What is Knowledge?

[Tree of Life]

"Justified" by what, in which way, within which frame of reference, for which purpose?

Justified in any sense.

 

[Radagast]

This wasn´t the point of my criticism. My point of criticism was the redundant deviation "properly justified belief".
And of course, since you introduced "knowledge with certainty" as a new criterium, we would have to discuss what constitutes such.

I think you misread what I actually said.

 

[Dan Bert]

Knowledge is Belief transformed into knowledge by either tasting the fruit as in Thomas, or by a Spiritual experience. For example..Thomas had knowledge of the Resurrected Christ because He flelt Christ in person by feeling his side and holes in His Hand. There is earthly knowledge for dealing with the world and there is spiritual knowledge that helps us deal with the Spiritual. In the OT we are revealed there is the Spirit of knowledge, the Spirit of understanding and the Spirit of wisdom etc.
In all things there is the Spiritual aspect and there is the worldly aspect.

dan

This conversation comes up a lot in different places - most recently in some discussion on the science forum. There seems to be some significant disagreement about the nature of knowledge. People get especially up in arms at the suggestion that knowledge is a kind of belief.

It seems that some folks, particularly scientific types, want to completely separate knowledge from belief and it seems wrong to them that the two are fundamentally related.

But herein I'll put forth a fairly uncontroversial argument about the nature of knowledge - namely that knowledge is justified, true belief. An article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy summarizes this nicely in this way:

There are three components to the traditional (“tripartite”) analysis of knowledge. According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge.​

The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p iff​

1. p is true;
2. S believes that p;
3. S is justified in believing that p.

The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often abbreviated as the “JTB” analysis, for “justified true belief”.​

Source

Following this definition, here would be an example of knowledge and an example of a belief that doesn't amount to knowledge:

Knowledge - Fire is hot because it burns me when I touch it.

In the example above we have proposition p - fire is hot. p is true. Furthermore S believes p. And further still S has a sound justification for her belief - namely empirical data.

Not knowledge - Fire is hot because all red things are hot.

The above example is not knowledge. p is still true. Fire is hot. And S believes p. But S does not have a proper justification. So while S holds a true belief, this belief does not amount to knowledge.

One could also imagine a scenario in which S believes that p; S is justified in believing that p, but that p is false. And this, of course, could not amount to knowledge.

This would go to show that knowledge is a kind of belief. What problems do you have with this definition of knowledge?

 

[now faith]

Knowledge is Belief transformed into knowledge by either tasting the fruit as in Thomas, or by a Spiritual experience. For example..Thomas had knowledge of the Resurrected Christ because He flelt Christ in person by feeling his side and holes in His Hand. There is earthly knowledge for dealing with the world and there is spiritual knowledge that helps us deal with the Spiritual. In the OT we are revealed there is the Spirit of knowledge, the Spirit of understanding and the Spirit of wisdom etc.
In all things there is the Spiritual aspect and there is the worldly aspect.

dan

The Old Testament is God's Word in revelation of the coming of Christ, the New Testament is progressive revelation that was fulfilled in Christ.

Does that make the Old Testament void?
No.
God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
A better covenant was brought in the New Testament rather than a future promise Christ paid all.
In doing that the law was no longer our redemption by blood sacrifices of animals,it was the blood of Christ sprinkled on the mercy seat that paid all.
Living by works of the law for salvation will cost your eternal life, accepting God's gift of salvation in Christ will give you eternal life.

As Deuteronomy states choose life.
Paul warns us about another Gospel:

Galatians: 1. 6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 10. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 11. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

[quatona]

Justified in any sense.

No, the term "justified belief" is not in my active vocabulary.
Feel free to explain to me what operating with it would help me with.

 

[quatona]

I think you misread what I actually said.

You are welcome to clarify what you meant to say.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well. I should say that empiricism can be a strong justification. There are many instances where empiricism fails us. For example (this comes from Hume):

p = The sun will rise tomorrow (colloquially speaking).

We all believe p. But do we know p? What's our justification? Empiricism is an invalid justification because just because the sun has risen everyday for the past who-knows-how-long does not mean that the sun will certainly rise tomorrow. So no one knows that the sun will rise tomorrow because there is no justification for this belief.

That's not really accurate.

We understand the physics behind the sun "coming up".
That is more then enough justification to believe that the sun will come up tomorrow, providing there is nothing that interferes with the physics.

If the sun doesn't suddenly explode and the earth keeps rotating, the sun will be coming up tomorrow.

There is no justification or reason to believe the earth will stop rotating.
All our knowledge on the matter makes it a pretty justified assumption that the sun will come up tomorrow. And the day after that. And after that. And so on.

 

[DogmaHunter]

From your vantage point, yes. Since you do not accept Scripture as God's word, using Scripture as a justification would not be convincing for you. But it would convince me. If someone made a truth claim and properly used Scripture to justify it then it would be enough to convince me (and others who accept Scripture as God's word).

However, as you clearly stated in the rest of your posts in this thread, that would be merely a belief that you hold (that scripture is truelly god's word), for which you have no proper justification.

 

[Tree of Life]

No, the term "justified belief" is not in my active vocabulary.
Feel free to explain to me what operating with it would help me with.

If a jury believes that you're guilty for a crime do you think this belief ought to be justified?

 

[Tree of Life]

That's not really accurate.

We understand the physics behind the sun "coming up".
That is more then enough justification to believe that the sun will come up tomorrow, providing there is nothing that interferes with the physics.

If the sun doesn't suddenly explode and the earth keeps rotating, the sun will be coming up tomorrow.

There is no justification or reason to believe the earth will stop rotating.
All our knowledge on the matter makes it a pretty justified assumption that the sun will come up tomorrow. And the day after that. And after that. And so on.

"The sun will rise tomorrow" does not follow from "the sun has always risen".

 

[quatona]

If a jury believes that you're guilty for a crime do you think this belief ought to be justified?

I don´t care about their beliefs.
Last time I checked, when a jury decided to convict someone they were expected to present evidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well. I should say that empiricism can be a strong justification. There are many instances where empiricism fails us. For example (this comes from Hume):

p = The sun will rise tomorrow (colloquially speaking).

We all believe p. But do we know p? What's our justification? Empiricism is an invalid justification because just because the sun has risen everyday for the past who-knows-how-long does not mean that the sun will certainly rise tomorrow. So no one knows that the sun will rise tomorrow because there is no justification for this belief.

Where did certainty become a requirement for JTB?

 

[KCfromNC]

"The sun will rise tomorrow" does not follow from "the sun has always risen".

But the point was that "the sun will rise tomorrow" isn't predicated entirely on the claim that "the sun has always risen, so who cares?

 

[Tree of Life]

I don´t care about their beliefs.
Last time I checked, when a jury decided to convict someone they were expected to present evidence.

So evidence is another way of talking about justification. Seems you accept the concept after all.

Juries, by the way, don't present evidence. They consider evidence from the prosecution and the defense and they arrive at a conclusion based on evidence. The evidence presented would be the justification for their conclusion.

 

[Tree of Life]

Where did certainty become a requirement for JTB?

Knowledge entails certainty. If it is not certain then we don't know it.

 

[Tree of Life]

But the point was that "the sun will rise tomorrow" isn't predicated entirely on the claim that "the sun has always risen, so who cares?

What justifies the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow?

 

[DogmaHunter]

"The sun will rise tomorrow" does not follow from "the sun has always risen".

But it does follow from our knowledge of physics that explains why the sun rises at all.

Good job on trying to miss the point though.

 

[Tree of Life]

But it does follow from our knowledge of physics that explains why the sun rises at all.

Good job on trying to miss the point though.

Explaining in detail the orbit of the earth around the sun does not entail that this same situation will be true tomorrow. As you said, the sun could unexpectedly explode for reasons currently unknown to us.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Knowledge entails certainty.

It does not.

If it is not certain then we don't know it.

Then we know close to nothing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What justifies the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow?

Physics.