What is Knowledge?

[Tree of Life]

When the empirical facts don't agree with a sacred text, how is one justified in saying that the empirical facts were faked by a deity?

If the sacred text is truly God's word then the content of the text would be a proper justification.

 

[quatona]

So you seem to think that JTB is a bad definition of knowledge. How would you amend it?

Personally, I have no interest in defining "knowledge" in an absolute way. It´s what you tried to do - I´m just helping you by scrutinizing your results.

 

[Radagast]

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”.

Some people quibble with JTB as a definition, but I think that nails it.

Formally, it's captured using epistemic modal logic, which includes rules like:

a) If S knows P, then P is true.

b) If S knows P and S knows P => Q, then S knows Q.

c) If P is a tautology, then S knows P.

d) If S knows P, then S knows that S knows P.

e) If S' is trustworthy, and S sees that S' says P, then S knows P.

 

[Tree of Life]

Personally, I have no interest in defining "knowledge" in an absolute way. It´s what you tried to do - I´m just helping you by scrutinizing your results.

Well I suppose it is easier to be the critic.

 

[Tree of Life]

Some people quibble with JTB as a definition, but I think that nails it.

Formally, it's captured using epistemic modal logic, which includes rules like:

a) If S knows P, then P is true.

b) If S knows P and S knows P => Q, then S knows Q.

c) If P is a tautology, then S knows P.

d) If S knows P, then S knows that S knows P.

e) If S' is trustworthy, and S sees that S' says P, then S knows P.

I like those rules.

 

[Tree of Life]

For a person who has never experienced a red thing that wasn´t hot, "it´s hot because all things red are hot" would be a proper empirical justification.

Indeed. This would be an example where S's belief is justified but is not true. It would not be knowledge.

 

[Radagast]

Indeed. This would be an example where S's belief is justified but is not true. It would not be knowledge.

Agreed that it's not true, but it's not justified either; it's a false generalisation.

To quote an old story:

A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are riding a train through Scotland.
The engineer looks out the window, sees a black sheep, and exclaims, "Hey! They've got black sheep in Scotland!"
The physicist looks out the window and corrects the engineer, "Strictly speaking, all we know is that there's at least one black sheep in Scotland."
The mathematician looks up from the book he's reading and says, "Actually, all we know is that at least one sheep in Scotland is black on at least one side."

 

[Loudmouth]

If the sacred text is truly God's word then the content of the text would be a proper justification.

But all you have is the opinion that it was written by a deity.

 

[Tree of Life]

But all you have is the opinion that it was written by a deity.

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).

 

[Loudmouth]

From your vantage point, yes.

What evidence do you have to support a justified belief?

Since you do not accept Scripture as God's word, using Scripture as a justification would not be convincing for you.

Once again, all you have is the opinion that it is God's word. Why should your opinion convince anyone?

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).

Muslims make the same claim about the Quran. Do you accept the Quran as God's word?

 

[Tree of Life]

What evidence do you have to support a justified belief?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Once again, all you have is the opinion that it is God's word. Why should your opinion convince anyone?

It would only convince people who accepted Scripture as God's word.

Muslims make the same claim about the Quran. Do you accept the Quran as God's word?

I do not.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

I am asking for evidence, which would differentiate opinion from justified belief.

It would only convince people who accepted Scripture as God's word.

That's preaching to the choir, not convincing people.

I do not.

When someone uses the same argument for a different text, all of the sudden it isn't a valid argument?

 

[Tree of Life]

I am asking for evidence, which would differentiate opinion from justified belief.

Evidence for what?

That's preaching to the choir, not convincing people.

Only God can convince people that Scripture is God's word.

When someone uses the same argument for a different text, all of the sudden it isn't a valid argument?

It's valid. I just do not accept it as sound because I don't believe one of the premises.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evidence for what?

Evidence that a deity wrote the Bible.

Only God can convince people that Scripture is God's word.

How is this a justified belief?

It's valid. I just do not accept it as sound because I don't believe one of the premises.

So it's valid . . . except when it is invalid. Got it.

 

[quatona]

Well I suppose it is easier to be the critic.

You picked your part when you threw out your hypothesis, and you invited me to take the role of the critic when you asked "What problems do you have with this definition of knowledge?" in your OP. So don´t complain, don´t whine.

 

[quatona]

Indeed. This would be an example where S's belief is justified but is not true. It would not be knowledge.

So for to determine that a proposition is knowledge we would first have to know whether it´s true. I´m sure you see the problem, and I´m sure you see how your whole approach is just adding redundance.

 

[Radagast]

So for to determine that a proposition is knowledge we would first have to know whether it´s true.

This is standard epistomology. If we do not know with certainty that a proposition is true, we can only call it a belief.

 

[quatona]

This is standard epistomology. If we do not know with certainty that a proposition is true, we can only call it a belief.

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.

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

Do you think that some beliefs are justified and others are not?

 

[quatona]

Do you think that some beliefs are justified and others are not?

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