It seems quite odd to me... this idea... that it is somehow unjustified to concluder from false belief? That all belief based upon false premisses is unjustified???
What on earth would it take for that claim to be so? — creativesoul
One can and does infer from false belief.
It can be done validly.
It can be done reasonably. — creativesoul
At conception, we are completely void of all thought and belief. Belief is accrued. More complex belief is built upon the simple. Some simple is false. Some of our complex belief was built upon simple but false... belief. We all have no choice but to look at the world through the filter of our upbringing. All of our unbringings contained false belief.
Working from our belief system is unavoidable.
We all hold false belief.
It must be done — creativesoul
It contradicts actual events in everyone of our lives. — creativesoul
One is camping in an unfamiliar forest when s/he hears - quite suddenly - a loud startling sound.
It is as if a very large animal is coming through the underbrush. It is far enough away so as not to cause too much immediate fright. However...
The sounds are coming from an unknown source on a path. If it continues it's course it is directly at you. Unknown entity...
Turns out it was a lost dog, who happened to be deaf. This is a valid conclusion drawn from a false premiss and we were completely justified in our doing so. So...
Your criterion for what counts as being "justified" cannot admit that one who is fleeing for their own life were justified in doing so, because they were mistaken.
Did I miss anything? — creativesoul
Ever read Gettier's paper? Why look at the OP if it misrepresents Gettier's written words? Strong indeed. — creativesoul
Your criterion for what counts as being "justified" cannot admit that one who is fleeing for their own life were justified in doing so, because they were mistaken. — creativesoul
a belief cannot be said to be false and justified because the designation of "false" denies the possibility of justification. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your criterion for what counts as being "justified" cannot admit that one who is fleeing for their own life were justified in doing so, because they were mistaken. — creativesoul
Of course, to say one is "mistaken" (wrong) in one's actions is to say that the actions are not justified. To argue otherwise would be irrational. — Metaphysician Undercover
How is that a misrepresentation? Up until the point where I claim the person has the knowledge, I'm arriving at the same conclusions as you were in your comment. — BlueBanana
An unsound conclusion cannot be said to be a justified conclusion. — Metaphysician Undercover
There are two formulations underwriting the essay. Unless those are satisfactorily addressed and dealt with, you're aiming at the wrong target. — creativesoul
That is to conflate truth and justification. — creativesoul
It is irrational to deny that someone camping in unfamiliar woods who concludes that they are in danger because of hearing an unknown, unseen, and startlingly noisy entity coming directly towards them has justified belief simply because they were mistaken. Their belief was false, but if that doesn't count as sufficient reason to believe that one is in danger, and thus that that belief is justified, then nothing will. — creativesoul
No, I don't conflate truth and justification. I state the simple fact that believing X to be true is a necessary condition of believing X is justified. One cannot believe X is justified without believing X is true. But this does not mean all truths are justified. — Metaphysician Undercover
I suppose it depends what is being built into the notion of being "justified" here. Normally, if I say someone is justified in believing something, I mean that they have good reason to believe it, and either no reason or a comparatively weak reason not to believe it. Clearly I could think there are such reasons for believing that P without my being psychologically convinced that P. Maybe I recognize the strong case to be made for P, but I just find the idea of P hard to believe. This is at least logically possible. Hence, it is possible to believe that X is justified without believing that X is true - in this sense of "justified". — PossibleAaran
Other Philosophers define "justified" as "produced by a reliable process". On thwt definition, I could believe that my belief that X is produced by a reliable process. Its just that I also believe that on this particular occassion the process got things wrong - X is false. — PossibleAaran
I still do not see how one can truthfully say "I think P is justified but I still do not believe P". — Metaphysician Undercover
To say "X is justified" is strong evidence that one believes X. To say "X is not justified" is strong evidence that one does not believe X. So to say "X is justified but I do not believe X" is evidence that one is being untruthful. — Metaphysician Undercover
believing X to be true is a necessary condition of believing X is justified. — Metaphysician Undercover
However, no reasonable person would claim that S knows Q — creativesoul
Gettier offers examples where S is justified in believing P — creativesoul
No he's not. There is only enough information to make justified statements about probabilities. — BlueBanana
Yes. Otherwise there exists a possibility that it's false knowledge. — BlueBanana
Requiring certainty for good justification seems unreasonable. — Michael
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.