I can just deny that I had a false belief that the clock was working on the grounds that I had no belief on the matter. — fiveredapples
That's why there is a difference between knowing that it is 3pm (which Bob doesn't know) and merely having a justified, true belief that it is 3pm (which Bob does have). — Andrew M
This question strikes me as odd for two reasons. One, the man in the Russell example has a true belief, so I'm wondering what motivates the question about a false belief. — fiveredapples
So, in Russell's clock example, the belief is justified but not well grounded? — creativesoul
Are we to say that when we look at a clock to see what time it is that we do not believe that the clock is working? — creativesoul
We need not wonder to ourselves at the moment of looking in order to believe that we're looking at a working clock. If we did not believe that it was working, we would not have looked at it.
Yes, where well-grounded means that the belief as well as all the premises that the belief depends on are true. — Andrew M
Yes, that's what I want to say. I think we can assume that it's working. — fiveredapples
Are we to say that when we look at a clock to see what time it is that we do not believe that the clock is working?
— creativesoul
Yes, that's what I want to say. I think we can assume that it's working. I don't think assumptions count as beliefs. After all, if you look at a clock to form a belief about the time, are you really checking to see if the clock is working? — fiveredapples
Yes, where well-grounded means that the belief as well as all the premises that the belief depends on are true... — Andrew M
I don't think assumptions count as beliefs. After all, if you look at a clock to form a belief about the time, are you really checking to see if the clock is working? Don't we check it because we expect it to be working?
And how about its accuracy? Do we check its accuracy? How do we do that? Do we check with a verifying source -- another clock? And, then, I may ask, what source you used to verify the accuracy of the first verifying source -- and so on ad infinitum. — fiveredapples
No. That's precisely the point. You already believe it is, otherwise you could not possibly trust it as a means to tell the time. — creativesoul
Would that exclude language less creatures' belief from being well grounded? — creativesoul
No. Just above you were talking about our usage of knowledge terms ("know", "knowledge", etc.), but now you're talking about our knowledge itself (what we do know), which is always true, never false. — Andrew M
Well yeah, because in using knowledge terms you are referring to your knowledge. What else could you be doing with those terms? What do you mean by "use" when you say people use words? What are you doing mentally when you say that you "know" something? What are you doing mentally when you tie your shoes? I just want to make sure you're not a p-zombie.The key point is the distinction between Alice's knowledge claims (which can be false) and Alice's knowledge (which can't be false) — Andrew M
But you're not taking this to it's ultimate conclusion and that is how do we know that the aliens know the truth? How do you know that you have acquired the truth when you only have justifications to go on? Again, as you are defining it, you'd need to know that your knowledge is true, not only justified, in order to use the term "knowledge" correctly. If you're not referring to your knowledge when using knowledge terms, then what do you mean when you use the terms? When I say "use" I mean making a particular sound or scribble to refer to the information one possesses about a particular state-of-affairs, like the steps one takes to tie their shoes, and the reasons why one should tie their shoes. What do you mean by the word "use"?That difference between the usage and the reality is what the observing aliens notice. But Alice also notices it as well if she subsequently discovers her mistake. She becomes aware that her prior claim was an instance of using a knowledge term when, in fact, she did not know it was raining. — Andrew M
The difference between assuming that the clock we're looking at is working and believing it's working is what... exactly? — creativesoul
...the gap between automatic trust and conscious belief seems important. — softwhere
So, in this example, Johnny seems to believe that you have a new girlfriend, while I remain skeptical enough to not assent, but of course I recognize that there's some evidence in favor of this opinion.
In the Russell scenario, the man might assume that the clock is working without believing that the clock is working.
Hmmm...I think this is a somewhat unsatisfying answer because then we'd be committed to the view that you can form beliefs based off assumption — fiveredapples
I do not believe that this clock is a reliable means of telling time, but I'm going to look at it anyway in order to know what time it is. — creativesoul
There are times when we are thinking about thought and belief. In such situations, we can say something like... "for the sake of argument, let's assume X", where that means we are going to assume that X is true(grant the truth of X), solely as a means to follow the consequences. — creativesoul
That's not what I've been considering. I have flatly rejected the view that a broken clock can lend epistemic justification for knowledge.Our considerations are about whether or not looking at a broken clock is a justified means to know what time it is.
There are times when we are thinking about thought and belief. In such situations, we can say something like... "for the sake of argument, let's assume X", where that means we are going to assume that X is true(grant the truth of X), solely as a means to follow the consequences.
— creativesoul
That's not the only type of assumption — fiveredapples
I have flatly rejected the view that a broken clock can lend epistemic justification for knowledge. — fiveredapples
Our considerations are about whether or not looking at a broken clock is a justified means to know what time it is.
That's not what I've been considering. — fiveredapples
Yes, where well-grounded means that the belief as well as all the premises that the belief depends on are true...
— Andrew M
Hmmm....
Would that exclude language less creatures' belief from being well grounded? That would be at odds with my current leanings. — creativesoul
I don't think so. You, as a language user, could in principle identify the premises of any belief and check if they're true (and thus whether the belief holder could be said to have knowledge). But those premises are true (or not) independently of whether anyone does identify them. — Andrew M
If one believes a clock is working then they are not skeptical about whether or not it is a reliable means to know what time it is. — creativesoul
If one is skeptical about whether or not a clock is working, then they do not believe it is a reliable means to know what time it is.
Such people would perhaps check to see, but that doesn't happen in Russell's case.
So, I find that claiming the person could be skeptical and not believe that the clock is reliable to be quite a stretch, and an unnecessary one at that.
So, I find that claiming the person could be skeptical and not believe that the clock is reliable to be quite a stretch, and an unnecessary one at that.
I'm not sure I follow this. Who claimed that the man is skeptical that the clock is reliable and that he does not believe it is reliable? And isn't this consistent? — fiveredapples
Perhaps you should, because that's what happened, and you granted that that knowledge claim was justified. — creativesoul
What I don't understand about your position is that after you say that the broken clock can't lend epistemic justification, why the need to say more? — fiveredapples
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.