If you think that the person did not commit the crime, then you believe that the conclusion that they did commit the crime is unjustified. — Metaphysician Undercover
But if you thought that it was just an opinion, and other people might have contrary opinions which were reasonable, you wouldn't designate the belief as false. A false belief is not a reasonable opinion. — Metaphysician Undercover
If you believe that X was a justified belief, but is no longer a justified belief, then it is still a lie if you state "X is a justified belief". — Metaphysician Undercover
A conclusion is justified if there's evidence for it. There's evidence for it; therefore, it's justified. — Michael
An opinion can be reasonable but false, so I would designate the belief as false.
Example: both believing in God and not believing in God are reasonable and justified beliefs and there exist valid arguments for both. I still have an opinion on that that I believe to be objectively true, but still objectively recognize as a subjective opinion. — BlueBanana
Yes but you could say it was a reasonable belief. It was justified to believe the Earth was justified in the medieval times. — BlueBanana
The evidence must be conclusive. — Metaphysician Undercover
If I meet someone and she tells me that her name is Sarah then I'm not justified in believing that her name is Sarah because it isn't certain – she might be lying? And even if she shows me her passport and driving license then I'm still not justified because it still isn't certain – they might be forgeries? — Michael
Requiring certainty for justification seems unreasonable. — Michael
I don't see the relevance. Showing her id. seems like conclusive evidence to me, so you'd be justified in believing her name is Sarah. The point I made is that not just any piece of evidence serves to justify. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is irrelevant to my point, which is that you cannot believe it to be false (a forgery), and justified at the same time. — Metaphysician Undercover
You're conflating my belief with your belief. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't believe that you believe my belief is justified. You know that the documents are falsified so you know that my belief is not justified, and you are lying by telling me that you think my belief is justified. it's called "deception". — Metaphysician Undercover
Whether or not your belief is justified depends on whether or not the evidence available to you is compelling, which you admitted it is. — Michael
If you are considering both options, to believe in God, and to not believe in God, then you allow that one of these is false, but you are not believing that a particular one of them is false. — Metaphysician Undercover
You could say that it "was" a justified belief, but notice that (1) in the op requires that it "is" a justified belief. — Metaphysician Undercover
A foundationalist would probably disagree with this...it would also rule out all forms of a priori knowledge, it seems to me, as I generally associate "evidence" with empirical modes of investigation.A conclusion is justified if there's evidence for it. There's evidence for it; therefore, it's justified. — Michael
I'm not considering them both, I accept both as justified beliefs. — BlueBanana
How does it matter what time we're talking about? Does it change with time whether a false belief can be justified? If we were having this discussion in the medieval times, it'd have clearly been possible to have a justified false belief. — BlueBanana
Then "compelling" might not be the right word. But my point stands with the example of you being accused of having sex with someone underage. It would be entirely appropriate for the judge to accept that your belief that she was 16, although false, was justified, and so to find you innocent of the charge. — Michael
I don't agree, because there is a difference between being held not liable, and being justified. Being found not liable is not the same as being justified. To be justified is to be demonstrated as being right. To be not liable is to be demonstrated as being not legally responsible for something which is wrong. One involves rightness, the other wrongness.
So the judge would not say that the man was "justified" meaning "right" in having sex with someone underage, just because she showed him false id. The false id. might be considered as a mitigating factor, but it cannot negate the fact that the act itself was wrong. The judge might leave the man as unpunished, but that does not mean that the judge thinks that the man was justified (right) in committing the wrongful act. This would be contradictory, to say that the act (sex with a girl under 16) is a wrongful act, and also that the man was justified (right) in committing it. And this is evident in drinking establishments which get their licenses revoked for serving alcohol to minors even though the minors were using false id. — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not saying that the man was right to have sex with the girl. I'm saying that the man was justified in believing that she was 16, given the evidence available to him. — Michael
And we're not discussing whether a false belief can be justified, we're discussing whether one can believe that a belief is both false and justified. — Metaphysician Undercover
So you have contradictory justified beliefs then. — Metaphysician Undercover
If a belief is false, then one could believe that belief to be false. Yet, if the belief is justified, one can also believe it to be justified. — BlueBanana
Clearly he wasn't right in believing that she was sixteen, so he wasn't justified in believing that she was sixteen. Justification requires demonstrating that one is right. — Metaphysician Undercover
So how could one believe the same belief to be both justified and false? — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not equivocating, because I've already said that your definition of "justified" is unacceptable. We ought to adhere to an acceptable definition of 'justified". If you check your dictionary you'll find that "justify" requires demonstrating the correctness of. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.