A philosophical quagmire about what I know

PhilosophyRunner

I have a problem.

I want to to tell people what I know. I want to proclaim a sentence starting with "I know ... ." As I am of good faith, I only want that sentence to contain knowledge that I have.

I have a think about knowledge, and accept that in order for something to be knowledge, it must satisfy JTB (Justified True Belief). Great, let me see if I can claim "I know the Earth is not flat"

1) I believe the Earth is not flat
2) I have justification that the Earth is not flat
3) It is tru.. . Wait a minute, I do not have direct access to the truth. I am stumped.

What about some other claim? No matter how hard I try I keep getting stumped at 3).

1) I believe many things
2) I have justification for most of my beliefs
3) I have no direct access to the truth so fail on this every time.

I look around me - plenty of people use the sentence "I know...." What are they doing? Are they not talking about knowledge? Or are they acting in bad faith - claiming knowledge while happily expressing knowledge and not knowledge? Or are they using a different rubic for knowledge something other than JTB?

It seems to me that no one who has ever said "I know... ." has ever checked that their claim meets the criteria of JTB. If this is indeed the case, may JTB be useless?

PhilosophyRunner

Nevertheless, I see others saying "I know the Earth is not flat."

I ask one of them to explain themselves. Overwhelmingly they say:

1) I believe the earth is flat
2) I have justification for that belief
3) I have so much justification for that belief that I can now claim knowledge.

In practical use, everyone substitutes the T (truth) for MAOJ (Massive Amounts Of Justification).

And so in practice, everyone uses JMAOJB (Justified Massive Amounts Of Justification Belief) when using "I know..."

If everybody uses JMAOJB when invoking knowledge, then is it not the case that knowledge is actually JMAOJB and not JTB in any practical use. A meaning of a word is what is in common usage, after all.

Banno

↪PhilosophyRunner

(1) says you believe the earth is not flat. If that is the case, then you also believe that the sentence "the Earth is not flat" is true.

But (3) is "the Earth is not flat" is true

Hence, if you believe the Earth is not flat, you cannot consistently deny (3).

Your belief that (1) commits you to (3).

Else, you are saying that you believe that the Earth is not flat, and yet that it is not true that the Earth is not flat.

Moore's paradox.

PhilosophyRunner

Hence, if you believe the Earth is not flat, you cannot consistently deny (3). — Banno

But I understand that I can have incorrect beliefs. I understand that just because I believe something, that does not make it true. Does that answer your objection?

And specifically, I believe that I cannot directly access truth. Yet I use "I know.." plenty of times.

T Clark

3) It is tru.. . Wait a minute, I do not have direct access to the truth. I am stumped. — PhilosophyRunner

may JTB be useless? — PhilosophyRunner

I think you are exactly correct. That's why I think JTB is useless. I propose different factors for identifying knowledge. Rather than belief, justification, and truth; I think belief and adequate justification are the right factors and are all that's required. I'll bring out one of my favorite quotes, from Stephen J. Gould - "In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

All truth is provisional. We just have to be certain enough that we minimize the consequences of being wrong within acceptable limits. Not everything can be justified by personal experience, so it is perfectly reasonable to accept justification from sources you have confidence in. As for flat earth - If you are at sea and another boat with masts is coming toward you, you first will see just the tops of it's sails. As it get's closer, more of the boat will be visible. People knew that long before Columbus. Of course, now we also have pictures of the Earth from space.

So, if you want to say you know something and you're worried people will doubt your knowledge, just add a statement about how you know it and how certain you are.

PhilosophyRunner

↪T Clark

Yes, what I think is along the lines of what you have said there.

And to put my views more succinctly, in JBT knowledge (epistemology) is being defined in terms of metaphysics (absolute objective truth). But since we can never actually access this, instead I propose to define knowledge in epistemological terms - provisional truth that can be justified using the best current justification methodology. That to me is what most are referring to when they say "I know"

Banno

Does that answer your objection? — PhilosophyRunner

Sure, you have false beliefs. But if you believe that the Earth is not flat, then you are committed to the truth of the sentence "the Earth is not flat". Step (3) is already done for you.

Part of the problem is that JTB is a definition of knowledge, rather than a method for finding it. It doesn't tell you what is true and what isn't. You will have to work that out some other way.

All truth is provisional. — T Clark

Is that true?

So, if you want to say you know something and you're worried people will doubt your knowledge, just add a statement about how you know it and how certain you are. — T Clark

So how do you know that all truth is provisional and how certain are you?

T Clark

And to put my views more succinctly, JBT is defying knowledge (epistemology) is being defined in terms of metaphysics (absolute objective truth). But since we can never actually access this, instead I propose to define knowledge in epistemological terms - provisional truth that can be justified using the best current justification methodology. That to me is what most are referring to when they say "I know" — PhilosophyRunner

You and I are in agreement. As an engineer and a pragmatist, I think an emphasis on the adequacy of the justification, uncertainties in that judgement, and the consequences of being wrong are primary.

T Clark

So how do you know that all truth is provisional and how certain are you? — Banno

I believe, based on experience and reason, that the attitude I expressed is a useful, pragmatic way of seeing things which is most likely to lead to effective actions. That's what knowledge is about - it is a tool to help decide what action to take.

PhilosophyRunner

Sure, you have false beliefs. But if you believe that the Earth is not flat, then you are committed to the truth of the sentence "the Earth is not flat". Step (3) is already done for you. — Banno

Moore's paradox, as far as I understand, is that I can't simultaneously hold the following sentences:

-"I believe the Earth is not flat"
-"The Earth is flat"

However I can hold the following sentences

-"I believe the Earth is flat"
-"I am unsure if my beliefs are an accurate reflection of reality - they could be wrong"

Part of the problem is that JTB is a definition of knowledge, rather than a method for finding it. It doesn't tell you what is true and what isn't. You will have to work that out some other way. — Banno

Yes you are right that is a large part of it. But I want to go further and say no one pays any heed to this definition of knowledge when uttering "I know ..." Hence I am suggesting there exists another definition for knowledge that explains what people mean when they say "I know ..."

180 Proof

I think JTB is useless. I propose different factors for identifying knowledge. Rather than belief, justification, and truth; I think belief and adequate justification are the right factors and are all that's required. I'll bring out one of my favorite quotes, from Stephen J. Gould - "In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." — T Clark

:up:

Banno

That's what knowledge is about - it is a tool to help decide what action to take. — T Clark

Is that true? How do you know? How certain are you?

"I am unsure if my beliefs are an accurate reflection of reality - they could be wrong" — PhilosophyRunner

How do you know they could be wrong?

You both appear to be sitting over a regress. I suspect you had best hold onto some certainty in order to avoid the fall. To even phrase the supposition that JTB is useless requires suppositions and phrases.

And again, note that JTB is a definition, not a method.

PhilosophyRunner

How do you know they could be wrong? — Banno

Because I believe I have justification that beliefs can be wrong. I believe this belief can also be wrong. I believe this belief....

To snap out of this regression, I accept anything that has a lot of justification as true. A conditional truth. I use JMAOJB to consider what I know, not JTB.

Anyway what you seem to be suggesting is that T is redundant and not used. In which case that is close to the point I am making. It is belief and justification that is needed for knowledge. The metaphysical truth is of no help whatsoever.

T Clark

Is that true? How do you know? How certain are you? — Banno

Sophistry, intentional, as are many of your comments.

PhilosophyRunner

And again, note that JTB is a definition, not a method. — Banno

But no one pays any heed to this definition of knowledge when uttering "I know ..." Hence I am suggesting there exists another definition for knowledge that explains what people mean when they say "I know ..."

T Clark

And so in practice, everyone uses JMAOJB (Justified Massive Amounts Of Justification Belief) when using "I know..."

If everybody uses JMAOJB when invoking knowledge, then is it not the case that knowledge is actually JMAOJB and not JTB in any practical use. A meaning of a word is what is in common usage, after all. — PhilosophyRunner

I don't need a massive amount of justification, only enough so that any uncertainty is acceptable given the consequences of being wrong. The same belief might require different justification in different situations.

PhilosophyRunner

↪T Clark

The situational component of what is needed for practical knowledge is a good point.

Hanover

If I believe the sun rises based upon my observations, yet another knows that to be false based upon their greater knowledge of the solar system, if we accept that K=JB and not K=JTB, then we both can be said to know opposite things. If we then ask whose knowledge is superior, I would suspect we'd say the one whose belief corresponds to the way things are. This would mean truth is the critical element in describing knowledge, or at least the sort of knowledge worth knowing.

As to pragmatism, should we choose to dispense with what actually is as the meaning of truth, but to instead suggest we choose our beliefs based upon what best resolves our problems, then placement of the earth in the center of the universe works better for those here on earth who need that fact for the added significance of humanity. That is, they would know the earth to be in the center of the universe, even though it's not. Those interested in space travel can think of the earth and sun however they may need to, and they'll know otherwise.

The point here is that dispensing with the T element dispenses with a meaningful K. That truth is evasive is just the truth about truth, and ignoring it doesn't resolve any issue.

Banno

Because I believe I have justification that beliefs can be wrong. — PhilosophyRunner

All of them?

I think the standard view being espoused here, the scientific/pragmatic stuff, takes purchase when one considers too few examples and makes too broad a conclusion.

So let's take a look at some different examples. Pick a significant other - your lover, your mum, or the bottle of whiskey you perhaps cradled as you fell asleep last night. Do you doubt your commitment to them? Or that pain in your neck from sleeping crooked - you can doubt the cause, but can you doubt the pain? Or this sentence you are reading - can you doubt that it is In English?

So sure, some beliefs can be wrong. But there are others that it seems odd to doubt.

And further, doubting only takes place against a background of things held certain. You can only doubt that the world is flat if there is a world, and flatness, and non-flatness.

Sophistry, intentional, as are many of your comments. — T Clark

Whatever gets you through the night. I can show you the bigger picture but I can't make you see it.

Hanover

The situational component of what is needed for practical knowledge is a good point. — PhilosophyRunner

That allows us to ignore any inconvenient truth. If the election were not stolen, then I must accept rule by my opponents, and I'd prefer not to, so I arrive at my knowledge, with all my justifications, without regard for truth.

Banno

That truth is evasive is just the truth about truth — Hanover

Yep.

what you seem to be suggesting is that T is redundant and not used. — PhilosophyRunner

It's redundant in that "the earth is flat" will be true exactly if the Earth is flat; no extra meaning is added to the sentence by saying it is true. But it can change what we might do with the sentence. :wink:

there exists another definition for knowledge... — PhilosophyRunner

Well, yes - there's knowing how to do things as well as knowing what is the case. But the two are not entirely unrelated.

Banno

Perhaps pragmatism works for deciding if the sun will come up tomorrow. Does it work for deciding if you should kill Mum for her inheritance?

The answer tells us a lot about you.

PhilosophyRunner

That allows us to ignore any inconvenient truth. If the election were not stolen, then I must accept rule by my opponents, and I'd prefer not to, so I arrive at my knowledge, with all my justifications, without regard for truth. — Hanover

However you want, you can not directly access metaphysical truth, whatever method you use. So when you say you "arrive at the truth," you arrive at enough justification that you think it valid to claim it as truth. This is my point - the metaphysical truth is not something any of us have direct access to - we only have justifications (like evidence) to come up with a provisional (or conditional if you like) truth.

The situational aspect I suggest is this - the more consequential the knowledge is, the greater is the burden for justification that should be applied.

Your example is very consequential, thus a higher burden of justification is needed to claim something as knowledge.

PhilosophyRunner

↪Banno

Not all of them - I don't know what I don't know. I just know that I am capable of being wrong. and I know this not using JTB but using JMAOJB.

Surely you also recognize that something you completely and utterly believe today may turn out to be wrong?

PhilosophyRunner

Well, yes - there's knowing how to do things as well as knowing what is the case. But the two are not entirely unrelated. — Banno

Yes that is right. but I'm not referring to those cases.

There are people who have said "The Earth orbits around the sun." They said that because they believe it, and because they have good justification to believe it. That is all I am saying - that metaphysical truth does not come into it.

In these cases JTB does not adequately define what they mean when they say "I know..."

Banno

Surely you also recognize that something you completely and utterly believe today may turn out to be wrong? — PhilosophyRunner

Notice that it doesn't follow that everything you completely and utterly believe today may turn out to be wrong.

Can you be wrong about your commitment? A pain you feel? That this thread is in English?

There remain things that it makes no sense to doubt. Things that have to be taken as indubitable in order to participate in the world.

PhilosophyRunner

↪Banno

But that lack of doubt is due to strong beliefs and/or good justification.

They are not due to that person having direct access to objective metaphysical truth.

Things I have little doubt about are because I have strong beliefs or very good justifications for that. Not because I am some kind of oracle that directly connects with absolute truth. So why include absolute truth in the definition of knowledge? It serves no practical use.

Banno

↪PhilosophyRunner

What justification could you have for believing that you are tired? That you are thirsty? That your foot hurts? That you are jealous?

Yeah, sure, we don't have access to "objective metaphysical truth", whatever that might be. But that does not mean that you do not have access to truth.

Some things, such as that Banno can be bloody annoying, are true.

T Clark

Sophistry, intentional, as are many of your comments.
— T Clark

Whatever gets you through the night. I can show you the bigger picture but I can't make you see it.
35 minutes ago — Banno

I think my statement is a justified true belief.

PhilosophyRunner

Yeah, sure, we don't have access to "objective metaphysical truth", whatever that might be. — Banno

The T in JTB, as far as I understand (please correct me if I am wrong), is objective absolute truth. It is what is true regardless of what I think about the matter. It is what is true regardless of what anyone thinks of the matter.

So if we don't have access to that, then what is it doing in a definition of knowledge?

Some things, such as that Banno can be bloody annoying, are true.

Ah but see I am not yet sure that is true. Though I reserve the right to invoke that at a later point in the discussion if need be!

T Clark

The point here is that dispensing with the T element dispenses with a meaningful K. That truth is evasive is just the truth about truth, and ignoring it doesn't resolve any issue. — Hanover

It allows us to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. That includes most decisions. In a related fashion, it allows us some control over the risks of decisions we make.

A philosophical quagmire about what I know

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions