- Feb 15, 2013
- 8,824
- 6,252
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
If the sacred text is truly God's word then the content of the text would be a proper justification.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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.So you seem to think that JTB is a bad definition of knowledge. How would you amend it?
S knows that p iff
The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often abbreviated as the “JTB” analysis, for “justified true belief”.
- p is true;
- S believes that p;
- S is justified in believing that p.
Well I suppose it is easier to be the critic.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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
I'm not sure what you're asking here.What evidence do you have to support a justified belief?
It would only convince people who accepted Scripture as God's word.Once again, all you have is the opinion that it is God's word. Why should your opinion convince anyone?
I do not.Muslims make the same claim about the Quran. Do you accept the Quran as God's word?
I'm not sure what you're asking here.
It would only convince people who accepted Scripture as God's word.
I do not.
Evidence for what?I am asking for evidence, which would differentiate opinion from justified belief.
That's preaching to the choir, not convincing people.
When someone uses the same argument for a different text, all of the sudden it isn't a valid argument?
Evidence for what?
Only God can convince people that Scripture is God's word.
It's valid. I just do not accept it as sound because I don't believe one of the premises.
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.Well I suppose it is easier to be the critic.
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.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.
This wasn´t the point of my criticism. My point of criticism was the redundant deviation "properly justified belief".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.
"Justified" by what, in which way, within which frame of reference, for which purpose?Do you think that some beliefs are justified and others are not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?