actually exist.

That's a solid way of expressing it, I think.

 

[Willamena]

JTB is a common sense understanding, yes. I don't think anyone is denying that knowledge should be justified and true in order to be considered knowledge.

The problem is the practicality of application. Truth is a moving target: it changes with our own understanding. Justification is even less solid: who is the objective judge who determines whether something is sufficiently justified or not?

It all boils down to our own personal and collective mental calculations. When we are certain that something is true and sufficiently justified, we will consider it knowledge. Certainty (of truth and justification) is therefore the defining factor, and not actual, objective truth and justification, since none such "Platonic ideals" actually exist.

The objective judge is within us, each of us, and not calculated or calculable but an entirely unconscious judgement. It is truth itself, part of the framework that structures how thought is able to happen. Without truth, there could be no thoughts, no meaningful words, and no personal opinions.

Certainty is unconscious too. Certainty is all right and fine, but because of its inherent doubt it is not truth. They are similar things, but one with inherent doubt and one without.

We believe in things that are true, and when our belief is reasonable (according to the logic, which is the framework of "why we think what we do") we can safely call it knowledge.

 

[Falvlun]

The objective judge is within us, each of us, and not calculated or calculable but an entirely unconscious judgement. It is truth itself, part of the framework that structures how thought is able to happen. Without truth, there could be no thoughts, no meaningful words, and no personal opinions.

Certainty is unconscious too. Certainty is all right and fine, but because of its inherent doubt it is not truth. They are similar things, but one with inherent doubt and one without.

We believe in things that are true, and when our belief is reasonable (according to the logic, which is the framework of "why we think what we do") we can safely call it knowledge.

So you do believe that truth exists in some platonic sense.

The fact that you do believe in such makes your argument consistent. It is the "magical entity" of AG's arguments, and is in fact, a necessary component to make the JTB work in application.

But, I don't believe that truth exists, separate from our own considerations, judgments, opinions, and thoughts. I don't see how it can. And even if it could or does, I do not see how we can access it.

 

[Willamena]

The way truth is universal (for us humans) is that we all evolved the same way, so we all have pretty much the same framework that governs thought. We all rely on the same tools, so to speak, to think: truth, identity, contradiction, etc.

How do we know truth? We don't know the unconscious, that's a given, and so we can hardly call it a proper "thing," but we still recognize it. We take it from its place in hiding and cast it into the world to become a property inherent of things--"true." We do the same thing with other judgements that are apparently universal, like beauty and quality.

So while we have unique worldviews, full of our unique sensorium and our unique thoughts about that, we also have a universal worldview structured by the framework of how we all, as human beings, came to think.

My 2 cents.

 

[Willamena]

So you do believe that truth exists in some platonic sense.

I'm not even sure in what sense Plato meant it, so I can't say.

The fact that you do believe in such makes your argument consistent. It is the "magical entity" of AG's arguments, and is in fact, a necessary component to make the JTB work in application.

But, I don't believe that truth exists, separate from our own considerations, judgments, opinions, and thoughts. I don't see how it can. And even if it could or does, I do not see how we can access it.

I do believe it is "separate" from anything that can be judged "true."

 

[Falvlun]

The way truth is universal (for us humans) is that we all evolved the same way, so we all have pretty much the same framework that governs thought. We all rely on the same tools, so to speak, to think: truth, identity, contradiction, etc.

How do we know truth? We don't know the unconscious, that's a given, and so we can hardly call it a proper "thing," but we still recognize it. We take it from its place in hiding and cast it into the world to become a property inherent of things--"true." We do the same thing with other judgements that are apparently universal, like beauty and quality.

So while we have unique worldviews, full of our unique sensorium and our unique thoughts about that, we also have a universal worldview structured by the framework of how we all, as human beings, came to think.

My 2 cents.

I agree that we all have the same general framework governing how we think. The problem, however, is that this framework does not always lend itself to accurate conclusions.

 

[Willamena]

I agree that we all have the same general framework governing how we think. The problem, however, is that this framework does not always lend itself to accurate conclusions.

By "conclusions" do you mean judgements, or actually conclusions (which are the result of a series of steps)?

I ask because earlier you conflated unconscious judgements with calculations.

 

[Falvlun]

By "conclusions" do you mean judgements, or actually conclusions (which are the result of a series of steps)?

I ask because earlier you conflated unconscious judgements with calculations.

Both. Our natural mental framework does not always lend itself to accurate calculations or innate/unconscious judgments.

 

[Willamena]

Both. Our natural mental framework does not always lend itself to accurate calculations or innate/unconscious judgments.

Judgement is foundational and unavoidable. "Is" in English represents that judgement, and the judgements are the world going on around us. How do you determine the inaccuracy of the world going on around you?

 

[Falvlun]

Judgement is foundational and unavoidable. "Is" in English represents that judgement, and the judgements are the world going on around us. How do you determine the inaccuracy of the world going on around you?

Of course we are going to make or have judgments. That does not mean that they are always going to be true, however.

How do we determine inaccuracy? Well, isn't that the crux of our issue here: that truth-- in an absolute, objective sense-- is nearly impossible to access?

Humans generally do assess truth based on number of people that agree to it, whether multiple senses confirm it, and whether it corresponds with other things we think we know.

However, that our intuitive judgments can be inaccurate has long been known. There are many popular examples.

Think of how we consider probability. We intuitively think that rolling 5 sixes in a row is much more unlikely than rolling a 2, 4, 5, 6, 2, and yet the probability is exactly the same.

We tend to make logical mistakes, like affirming the consequent:
1. If P, then Q.
2. Q
3. Therefore, P.

We are admonished not to "judge a book by its cover", because so often, we come to quick, intuitive judgments based upon appearances, which may lead us to an unwarranted negative (or positive) impression.

These and many more examples show how we cannot always trust our uncalculated judgment. Thus, it is not a reliable indicator of truth.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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.

Unfortunately, you don't get to tell me what my position is. And not only have I claimed none of these things, some of them contradict what I HAVE explicitly stated here.

JTB is a common sense understanding, yes. I don't think anyone is denying that knowledge should be justified and true in order to be considered knowledge.

Well, except Ambiguous Guy.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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

Um... In the one case, I was mistaken?

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

Ok... Was that all you had to say about that, or what?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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.

Or you could conclude what you've been explicitly told, or what you could easily find out with a Google search.

And your question is, as I've pointed out for about the 300th time now, not relevant, because we needn't know that we know in order to know- in other words, there needn't be a judge of truth for their to be truth.

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

Please cite a single post in which you've presented any argument, convincing or otherwise, against anything I've said here.

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?

Well, since this is a truism, yes. If it is knowledge, then by definition it is not untrue.

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

No.

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.

Well no, I suppose they could assert that the Super Bowl resulted in a tie, or got postponed due to weather, or something- but barring that, that someone won, and someone lost, is just how football works (and most other sports as well).

In any case, I'm done responding to your posts until you include some actual content (like, you know, an argument)- if you're unclear on what that entails, watch and learn from the other posters on this thread, most of whom seem to have gotten a hang of this whole debate business.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

For most intelligent folks, the difference between belief and knowledge is fairly obvious. However, not everyone is so lucky, so this thread will (hopefully) help certain posters understand this basic difference.

Belief, as the state of holding a certain proposition or claim to be true, is a necessary condition for knowledge- that is to say that, if person A knows P, then necessarily, person A believes P as well. But it is not a sufficient condition- if person A believes P, it does not follow that person A knows P. Thus, knowledge is a subset of belief; all knowledge is belief, but not all belief is knowledge. The easiest way to distinguish the two are to consider examples of belief that are not examples of knowledge- such as instances of false beliefs.

Consider some trivial examples (and I apologize to the majority of you who have already mastered this elementary distinction and have no need of such examples)-

Person A believes that 2+2=5.
It is not the case that person A knows that 2+2=5.

Person A believes that the Detroit Lions won the Super Bowl in 2012.
It is not the case that person A knows that the Detroit Lions won the Super Bowl in 2012.

We could obviously adduce as many such examples as we like, but there's no need. And the difference between belief and knowledge is made similarly stark by contrasting knowing how (as opposed to the- propositional-knowing that) verses mistakenly believing how; if I know how to change a tire, I can successfully change a tire, and achieve the desired result. If I believe I know how to change a tire, but am mistaken, I can't successfully change the tire and cannot achieve the desired result.

I challenge the notiong that "knowledge" means "correctness".

If I am taught something then I "know" something. For example the concept of "gnosis" would mean the knowledge or to know. Esoteric knowledge is knowledge. I can't deny that. But I can deny that its true or correct.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So you do believe that truth exists in some platonic sense.

The fact that you do believe in such makes your argument consistent. It is the "magical entity" of AG's arguments, and is in fact, a necessary component to make the JTB work in application.

No, that's not accurate. JTB in itself entails no commitment to either nominalism or Platonism, it could go either way.

If I had to guess, however, I'd say that many, if not most, contemporary theorists accept the JTB characterization of knowledge in some form, but are not Platonists in ontology, and hold a view similar to what I've expressed here- that truth is a property of linguistic items, or, more accurately, is a relation between certain linguistic items and the world. Thus, truth is entirely a function of language and understanding- truth, as such, would not exist if we did not exist.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I challenge the notiong that "knowledge" means "correctness".

It doesn't mean that. If correctness simply means truth, then it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowledge- there is also warrant/justification.

If I am taught something then I "know" something. For example the concept of "gnosis" would mean the knowledge or to know. Esoteric knowledge is knowledge. I can't deny that. But I can deny that its true or correct.

And neither I, nor most any other English speaker I would imagine, would have any idea what knowledge that is not true or correct could be. Since truth is a necessary condition for knowledge not only on virtually every technical definition of the term, but the colloquial use of the term as well, untrue knowledge is either a contradiction in terms, or involves a novel usage.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It doesn't mean that. If correctness simply means truth, then it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowledge- there is also warrant/justification.

In what way can something be "true"? something is true till it comes across an idea that has better evidence.

Newton and those after him "knew" or had "knowledge" of the way gravity worked. The theory of relativity blew it out of the water. Does that mean that those people didn't have "knowledge"? They "knew" something but it was "incorrect".

And neither I, nor most any other English speaker I would imagine, would have any idea what knowledge that is not true or correct could be. Since truth is a necessary condition for knowledge not only on virtually every technical definition of the term, but the colloquial use of the term as well, untrue knowledge is either a contradiction in terms, or involves a novel usage.

I have already brought up conditions above but here is a second problem. What about esoteric knowledge? by definition esoteric knowledge is knowledge. People "know" that Jesus is real. They could be wrong but none the less they "know' it within themselves.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

In what way can something be "true"? something is true till it comes across an idea that has better evidence.

While this may be somewhat true of scientific paradigms, this is not, in general, how truth works. One function of language is describing the world- asserting things, denying things, etc. about the world around us. A proposition, claim, or belief is true if and only if the states of affairs it describes actually obtains; the classic example is "snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white. This is a trivial example, and purposely so, but that is the general idea.

Newton and those after him "knew" or had "knowledge" of the way gravity worked. The theory of relativity blew it out of the water. Does that mean that those people didn't have "knowledge"? They "knew" something but it was "incorrect".

If something is incorrect, then by definition it is not, or was not, knowledge. If something that is regarded as truth or knowledge turns out to be incorrect, then this entails that it also turns out it was not knowledge after all. We can and certainly frequently misdiagnose knowledge and truth. That doesn't mean that knowledge or truth are relative or subjective, or do not exist.

I have already brought up conditions above but here is a second problem. What about esoteric knowledge?

Just for clarity, could you tell me what you have in mind by "esoteric knowledge"?

People "know" that Jesus is real. They could be wrong but none the less they "know' it within themselves.

Well, but "knowing it within yourself" just seems to be a very convoluted way of saying that one believes it, but does not truly know it. If Jesus was not real, then nobody knows that Jesus is real, regardless of whether they believe it, or how fervently or confidently.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

While this may be somewhat true of scientific paradigms, this is not, in general, how truth works. One function of language is describing the world- asserting things, denying things, etc. about the world around us. A proposition, claim, or belief is true if and only if the states of affairs it describes actually obtains; the classic example is "snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white. This is a trivial example, and purposely so, but that is the general idea.

Not necessarily. Philisophically it can be applied to every form of "truth". Absolute or objective truth is not possible as we are subjective beings. Ergo any "knowledge" we have is only temporary. Knowledge can only be determined by hindsight and since time continues forward we don't have any "knowledge" as it can and possibly will be found to be false in the future.

If something is incorrect, then by definition it is not, or was not, knowledge.

Why?

If something that is regarded as truth or knowledge turns out to be incorrect, then this entails that it also turns out it was not knowledge after all. We can and certainly frequently misdiagnose knowledge and truth. That doesn't mean that knowledge or truth are relative or subjective, or do not exist.

If something that was thought to be knowledge be later found to "not" be knowlede then how do we determine what is and isn't knowledge "now"? How does one determine "knowledge"?

Just for clarity, could you tell me what you have in mind by "esoteric knowledge"?

Knowledge from within. The opposite of objectic externally found knowledge. Esoteric knowledge is usually described as personal revelation or spiritual epiphany.

Well, but "knowing it within yourself" just seems to be a very convoluted way of saying that one believes it, but does not truly know it. If Jesus was not real, then nobody knows that Jesus is real, regardless of whether they believe it, or how fervently or confidently.

Then you throw out one of the largest and still persisting philisophical schools. Gnosticism and by extention agnostacism both are heavily dependent on the concept of "knowledge". To believe something and to "know" something is not necessarily the same thing.

But Gnosios and esoteric knowledge is the basis for much of the spiritual philosphy reguarding Agnostacism and has dominated much of the central talking points in the god debates since its inception or at least since the 5th century christian movement based on the concept.