I think there is a valid distinction between knowledge and belief, although I also think that much of what is generally considered to be knowledge might be more accurately classed as belief. — Janus

As do I, but if there is a distinction, putting belief and knowledge in the same class kinda invalidates it.

But I get what you’re saying, I think, in that it is often the case one validly disputes another’s knowledge claim, while he can never dispute another’s mere belief with equal validity. By the same token, I can never dispute with myself the persuasion of belief with the conviction of knowledge, at any one time with respect to the judgement of one thing.

Still, regarding the question in general, this….

What distinguishes a 'fact' from a belief is that THAT PERSON ONLY (…) has decided…. — Chet Hawkins

….would be the focal point of the issue, insofar as whether opinion, belief or knowledge, any relative judgement of truth is a purely subjective effort. And even if that is the case, brain states aside, still leaves the method by which it happens.

At any rate, I agree there is a valid distinction.

The T in JTB is kinda awkward. If someone says they believe something, they're already saying they think it's true. If someone says they're justified in believing something, they're saying they think it's true, and their thought is justified. — flannel jesus

I'm not an expert so please correct me if you think otherwise, but I think you got it wrong, if you read the linked JTB article you should notice right at the beginning the "The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge" which states that for something which is "true" you also have to believe it it's true.
Otherwise for ex. if you're presented a proof of something and then claim you don't believe it that's equivalent of making truth not truth (subjectively I suppose).

And the "J", justification condition makes only sense if both belief and truth are fulfilled, that is, you believe true is indeed true, which justifies your belief that something is true.

On another side if you believe something that's not true then your belief is not justified (ex. it's false belief or belief in false statement), that's the fundamental point!

"JTB" is antiquated. Much more cogent: — 180 Proof

Thank you, I might read about it some time, didn't know it's antiquated, but is that your personal opinion or is it established that JTB is out of date?

And the "J", justification condition makes only sense if both belief and truth are fulfilled, that is, you believe true is indeed true, which justifies your belief that something is true.

On another side if you believe something that's not true then your belief is not justified — SpaceDweller

If that were how people were using the word 'justified', then either the T or the J would be superfluous in JTB. I don't think many people think that way.

I certainly don't think that way. Someone could have a justified belief that's false.

If that were how people were using the word 'justified', then either the T or the J would be superfluous in JTB. I don't think many people think that way. — flannel jesus

Sorry but this makes no sense to me, how could "true" statement be superfluous?
To my understanding of the article, "true" statement (condition) is that which is proven to be true or truth.

I certainly don't think that way. Someone could have a justified belief that's false. — flannel jesus

No because believing something which is false is not justified belief, because precondition for justification is that true is not false.
I suggest you refer to "The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge" which shows the relationship between JTB condition, (because you broke the chain of proposition) P1, P2 and P3 (JTB) which is the following:

The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p if

- p is true;
- S believes that p;
- S is justified in believing that p.

Did we falsely think we knew before? — Bylaw

Wl, yes. Sometimes folk get things wrong. They think they know stuff when they don't. And the only way this can happen is if they believe something that is not true.

So there is a difference between believing and knowing: If something is known, it is true.

Folk think it cleaver to say that we don't know anything. The implication is that there are no facts. That leads to all sorts of inconsistencies.

But later we may realize errors or get new data and then we know X is false. — Bylaw

You can't "realise your error" unless there is error. Error occurs when you believe something that is not true. For you to occasionally be wrong, you must also sometimes be right.

, Pretty much. There being a difference between belief and knowledge is what allows us to correct our mistakes - we realise we only believed, but didn't know, because what we believed was not true.

Some folk (@Chet Hawkins?) will say that there are no true statements. But it is true that you are reading this.

Sorry but this makes no sense to me, how could "true" statement be superfluous? — SpaceDweller

If what you say is right, that Justified <-> True, then it's pointless to say both. One or the other will suffice, because it implies the other. That's what I mean by "superfluous". Redundant.

That tripart seems to be doing exactly what I'm doing - separating "justified" and "true". It doesn't seem to me to support what you're saying. Otherwise, the third line would be unecessary.

If what you say is right, that Justified <-> True, then it's pointless to say both. — flannel jesus

I did not say that because "justified belief" is justified only if you believe in what's true, otherwise it's not justified and neither it's justified if you believe in false propositions.

That tripart seems to be doing exactly what I'm doing - separating "justified" and "true". It doesn't seem to me to support what you're saying. — flannel jesus

Justified on it's own makes no sense without also believing in what's true only (but not false)
Again belief is justified only if you believe in true proposition, in al other case it's not justified.

I should correct my self and say that it's be more correct to says TBJ rather than JTB, that is, it first must be true, and then you have to believe it's true to finally justify your belief, I hope this makes more sense?

It can't go unnoticed how various people "know" things that contradict what other people "know" as well. Some people know that Jesus is King, other people know Muhammad was the last prophet, other people know Krishna is the eighth avatar of Vishnu. — flannel jesus

Sure, we disagree on some things. And these tend to be the things we talk about, leading us to think we disagree more than we agree.

But think about all the stuff on which we have to agree for you to be reading this post - that there is a thread, in a forum, on philosophy, in English, about truth and knowledge and belief, that there are other folk participating in this thread, that your device links somehow to my device in such a way that we can have this discussion, that there are devices and networks and so on...

Overwhelmingly, we agree about more than we disagree.

No.
Not for "any belief" but only those beliefs that are true first are then justified, while beliefs that are false first are then unjustified. — SpaceDweller

What beliefs don't fit into one of those two boxes?

That means, for any belief you have, it's either (true and justified), or its (untrue and unjustified), right? — flannel jesus

If you believe something that's true, then it's justified. — flannel jesus

Yes.

If you believe something that's not true, then it's not justified. — flannel jesus

Yes.

That means, for any belief you have, it's either (true and justified), or its (untrue and unjustified), right? — flannel jesus

No.
Not for "any belief" but only those beliefs that are true first are then justified, while beliefs that are false first are then unjustified.
You reduced this to simply "Justified <-> True" which is false because belief condition was omitted from equation. in other words you excluded P2 (belief condition) from "The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge" to simplify it to just:

P1: p is true;
P3: S is justified in believing that p.

Which is incorrect because P2 (S believes that p;) was removed but is required for belief to be justified.

You reduced this to simply "Justified <-> True" which is false because belief condition was omitted from equation. — SpaceDweller

It's not ommitted, it's a given. We're talking about a belief.

If you believe something that's true, then it's justified.

If you believe something that's not true, then it's not justified. — flannel jesus

Nuh. It's not hard to think of examples in which you believe something that is true, but your belief is unjustified, or you believe something with a justification, but it's not true. Gettier-style problems, or Russell's clock.

Nuh — Banno

You might be getting confused by who you're disagreeing with here. Those aren't my thoughts, those are the paraphrased thoughts of the person I'm speaking to.

It's not ommitted, it's a given. We're talking about a belief. — flannel jesus

It has been long time since I last time read the JTB article, I don't find it hard to understand but I find it difficult to explain to someone who didn't read it obviously, I warmly suggest you read it, I'm sure if you study it you'll get better understanding that me trying to explain it.

Perhaps someone here can help as well, but I'm not in that position.

I'm not disagreeing with the JTB article. The article doesn't say "you're justified when it's true, and youre unjusitified when it's false".

I'm disagreeing with you, because you're saying that.

The article doesn't say "you're justified when it's true, and youre unjusitified when it's false". — flannel jesus

Justified refers to "belief" not "truth", it's belief that's is either justified or not, not the "true" statement.

Yes, I understand. We are talking about beliefs. Everything I'm saying is about beliefs.

If It helps, I'll reword a piece of my previous post:

I said: The article doesn't say "you're justified when it's true, and youre unjusitified when it's false".

Reword it to, "You have a justified belief when it's true, and an unjustified belief when it's false".

I keep on not saying the word "belief" explictly in my post because it seems like it's contextually unecessary - we're talking about beliefs, so everything I'm saying has "belief" as a contextual basis. Would you prefer it if I used the word 'belief' explicitly every time? I can do that if that's what you like.

I think there is a valid distinction between knowledge and belief, although I also think that much of what is generally considered to be knowledge might be more accurately classed as belief. — Janus

I think you are correct, because both terms are subject to varying definitions, depending on the context. Philosophically, knowledge is "justified true belief"*1, which is the basis of the scientific method : verification of hypotheses. But William James*2 noted that "many people" seem to assume their beliefs are facts. Physicist David Bohm*3 echoed that insight, along with David Hume's quip about Reason being the slave of the passions.

Yet, Socrates*4, acclaimed for his wisdom, must have had that human propensity --- for equating Feelings & Beliefs with reliable Knowledge --- in mind when he said, with a touch of irony, "I know that I know nothing". Allowing for such rare exceptions to James' rule, perhaps you could tweak Hawkins' truism that "knowledge is only belief", by adding that Wisdom is tried & true Belief. :smile:


*1. The Analysis of Knowledge :
According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

*2. A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ___ William James

*3. “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices,” ___David Bohm,
"In this light, what many consider ‘thought’ is a superficial play of ideas, a mere shuffling of the mental deck chairs, while the ship of understanding remains firmly anchored in the harbor of prejudice."
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/great-many-people-think-thinking-when-merely-murat-durmus-s6ffe/

*4. Socrates . . . . . doubted his omniscience and famously stated “all I know is that I know nothing”. {for sure} https://www.thecollector.com/all-i-know-is-that-i-know-nothing-socrates/

Yes, I understand. We are talking about beliefs. Everything I'm saying is about beliefs. — flannel jesus

So are you saying that belief in false can be justified belief?

idk what "belief in false" means.

I believe or disbelieve statements. Those statements can be true or false. But if I believe in a statement, and that statement is also false, I would never word that as "I believe in false". I would word that as "I believe in that statement, and <later when I discover it's false> I was wrong about that belief. I was incorrect."

So, with that in mind, the question I guess is, "Can you ever be justified in believing in a statement when that statement is false?"

or

"Can you ever be unjustified in beleiving in a statement that's true?"

Banno and I both say, YES, both of those things are possible.

I believe my house is going to still be there when I get home. I think I'm pretty justified in that. Some people in the world, in history, maybe now, believe the same thing about their house, and have exactly as much justification for their belief as I do, and some of those people *are wrong*. Some of those people are going home to a house that blew up from a gas leak, or something like that.

They're equally as justified as I am, and they're nevertheless incorrect.

I beleive or disbelieve statements. Those statements can be true or false. But if I believe in a statement, and that statement is also false, I would never word that as "I believe in false" — flannel jesus

ofc. not, it should be worded as unjustified belief because it's not true.

I would word that as "I believe in that statement, and <later when I discover it's false> I was wrong about that belief. I was incorrect." — flannel jesus

But epistemology makes no room for speculations like "maybe later I'll see if it's false but for now I'll believe it without justification", rather either something is outright knowledge (JTB) or it is not.

So, with that in mind, the question I guess is, "Can you ever be justified in believing in a statement when that statement is false?" — flannel jesus

No you can't.

"Can you ever be unjustified in beleiving in a statement that's true?" — flannel jesus

No as well.

Banno and I both say, YES, both of those things are possible. — flannel jesus

To my understanding Banno does not agree with you.

I believe my house is going to still be there when I get home. I think I'm pretty justified in that. — flannel jesus

But problem is that you do not KNOW that thus your belief is unjustified, there is no proof (true proposition) your house will be there.

To my understanding Banno does not agree with you — SpaceDweller

He said the following words:

It's not hard to think of examples in which you believe something that is true, but your belief is unjustified, or you believe something with a justification, but it's not true.

Ah indeed! yeah, there are always arguments against, not just JTB but anything else.

I think there is a valid distinction between knowledge and belief, — Janus

Does not all knowledge require a final movement to ordain it? And isn't that step belief? I would define knowledge as that "information," input into Mind(s) which, following a dialectical process, ends at a settlement which is believed by said Mind(s).

Now we must be careful not to miss a step. One might say, I know some say the earth is flat but I don't believe it. My knowledge did not require belief. But actually you must believe that some say the earth is flat. If you don't, your statement is that you don't have knowledge that some say the earth is flat. Rumors? I [believe] there are rumblings about the earth being flat. And I don't believe them. But I do believe there are mumblings. Or, I hear there are rumors and I don't believe them.

All knowledge requires belief.

Belief is an assertation of identity. Knowledge is an assertation of identity backed by deductive reasoning.

Here's a summary of my knowledge theory I've worked on for years. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

Feel free to scroll down to the first follow up post by Cerulia Lawrence for a fantastic summary.

It would better be put “there is only belief.” Or “there is no knowledge.” — Fire Ologist

Totally. There is only belief, ultimately. Knowledge is the sneaky tool we've evolved to hide that fact. Or...so I believe.