I believe TPF-ers (with reference to PF) is getting smarter. In the past, JTB knowledge and the Gettier problem would have generated many more posts this far in. Perhaps we can look forward to a day in the near future when there won't be any! — tim wood
Take any definition which I gave you of "justified" and you will see how it is so. If "justified" means "responsible in believing" then you might think I am responsible in believing that P, even though you think P is false. Hence, you would think that I am justified in believing P, even though P is false. — PossibleAaran
Hey, no ad hominems here. — BlueBanana
I mean, does he know all the influencing factors and the exact number of possible outcomes? — creativesoul
What's false knowledge? Knowledge has to be true, does it not? — creativesoul
You should've read the rest of that statement. — creativesoul
for in both cases Q is true as a result of something that S didn't believe. — creativesoul
One can be certain of X when X is false. — creativesoul
It was false, but well grounded(justified) belief none-the-less. — creativesoul
To say that the second case is justified belief simply because it would've been true, is to ignore the reasoning(justification) aspect and focus upon the truth aspect. — creativesoul
I can believe that 'X' is true, while knowing that I do not have good reason for believing it. Thus, I can sincerely say that one can believe 'X' even when they knowingly do not have good reason for it. — creativesoul
You are right in that one instance, but the other definitions I used still work when it is you believing that X is both justified and false. — PossibleAaran
You see that I have tried my absolute best to investigate things. You see that I have considered all of the objections against P...
I think that you have very good arguments for your belief that P...
You think that my belief that P is produced by a reliable process. — PossibleAaran
I can believe that 'X' is true, while knowing that I do not have good reason for believing it. Thus, I can sincerely say that one can believe 'X' even when they knowingly do not have good reason for it. — creativesoul
The Gettier problem is, in a general form, as follows: a person has a false belief a, from which a conclusion b is drawn. It is then found out that a was false, yet b is true (although only when interpreted in some different way).
Edmund Gettier made the following two assumptions:
1) b is a justified, true belief (JTB-definition of knowledge)
2) b is not knowledge — BlueBanana
The point is, that no one can truthfully say both, that (a) is a false belief, and that (b) being a conclusion derived from the false belief (a), is justified. To say both, that (a) is false, and that (b) is justified requires that one lie. Either the person doesn't really believe that (a) is false, or the person doesn't really believe that (b) is justified. In other words, Gettier is lying when he says b is justified. — Metaphysician Undercover
Otherwise we could justify all sorts of irrational beliefs by asserting falsities. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't see this at all. All your examples are in the form of "You see that I...", or "I see that you..." — Metaphysician Undercover
Well, we do. Those justifications are just not valid. — BlueBanana
I believe both that 'X' is false and justified.
Let 'X' be "The sun revolves around the earth". Let the timeframe be more than four centuries prior to Copernicus. — creativesoul
Think of the notio of "justification" as responsible belief. I believe that I have a very good argument that God exists. Because I believe that, I believe that "God exists" is justified - I believe it would be responsible for me to believe it. But, I'm a stubborn and dogmatic atheist and I don't really care much whether there are good arguments or whether I'm fulfilling my epistemic responsibilities. — PossibleAaran
Such a person would be strange, but not logically impossible. — PossibleAaran
An invalid attempt at justification is not justification. If it is not valid then is doesn't qualify as a justification. X is not justified if the claimed "justification" for X is not valid. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, I'm saying that you cannot honestly claim that you belief a specific belief to be both false and justified. If you belief that it is false, this denies the possibility of you believing that it is justified, because a false belief is known to be unsound and this contradicts "justified". — Metaphysician Undercover
I believe both that 'X' is false and justified.
Let 'X' be "The sun revolves around the earth". Let the timeframe be more than four centuries prior to Copernicus.
— creativesoul
What are you saying, that you lived, and believed X is false and justified, four centuries prior to Copernicus? I think you're lying. — Metaphysician Undercover
Every fact has a possibility of being false, in which case they would be unjustified according to you. — BlueBanana
'X' was justified and false at the specified time. 'X' is still justified(for the people at that time) and false.
Your claim that it is impossible for someone to believe that 'X' is both justified and false is itself... false. — creativesoul
No, what I am saying is that it is impossible to believe that X is false and also believe that X is justified. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think it actually is logically impossible, by way of contradiction. To "justify" requires sound logic. If the premise or conclusion is false, then the logic is unsound. If the logic is unsound then there is no justification. To state that the logic is unsound, and that the conclusion is justified is to state a contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover
What if a justified belief turns out to be false? Does that change whether the belief was justified? — BlueBanana
But I can be perfectly responsible in belief even if the argument I have for my belief is logically unsound. — PossibleAaran
No, when the belief turns out to be false it's no longer justified. — 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.