1.1 The Truth Condition
Most epistemologists have found it overwhelmingly plausible that what is false cannot be known. For example, Hillary Clinton did not win the 2016 US Presidential election. Consequently, nobody knows that Hillary Clinton won the election. One can only know things that are true.
Sometimes when people are very confident of something that turns out to be wrong, we use the word “knows” to describe their situation. Many people expected Clinton to win the election. Speaking loosely, one might even say that many people “knew” that Clinton would win the election—until she lost. Hazlett (2010) argues on the basis of data like this that “knows” is not a factive verb.[2] Hazlett’s diagnosis is deeply controversial; most epistemologists will treat sentences like “I knew that Clinton was going to win” as a kind of exaggeration—as not literally true.
Something’s truth does not require that anyone can know or prove that it is true. Not all truths are established truths. If you flip a coin and never check how it landed, it may be true that it landed heads, even if nobody has any way to tell. Truth is a metaphysical, as opposed to epistemological, notion: truth is a matter of how things are, not how they can be shown to be. So when we say that only true things can be known, we’re not (yet) saying anything about how anyone can access the truth. As we’ll see, the other conditions have important roles to play here. Knowledge is a kind of relationship with the truth—to know something is to have a certain kind of access to a fact
Something’s truth does not require that anyone can know or prove that it is true. Not all truths are established truths. If you flip a coin and never check how it landed, it may be true that it landed heads, even if nobody has any way to tell.
Any examples that cause problems for the JTB theory of knowledge? — TheMadFool
Knowledge is being defined as justified true belief, not just as justified belief. — Michael
In the 'bartender' case; his belief the person is 18 is not justified because it is based on a fake id. — Janus
What do you mean by a belief being justified? Because I understand it as meaning that, given the information available, a rational person can cogently infer the subject of belief. As such, a fake ID can be justification.
This, incidentally, is how the law would consider it. — Michael
Depending on how you want to think about it, you could claim that any belief is not justified, since it is not absolutely certain. — Janus
If it turns out that we never have justification to believe anything, then we never have knowledge, but just belief. The definition of knowledge as JTB remains untouched in any case. — Janus
The fact that you seem to require certainty for knowledge shows that, rather than your prior claim that "there is no problem for JTB", you in fact agree with Gettier that the JTB definition of knowledge is deficient. — Michael
Depending on how you want to think about it, you could claim that any belief is not justified, since it is not absolutely certain. — Janus
Flatearther have 'knowledge' that the Earth is a disc then. If that is how we're defining 'knowledge' in JTB you can have it. — I like sushi
You continue to misunderstand. Flatearthers do not have knowledge that the Earth is a disc, because it is not true that the Earth is a disc. — Janus
Knowledge is a kind of relationship with the truth—to know something is to have a certain kind of access to a fact
Something’s truth does not require that anyone can know or prove that it is true. Not all truths are established truths. If you flip a coin and never check how it landed, it may be true that it landed heads, even if nobody has any way to tell. Truth is a metaphysical, as opposed to epistemological, notion: truth is a matter of how things are, not how they can be shown to be. So when we say that only true things can be known, we’re not (yet) saying anything about how anyone can access the truth.
what is considered ‘true’ in the lived world is open to some degree of doubt — I like sushi
What you and I may deem to be an obvious and proven truth today may turn out to be partially/completely wrong in several generations. We are not privy to the machinations of the universe merely part of them. We can interpret our minuscule corner reasonably well, or so we believe … which is my point. — I like sushi
Take P1 to be 'I know the earth is flat'. We'd like to be able to say P2 'I thought I knew the earth is flat, but I was wrong, the earth is not flat'. — Isaac
But P2 is contingent on knowing that the earth is not flat.
1. I thought I knew that aliens exist, but aliens don't exist
The above statement can be true even if I don't know that aliens don't exist. The above statement is true if aliens don't exist and if in the past I thought that I knew that aliens exist. And, of course, the above statement is false if aliens exist. — Michael
To use your example, how does...
1. I thought I knew that aliens exist, but aliens don't exist
...differ from...
1. I thought that aliens exist, but aliens don't exist — Isaac
In the first case I'm saying that I believed my prior belief was justified and true, whereas in the second case I'm saying only that I had a belief. — Michael
If aliens exist then nobody can know that aliens don't exist. If aliens don't exist then nobody can know that aliens exist. It's very simple. — 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.