Knowledge is just true information. Isn't it? (Time to let go of the old problematic definition)

Jack2848

Gettier cases and various other issues related to knowledge (as justified true belief) arise because of the definition. And the definition is problematic because it unnecessarily combines the act of knowing with information being true.

Instead we should split the two.
Knowledge is information that is true.
For example ''Superman can fly in the fictional realm of DC''. Is true if stated as such and thus is knowledge. It doesn't require a belief to be true. It just is.

''I am writing my first post on this board'' is true and is knowledge (true information).

''God exists'' is either knowledge (true information) or it isn't and then it's false information. Can we know whether it is knowledge or not? That depends on what you mean by know. But that's a separate issue.

By splitting the giant into simpler tasks we can at least get rid of the gettier problems. At least in it's current form

Because now in the case where one comes down the stairs and sees the broken clock give the correct time. But one isn't aware the clock is broken. In this case the person has knowledge (true information). So the problem is solved.

But a new problem arises namely, can that person know whether they have knowledge? But it seems more easy to hold the world in this way. It seems we'd kot have just shifted problem. We'd have resolved one. So we can focus on just the act of ''knowing''.

Do you agree? If so why? If not why not? What's your best counter argument. Is it a practical one or one of definition?

Short EDIT: I currently hold the most concise yet descriptive definitions is ''knowledge is belief assumed to be true'' . If more descriptive is more accurate then that's the one

(Long EDIT) Which I include to avoid being misinterpreted in my current position.

We use the word knowledge to refer to things we use in the world. For example "something exist because this whatever this is is something" so we ask what is that ?
For ages the proposition ''green is something innate to the object" was deemed true. So we can say we thought it was knowledge (true information or JTB) or we could say it was knowledge (justified belief) .
Which is an accurate proposition as wether it was knowledge or not at the time to say' ''green is innate to the object'' will depend on what y
your definition of the word knowledge is.

Knowledge=justified belief (x)
Knowledge=justified true belief (y)
Knowledge=(true) information (z)
Knowledge=a belief assumed to be true (m)

What we can do for example is
something like. (and to be clear we wouldn't add x y or z. We'd just naturally talk using the word knowledge and the definitions and as a result we'd get confused.

''knowledge (y) is not true information (z).
Knowledge (y) is justified true belief (y) (JTB= short version of what you said). And I could say ''no, knowledge (z) is true information (z)''.

Which would basically be like.

''no, it's not the case that y is z. Obviously y is y
And then I can say "no, z is z"

So then we are really just confused by language and arguing about definition. And one isn't necessarily true and the other false. They will only be more, less or equally useful depending on context and a desired metric and measuring method or goal.
In other words a definition of a word can't be false or true just be more or less useful.

If a proposition is true then it is true information. So if we'd use the word knowledge for that then sure. If a proposition is true but we prefer to say knowledge is tied to a belief and must be JTB then we could equally say it's knowledge. Because it is a JTB.

If we say that that proposition is justified belief and we want to use the word knowledge to describe it. Then since the proposition is a justified belief it would be knowledge if such defined.

Harry Hindu

And the definition is problematic because it unnecessarily combines the act of knowing with information being true. — Jack2848

A solution would be to define what it means to be "true".

Another solution would be to dispense with the word, "true" as a descriptor of knowledge. Knowledge would be justified beliefs, and beliefs are justified by both observation AND logic. Beliefs would only be justified by one or the other, or neither. Knowledge requires confirmation from both.

The belief that god exists would not be based on logic or reason as we have never observed god and the gods as defined in many religious texts are contradictory.

There is also the distinction of the types of information that is man-made vs natural information. Man-made information, like "Superman flies" will always be justified because Superman is an idea and by thinking of Superman and his powers one is directly accessing what it means to be Superman. The same cannot be said of natural occurring phenomenon, like stars, atoms, etc.

Jack2848

For the definition of truth bypass the difficulty to define it and just say it's ''if p then p'' meaning if p then p is true.

I've had a similar view on knowledge to hold it has justified belief. As it automatically entails epistemic humility and explains contradicting instances of knowledge. But when they do arise. The concept of ''truth'' is still useful and not to be discarded.

If country 'a' says that x happened and country 'b' says that ''not x'' happened. Then both claim the propositions are knowledge (justified belief). But since they contradict it begs the question. So which knowledge (JB) is true? The word is just useful altough but not necessary in the definition of knowledge.

But if we can hold multiple definitions (perspectives). It could be more practical to use what most aligns with common understanding. And that is (I belief) that knowledge is information that is true. (But it could be that in some circles (minority) it would be justified belief. But that's just my intuition. Not sure could be the other way around.

T Clark

Gettier cases and various other issues related to knowledge (as justified true belief) arise because of the definition. And the definition is problematic because it unnecessarily combines the act of knowing with information being true. — Jack2848

Welcome to the forum. Justified true belief is a perennial subject of discussion here. It never gets resolved. Nobody is ever convinced. Here’s my take - get rid of the requirement for truth.

Jack2848

↪T Clark

I agree. Justified belief is probably what knowledge is if we take a descriptive approach.
But it's just a way of holding it , but we can define 'knowledge' in many ways that align with potential natural uses.
But one things seem quite clear and in need of little convincing.

If someone points to the gettier cases. And says that 'x' had a JTB 'y'. And then says "But surely we wouldn't say 'x' knew 'y'. He was just lucky. So JTB isn't knowledge.

Basically they're saying two things or we could derive. 1. That for them knowledge requires absolute certainty and godlike direct awareness of reality (so knowledge is then impossible for humans) so that there's no luck involved nor any doubt.

2. They say JTB isn't knowledge. i.o.w. (using their requirements as definition) JTB isn't such that it is direct awareness of reality in a godlike manner

Vera Mont

Knowledge is information that is true — Jack2848

No, that's just accurate information. It doesn't become knowledge until you compare it with previous information you're gathered, test it for logical dissonance, evaluate it in light of your own sensory input and integrated it with a network of data on the subject that you've accumulated through a combination of reliable information from external sources, personal experience, reflection and memory. (You can't know anything you've forgotten, no matter how true it was or how convinced you were.)

''Superman can fly in the fictional realm of DC'' — Jack2848

That's a factoid. It becomes knowledge if you're already conversant with the realm of comic books, so that you're aware of what Superman is (obviously, not what one think from the name) and can place it in the context of American culture. Only then can you use it on Jeopardy.

'I am writing my first post on this board'' is true and is knowledge. — Jack2848

Sez you, who made it true by Direct experience. I have no way of testing the statement. (You might have had 18 different online personae over the years.
(Welcome, or welcome back, whichever applies.)

God exists'' is either knowledge (true information) or it isn't and then it's false information. Can we know whether it is knowledge or not? That depends on what you mean by know. — Jack2848

No, it doesn't. It depends on on whether you're a theist. For them, the answer is obviously yes; for an atheist, it's just as obviously No; for an agnostic, it's a wobbly Maybe.

But that's a separate issue. — Jack2848

No, it can't be. It's a central issue. All this knowing and learning takes place in a human brain, imprisoned in a human skull, while the bearer of that skull lives in a physical world, in a society, a time and a culture. In order to topple early indoctrination, propaganda, self-delusion and long-held convictions, one must be presented with more than factual information, be open to contradictory input and bring to bear his own critical faculties.

But a new problem arises namely, can that person know whether they have knowledge? — Jack2848

Certainly: compare, test, reflect, evaluate, integrate.

So we can focus on just the act of ''knowing'' — Jack2848

It's not an act; it's a continuing state of mind. You can focus on it, so long as you understand that knowledge is analogous to love: it's not an emotion but a complex of emotions, sensations and beliefs. Just widen your lens aperture a couple of f-stops.

Banno

If I've understood,

↪Jack2848

knows things he doesn't believe, while

↪T Clark

knows things that are not true.

And neither account can explain what it is to know how to ride a bike.

:grimace:

tim wood

My view is that truth and knowledge are both generalizations, abstract terms that allow for a conceptualization as a one what is actually a many and not a one. Strictly speaking, then, there is no such thing as truth, although many things may be true and many not. Similarly knowledge, no such thing as, but instead knowledge of this or that, or how or what, and so forth. And there being no such thing, useless to look for it. No harm in looking for signs of either, as possible tests for their presence. But even the evidence of signs no absolute guarantee. And matters of degree a whole other topic.

Hanover

Instead we should split the two.
Knowledge is information that is true.
For example ''Superman can fly in the fictional realm of DC''. Is true if stated as such and thus is knowledge. It doesn't require a belief to be true. It just is. — Jack2848

If knowledge doesn't require belief, then i can know Superman can fly even if I've never heard of Superman?

Hanover

Here’s my take - get rid of the requirement for truth. — T Clark

So we have two things:

A = justified true belief
B = justified belief

You propose we assign the word "knowledge" to B ( instead of to A).

What word do you now propose we assign for A?

Hanover

T=K/JB.

That's the formula for Truth because K=JTB.

Wayfarer

I think the key is, that it has to mean something. We have to have some skin in the game otherwise what does it matter? Who prevails in an internet debate?

Your suggestion to redefine knowledge as simply “true information” is understandable—it sidesteps Gettier problems by removing belief and justification from the equation. But I think the cost of doing so is too high. What we lose is the whole human dimension of knowing.

To know something, in any meaningful sense, is not merely to possess a piece of information that happens to be true. It’s to grasp it, to stand behind it, and if needs be to to act on it. That’s why belief and justification were part of the traditional definition: not because they’re philosophically tidy, but because they reflected what it means to know in actual life. We’re not passive containers of truths—we’re engaged agents who must assess, trust, challenge, and risk loss in the pursuit of knowledge.

That’s why Gettier cases are troubling. They show that something can check the boxes—justified, true, believed—and still feel wrong. The problem isn’t just with the definition; it’s with how knowledge is entangled with our perspective, our stakes, and our vulnerability to error. You can’t just treat it like a Boolean switch.

Consider real cases, like the Boston Globe’s investigation of abuse in the Catholic Church (Spotlight, 2015), or the exposure of toxic chemicals by whistleblowers (Dark Waters, 2019). These were not about sorting information into “true” or “false” categories. They were prolonged struggles against doubt, suppression, and institutional deception with large likelihoods of failure. In these cases, the truth mattered because the truth had been hidden, and people had to believe in it, justify it, and fight for it. That’s not just “true information” but also deeply meaningful (indeed, we’re learning we’re all likely to have PFAS chemicals in our bloodstream as a consequence of the latter.)

So yes, your revised definition may dodge Gettier problems. But it does so by eliminating the very thing that gives knowledge its urgency and its value. It’s like solving a paradox in ethics by redefining “good” to mean “pleasurable”—it may simplify the problem, but it abandons what was at stake.

tim wood

They show that something can check the boxes—justified, true, believed — Wayfarer

It's the "true" I don't get. What do you say it is?

I think the full expression is, "by the criteria I have in place, in mind, I adjudge proposition P to be true." And there are differing ways of assessing or granting assent, or withholding. So "true" would appear to rest on two pillars (at least), judgment and assent to the judgment. It would seem, then, that there is no - zero - intrinsic meaning to "true" in itself - beyond what we take it to be, when we're moved to take it.

That is, "true" is simply what we take to be the case. Usually without pausing to consider how or why we take it to be so. And if we listen to JTB, this is just what it says. Knowledge: justified, we adjudge it so. We believe it; we assent to it. And by these it's true. And thus, knowledge. But from this lineage, we only show all of this as practically determined, and not at all determined in the sense of any essence of anything at all. The standard might as well - and more honestly - be "Works for me!" Until of course it doesn't, and at that moment the mortality of "true," and knowledge, all too evident.

T Clark

but we can define 'knowledge' in many ways that align with potential natural uses. — Jack2848

Sure. When I'm talking about "knowledge," it's usually in terms of how it's generally used in normal discussion. Knowledge is actionable belief - adequately justified belief. Since I can never know for certain it's true, I have to make a judgment based on the uncertainty of my information and the consequences of being wrong.

T Clark

And neither account can explain what it is to know how to ride a bike. — Banno

When I get involved in a discussion such as this one, I usually make it explicitly clear the kind of knowledge I'm talking about - specifically excluding knowing how to do something.

T Clark

So we have two things:

A = justified true belief
B = justified belief

You propose we assign the word "knowledge" to B ( instead of to A).

What word do you now propose we assign for A? — Hanover

I normally use the term "adequately justified belief" to describe knowledge as it is used in daily life. "Justified true belief" doesn't mean anything, at least nothing useful.

Hanover

↪T Clark

That sounds responsive to the question "Hey, Clarky what do you normally do, and what are your thoughts on the word "justified?"

But that's not what I asked.

This is my cross examination, not your chance just to share.

flannel jesus

For example ''Superman can fly in the fictional realm of DC''. Is true if stated as such and thus is knowledge. It doesn't require a belief to be true. It just is. — Jack2848

Nah, it has to involve belief. It's not "knowledge" unless someone knows it, there's already a word for truth without belief and that's called "fact".

T Clark

This is my cross examination, not your chance just to share. — Hanover

The truth? You can't handle the adequately justified belief!!!

I object Your Honor. The counselor is badgering the witness.

I object. That's incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.

I rest my case.

More to the point, I wasn't sharing, I was defining my terms, providing context. Now you can agree or disagree with that.

Jack2848

↪Vera Mont

No, that's just accurate information. It doesn't become knowledge until you compare it with previous information you're gathered, test it for logical dissonance, evaluate it in light of your own sensory input and integrated it with a network of data on the subject that you've accumulated through a combination of reliable information from external sources, personal experience, reflection and memory. (You can't know anything you've forgotten, no matter how true it was or how convinced you were.)

We use the word knowledge to refer to things we use in the world. For example "something exist because this whatever this is is something" so we ask what is that ?
For ages the proposition ''green is something innate to the object" was deemed true. So we can say we thought it was knowledge (true information or JTB) or we could say it was knowledge (justified belief) .
Which is an accurate proposition as wether it was knowledge or not at the time to say' ''green is innate to the object'' will depend on what y
your definition of the word knowledge is.

Knowledge=justified belief (x)
Knowledge=justified true belief (y)
Knowledge=(true) information (z)
Knowledge=a belief assumed to be true (m)

What we can do for example is
something like. (and to be clear we wouldn't add x y or z. We'd just naturally talk using the word knowledge and the definitions and as a result we'd get confused.

''knowledge (y) is not true information (z).
Knowledge (y) is justified true belief (y) (JTB= short version of what you said). And I could say ''no, knowledge (z) is true information (z)''.

Which would basically be like.

''no, it's not the case that y is z. Obviously y is y
And then I can say "no, z is z"

So then we are really just confused by language and arguing about definition. And one isn't necessarily true and the other false. They will only be more, less or equally useful depending on context and a desired metric and measuring method or goal.
In other words a definition of a word can't be false or true just be more or less useful.

If a proposition is true then it is true information. So if we'd use the word knowledge for that then sure. If a proposition is true but we prefer to say knowledge is tied to a belief and must be JTB then we could equally say it's knowledge. Because it is a JTB.

If we say that that proposition is justified belief and we want to use the word knowledge to describe it. Then since the proposition is a justified belief it would be knowledge if such defined.

'I am writing my first post on this board'' is true and is knowledge.
— Jack2848
Sez you, who made it true by Direct experience. I have no way of testing the statement. (You might have had 18 different online personae over the years.
(Welcome, or welcome back, whichever applies.)

The truth value we can imagine not depending on your perception otherwise we'd have contradictions galore. Surely we can make a distinction between truth assumption by person x vs our recognition that x could be false anyway. (In a practical way)

God exists'' is either knowledge (true information) or it isn't and then it's false information. Can we know whether it is knowledge or not? That depends on what you mean by know.
— Jack2848
No, it doesn't. It depends on on whether you're a theist. For them, the answer is obviously yes; for an atheist, it's just as obviously No; for an agnostic, it's a wobbly Maybe.

And would you say the theist, atheist and agnost each have different ideas as to what we can claim to know? And that this then affects their being a theist/agnost? And would you say that that confirms rather then refutes my position that whether we can know first depends on what we mean by 'know'

Since if we mean by 'know' 'having absolute certainty even beyond often assumed ridiculous doubt'. Then in that case we can't know. If defined differently (fallibilist type definition) then we can know.

Jack2848

↪Banno

If I've understood, ↪Jack2848 knows things he doesn't believe, while ↪T Clark knows things that are not true.

And neither account can explain what it is to know how to ride a bike.

Incorrect.

I separate knowing from knowledge. (In the case I originally used knowledge to be Translated as true Information)

So let's say something like ability knowledge. With propositions people explain how to ride. Eventually you manage to do so. I'd claim that the person who knows how to ride a bicycle is someone that can fulfill the task after having understood the true information that explained how to do the task and was able to enact the true information into action.

So I can know how to ride a bicycle. Some things I can know. Some things I can't know. Both with a stringent epistemological approach and a more practical one.

And my ability to know in the bicycle case is because I have applied true information and am aware that it is true because if it wasn't I'd not be able to ride the bycicle.

If you told me ''the way to ride a bicycle is to sit on your buttocks and wave your hand at random people and then you'll do what x does (points at x who's riding a bycicle). Then the information would be false in that definition of knowledge it would thus not be knowledge. And would not result in me riding a bycicle.

Jack2848

↪Hanover

Instead we should split the two.
Knowledge is information that is true.
For example ''Superman can fly in the fictional realm of DC''. Is true if stated as such and thus is knowledge. It doesn't require a belief to be true. It just is.
— Jack2848

If knowledge doesn't require belief, then i can know Superman can fly even if I've never heard of Superman?

If we translate/define knowledge as ''true information'' and separate it from knowing as I said. You get this.

''you can have true information and not know that you have it. You can have true information and know that you have it but in order to know you have to be aware of the truth of the information"

Or the same but without translation

"You can have knowledge and know it or have knowledge and not know it. And if you know you have knowledge then you have to be aware of the truth of the information otherwise you don't know you have knowledge.

An example of being aware of the truth of the information in your possession being true information is "this what we are doing, is something, whatever its true nature might be, so something exists"

Or pre translation.
An example of knowing you have knowledge is "this what we are doing, is something, whatever its true nature might be, so something exists"

So can you be aware of whether the information is true (know) that Superman can fly even if you haven't heard of Superman? No. You'd need knowledge (true information) and awareness that the information is knowledge (true information).

So just because true information (knowledge) doesn't require a belief, doesn't mean that you can be aware of the truth value (know) of 'superman can fly' even if you don't know him.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Harry Hindu

Knowledge would be justified beliefs, and beliefs are justified by both observation AND logic. Beliefs would only be justified by one or the other, or neither. Knowledge requires confirmation from both.

Can you explain in virtue of what a belief would be "justified" without any reference to truth? How does logic "justify" a belief without reference to logic's relationship to truth in particular?

It seems to me that this will be difficult.

↪Jack2848

Can you define "information" here? It seems to me that you are presenting something like: "knowledge is truth's presence in the mind?"

Presumably information can be false, right? So in virtue of what is "true information" true?

↪Wayfarer

Funny, I thought it sounded similar to classical formulations of knowledge, which imply understanding. I guess it depends on what "information" is supposed to mean.

Jack2848

↪Count Timothy von Icarus

When I use knowledge defined/to be translated as true information

Then I'd not say that is just ''truth in the mind'' if by that you mean an assumption of truth.

Rather more abstract. If we write a letter. "Something exists because this letter, and the writer, whatever their actual nature is they obviously exist in some form or other.''

And that letter somehow gets made such that is encased in a nearly indestructible substance.
Surely ''truth value'' isn't something physical or magical in the letter. But we can use the word to understand that what the proposition states is the case regardless of belief. We can understand that it is or isn't so.

So information would be something like that proposition example. Whatever it is that complex entities eventually could decode even alien races given enough time and maybe some luck. (Like we'd decode stuff).

So knowledge defined as true information is just like that proposition + it being true regardless of opinion.

The earth is flat or it isn't. Regardless of opinion. So knowledge for me would be ''the earth is not flat'' (if it is not flat).

Vera Mont

We use the word knowledge to refer to things we use in the world. For example "something exist because this whatever this is is something" so we ask what is that ? — Jack2848

We use axes and bassoons in the world, too and they're nor knowledge. They were made by people who knew something about materials and processes.

For example "something exist because this whatever this is is something" so we ask what is that ?

I know the words, but cannot parse the sentence.

The truth value we can imagine not depending on your perception otherwise we'd have contradictions galore. Surely we can make a distinction between truth assumption by person x vs our recognition that x could be false anyway. (In a practical way) — Jack2848

Exactly, which is why a piece of information, however true and correct, is not knowledge until it's verified by comparison to previous experience, tested against logic and probability and incorporated into a personal data-base. When you experience and remember something, it becomes part of your knowledge. When you communicate it to someone else, it doesn't necessarily part of their knowledge.

If a proposition is true then it is true information. So if we'd use the word knowledge for that then sure. — Jack2848

But I'm not using one word when I mean a different word. Why should I?

And would you say the theist, atheist and agnost each have different ideas as to what we can claim to know? — Jack2848

That's part of it. More comprehensively, you can say that we interpret evidence differently, according to our previous experience, conviction and disposition, and thereby arrive at different conclusions.

And would you say that that confirms rather then refutes my position that whether we can know first depends on what we mean by 'know' — Jack2848

Neither. You interpret knowledge one way; the theist and I interpret it a different way. You make all those little word equations; the true believer has an epiphany; I have a critical approach to whatever I read.

Since if we mean by 'know' 'having absolute certainty even beyond often assumed ridiculous doubt'. Then in that case we can't know. If defined differently (fallibilist type definition) then we can know. — Jack2848

Sure: we can be 100 sure that we know how to brush our teeth; many know how to drive a car; some people know how to make an axe. Doctors generally know that vaccinations protect against contagious disease; astronomers know, to a reasonable level of certainty which of the visible suns have planets; those who have read the reports know that climate change is clear and present danger. Whether there are gods or ghosts is a matter of personal conviction, simply because there is too little objective, testable and verifiable information.

Banno

When I get involved in a discussion such as this one, I usually make it explicitly clear the kind of knowledge I'm talking about - specifically excluding knowing how to do something. — T Clark

Yep. Not an uncommon move. Is it justified? Is there a difference in kind here? You know that there is water in the tap. You can show that you know this by saying "There is water in the tap", or by going and getting a glass of water. Going and getting a glass of of water is something you do. But so is saying "There is water in the tap".

Indeed, if we came across someone who said "I know that there is water in the tap", but became confused when asked to locate and turn the tap on in order to obtain a glass of water, we might well conclude that they said they knew but really didn't.

There seems to be a pretty good argument that "knowing that" is a type of "knowing how".

I'm not convinced that you can neatly slice knowing how from knowing that.

What do you say?

Banno

↪Jack2848

If you had someone who could set out, to whatever degree of detail you like, what is involved in riding a bike, and yet fell off every time they tried to ride, would you say that they know how to ride a bike?

They have all the information.

But they can't do it.

Hence knowledge is more than information.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Banno

Knowing how to use a faucet is not the same thing as knowing that any particular faucet is working. A person demonstrates that they know how to use a faucet and that they believe a given faucet is working when they try to fill a cup with it. Whether or not they know that this particular faucet is working prior to filling their cup is a different question.

For instance, wolfing down horse dewormer to prevent yourself from getting COVID-19 is not the same thing as knowing that horse dewormer is a good treatment for that disease. Knowing that something is true is not equivalent with knowing how to behave as if something were true.

A priest having a crisis of faith about the Eucharist and one who isn't might behave in identical ways during the Mass, yet they have different beliefs. Further, their beliefs are one thing and the truth of transubstantiation, the existence of God, and other related questions, are yet another thing.

Of course, with a very broad definition of "doing" or "behavior," we can accommodate all sorts of knowledge to "knowing how," since we can simply refer to "knowing" or "thinking," or even "experiencing" as "things we do" or "behaviors/acts." But praying does not demonstrate knowledge of God in the way that riding a bike demonstrates knowledge of bike riding. Not all knowledge is of an art; some is speculative.

T Clark

Yep. Not an uncommon move. Is it justified? Is there a difference in kind here? — Banno

I do think there’s a difference in kind, but to tell the truth, I don’t really care about what it means to know how to do something. At least not in the context of philosophy.

Banno

Knowing how to use a faucet is not the same thing as knowing that any particular faucet is working... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure.

The point made is that in order to be said to know something, it's not usually enough to have the information; one also should be able to act on that information.

That seems to have little to do with being able to carry on a ritual without having faith in the accompanying theology.

So what do we conclude?

I don’t really care about what it means to know how to do something. At least not in the context of philosophy. — T Clark

A shame. Fine.

Vera Mont

You can never be 100% certain that the tap which worked an hour ago is still working, or that the pipes connecting that tap to a well or reservoir haven't burst, or that the water source hasn't dried up. But you can know that a water-faucet is connected by pipes to a source of water; that that twisting the handle in one direction opens a valve and water flows from it, that twisting in the opposite direction stops the water flowing. That's knowledge about the mechanism and its function as well as how to use it. You know, because you've been told and have tested the information with demonstrable results. Nothing you know about mechanism and its purpose is invalidated by a malfunction in either the plumbing or your hand. If you know the what, you know the how. If you forget the how, you must also have forgotten the what; in that case, the knowledge has either been destroyed or gone temporarily inaccessible.

If information is inapplicable to the physical world, it can't be tested for veracity or relevance. You can only know for certain that which you have observed, experienced, tested and verified. Actual knowledge can't be divorced from the whats, hows and whys of the physical world.
Untestable information can be believed, accepted because it's probable in light of actual knowledge you already possess or it fits in with your world-view and expectations, or because the source is someone you trust. That's belief. It is often correct, but it's not knowledge.

Knowledge is just true information. Isn't it? (Time to let go of the old problematic definition)

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions