Subjectivity and Objectivity : Claims to Knowledge: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Subjectivity and Objectivity : Claims to Knowledge » Subjectivity and Objectivity : Claims to Knowledge

Subjectivity and Objectivity : Claims to Knowledge
Understanding the real knowledge problem

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Subjectivity and Objectivity : Claims to Knowledge

Nil Desperandum
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 18, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 10/19/09 - 10:47 AM:	#21
I assume that in our justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge, our justification condition reads something like, "S is appropriately justified in believing that p," where the "appropriately" is intended to circumvent the Gettier problem. In what follows, I assume truth-telling. When I say, "X is a rock," I am expressing my belief that X is a rock. "X is a rock," is a statement about a putative objectively existing reality, and is therefore either objectively true or objectively false. It is an objectively true or objectively false statement about a putative objectively existing reality. When I say, "I believe that X is a rock," I am saying something objectively true, in the sense that it is a fact that I am in the state of belief that X is a rock. But the fact that I am in the state of belief that X is a rock is a fact about my own (subjective) mental state. So, "I believe that X is a rock" is an objectively true statement about my own (subjective) mental state. "X is a rock," while either objectively true or objectively false, cannot be known to be objectively true and cannot be known to be objectively false, unless one assumes the existence of an objectively existing reality of which his senses give him reasonably reliable information. "I believe that X is a rock" can be known to be objectively true by me, as the person doing the believing, but cannot be known to be objectively true by any other (non-telepathic) person. Thus, the truth or falsity of both "X is a rock" and "I believe that X is a rock" is objective; but there is no knowledge of the former without making assumptions, while there is knowledge of the latter only by the believer. Their being no knowledge of the former without making assumptions is what leads to the frequently-heard claims that truth is subjective and that knowledge is subjective. Not knowing the actual fact of the matter as to whether or not X is a rock--not, that is, without making assumptions--the best we can do is to express our beliefs as to whether or not X is a rock. Making the assumptions that there is an objectively existing reality and that we gain reasonably reliable information about it via our senses is itself then thought of as merely expressing our own beliefs. I agree, with one caveat: It may be possible to know something without knowing that you know it. If it happens to be true that there is an objectively existing reality of which our senses give us reasonably reliable information, then my statement, "X is a rock" is true, and I believe it, and it is justified by my sense-data, because my sense-data, in that case, accurately reflect objective reality and therefore really do constitute justification for my belief. I can't know, in such a case, that my sense-data really do constitute justification for my belief, because I can't know that my sense-data really do accurately reflect facts about an objectively existing reality, so I can't know that I know that X is a rock; but I nevertheless, in such a case, do know that X is a rock. Therefore, while I agree that all we can express are our beliefs about the world, I do not agree that we cannot have knowledge about the world. Rather, whether or not we have knowledge about the world depends on there being an objectively existing reality about which our senses give us reasonably reliable information--we may or may not have knowledge about the world when we think we do. My own emendation of the JTB account of knowledge involves differentiating between absolute, defeating-all-skeptical-hypotheses knowledge, which the JTB account handles, and ordinary, everyday knowledge, which is the JTB account with the assumption that there is an objectively existing reality of which our senses give us reasonably reliable information added. (I make another emendation--a clarification, really--to make explicit the fact that we normally don't have enough information to be fully justified in believing that p, but instead only have enough information to be fully justified in believing that probably-p [or to be only somewhat justified in believing that p], even given the tacked-on assumption--you might be seeing a mule cleverly painted by zookeepers to look like a zebra instead of seeing a zebra. I take it that's not really the point of this thread.) Nil Desperandum

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/19/09 - 11:59 AM:	#22
reincarnated wrote: We both agree that we may possess knowledge, yes, but I hesitate to qualify it as “objective knowledge”, since there is no such thing as “subjective knowledge” (knowledge is simply knowledge). (“Objective knowledge” is a bit like an “unmarried bachelor” …quot; the qualification is redundant). The issue is simply whether we can be certain that the knowledge we CLAIM to possess is actually knowledge (we may be mistaken in our claim to knowledge) because we cannot be certain that either the truth or the justification components are satisfied. The statement, "the girl is pretty" is knowledge if (1) I have a justification for it (e.g. she looks pretty to me), (2) she is in fact pretty to me and (3) I believe her to be pretty. I would call that subjective knowledge due to the qualifier "to me" attached to the Truth element. There is a meaningful distinction between knowledge that relies upon objective truth and subjective truth. To say "I know the girl is pretty," is a very different type of statement than "I know the rock is before me." I cannot fault your logic here. The argument is valid. However I do not agree with the basic premise, so to my mind your argument is unsound …quot; hence we’ll have to agree to disagree. What then do you hold to be a basic foundational premise? This goes along with my solipsism criticism. If you insist upon questioning the validity of every foundational premise, looking only for the self-proving one, it seems you will end up right where DesCartes did when he declared that the only certain thing that exists is a single mind that doubts. Just for the sake of argument …quot; if I DID agree with your premise, it follows that one can gain a true understanding of the world (using logic and observation) whether or not determinism is true. Wouldn't that require a second foundational premise, namely that I would believe that nature is designed in such a way as to cause people to have observations and a logic system that yielded the truth? It's my position that the judgment process requires being led by reason and the impact of observation. It is not my position that accurate judgments are caused by the deterministic forces of nature, some of which have no relationship to the thing being judged. That is, I judge you a person, not because of the determinstic forces causing that judgment, but based upon the various reasons I have in favor of your being a person.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 10/21/09 - 09:53 AM:	#23
reincarnated wrote: The ONLY way to arrive at an objective verification of a knowledge claim is to take a “God’s-eye view” which accesses the objective truth (or falsity) of the claim. The problem is - how do we achieve this? Verification still falls into the same loop of "I believe I have verified the truth of X". The problem resides in the JTB criteria. It does not regard the difference between "I know" and "I think I know". Much like you seem to ignore the difference between I believe and I know. Really, JTB has been due for a rewrite for sometime. People have tried adding a fourth or fifth notion. Personally, I would drop belief from the issue and substitute "possible". I think possible implies a respect for reality, where as "belief" is fairly open ended. So, Justified-Possible-True. Well, true seems to be a sticking point, because sometimes it is true and sometimes it "imagined" to be true. So, maybe swap true for not shown to be in error. Lastly, instead of justified I would say non-contradictory. So, I'm coming up with: Non-contradictory,Possible, and not shown to be in error. How's that for redefining knowledge?
Or not.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/21/09 - 10:45 AM:	#24
Cheshire wrote: So, I'm coming up with: Non-contradictory,Possible, and not shown to be in error. How's that for redefining knowledge? Entirely meaningless. If there (1) is possibly a rock in front of me, and (2) I've not been able to disprove that there is a rock in front of me, and (3) there is no logical contradiction between the terms "rock" and "in front of me," then I have knowledge according to you, even if I don't believe there is a rock before me (as you've eliminated the belief requirement) and even if there really isn't a rock before me (as you've eliminated the truth requirement). If you want to boil your theroy down some more, you'll see that #1 and #3 are redundant because everything is possible except that which is contradictory. Additionally, #1 and #3 are superfluous statements because it is assumed in every logical argument that that which is illogical is meaningless. #2 is a very weak justification definition because it suggests that everything is true other than that which can be disproved, meaning there is no burden of proof; there's a burden of disproof. So, if I say there are ghosts, and I cannot disprove it, then I have knowledge of ghosts under your definition, even if I don't believe it and even if there are no ghosts. Great definition.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 709

Posted 10/21/09 - 08:13 PM:	#25
Hanover wrote: Entirely meaningless. If there (1) is possibly a rock in front of me, and (2) I've not been able to disprove that there is a rock in front of me, and (3) there is no logical contradiction between the terms "rock" and "in front of me," then I have knowledge according to you, even if I don't believe there is a rock before me (as you've eliminated the belief requirement) and even if there really isn't a rock before me (as you've eliminated the truth requirement). You can not say something is possible without "belief" that it can occur. I used a term "possible" that equates to "belief", but is not as open ended. SO, you are incorrect to say "eliminated belief requirement"; when in fact it is maintained as an implication of the term possible; in every case. If there is not a rock in front of you, then claiming there is a rock, becomes a contradiction with reality. This element maintains the truth requirement, because the first condition of truth is to be non-contradictory. Does this help establish any better understanding? Redefining knowledge is a bit bold, so my expectations aren't to high. However, I think I have explained your initial problems.
Or not.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1018

Posted 10/22/09 - 01:08 AM:	#26
The Justified True Belief works, simply because it requires the necessary "Justifications" - when for example I say, "I believe Jim has just stole my taxi, and I intend to kick him in the testacles at some later point." Now, I may or may not act out my violent revenge, however when it comes to my B: " that Jim has stole my taxi..." I believe not only that it is a justified belief, but moreover that it is "true" (for me). Ofcourse if I am asked to justify I might point to signifiers - his clothes, his height, his face, his age, he spoke to me, -I held (at the time of belief) the true representation (in my mind) of "Jim". Now, this isn't to say that Jim might have been abducted in the middle of the night, or that he has a dodgy looking doppleganger stalking the streets, and stealing people's taxis - this might of course be "true" - and when we look to the Jim in my taxi, discover that it isn't "really" Jim. However, the JTB circumvents this ie., it isn't necessary to bring in these (stupid, retarded) counter-examples: the JTB is all about "belief" and belief is necessarily subjective (held by me) and related and requiring the necessary and sufficient conditions to Justify the said "belief" - X,Y,Z empirical facts ( of this world) lead us to state that, "my belief X is TRUE because it is justified." We can also make use of the following: "My belief X is TRUE because it is justified- and I will use verification (grab Jim out of the taxi) to further the claim.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/22/09 - 06:00 AM:	#27
litkey wrote: However, the JTB circumvents this ie., it isn't necessary to bring in these (stupid, retarded) counter-examples: the JTB is all about "belief" and belief is necessarily subjective (held by me) and related and requiring the necessary and sufficient conditions to Justify the said "belief" - X,Y,Z empirical facts ( of this world) lead us to state that, "my belief X is TRUE because it is justified." We can also make use of the following: "My belief X is TRUE because it is justified- and I will use verification (grab Jim out of the taxi) to further the claim. Stupid and retarded counter-examples are a way of testing the limits of a theory. Anyway, I don't agree with what you've said. TRUTH is an entirely distinct element and if it is not satisfied, then your belief will not be "knowledge." Your subjective justification does not make a belief true. If you assault the cab stealers evil twin and accuse him of the minor crime of cab theft, you will be WRONG in your assualt, despite the fact that you had a subjective justification and a sincere belief that you had the right guy. The reason that your belief does not constitute knowledge is because your belief was not TRUE, which means it did not correspond to reality.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

Legion
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117

Posted 10/22/09 - 07:42 AM:	#28
I believe the only things I can have knowledge (justified true belief) about are subjective in nature. I can know my own perspective, opinion, thoughts, feelings, desires, etc. Indeed these things may not even need to be “justified”. I can truly believe in them because I directly apprehend them. The objective world is an entirely different matter. I cannot directly apprehend it. I can only model it. I can only sense it, reason about it, and make predictions about it. In fact, the very notion of justification may be related to my ability to make accurate predictions. I think my subjective self and my objective ambience are bridged by understanding. I can’t technically know the nature of the objective world; I can only hope to have partial understandings of it.
We sense. We reason. We predict. We don't always get those right.

nousPLOTINU
The Flux

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
Location: Montreal

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 150

Posted 10/22/09 - 07:44 PM:	#29
Legion wrote: I believe the only things I can have knowledge (justified true belief) about are subjective in nature. I can know my own perspective, opinion, thoughts, feelings, desires, etc. Indeed these things may not even need to be “justified”. I can truly believe in them because I directly apprehend them. The objective world is an entirely different matter. I cannot directly apprehend it. I can only model it. I can only sense it, reason about it, and make predictions about it. In fact, the very notion of justification may be related to my ability to make accurate predictions. I think my subjective self and my objective ambience are bridged by understanding. I can’t technically know the nature of the objective world; I can only hope to have partial understandings of it. The hardest thing to achieve is knowing yourself and I am justified having this belief because to show the case with desires, feelings and such exotic stuff, you have to generate a cause that triggers internally, unlike knowing that girl is pretty. If the girl is pretty today she should remain pretty tomorrow unless her prettiness depends on layers of makeup. You could well imagine most people have no knowledge about their sexual inclinations because of their limited practices and their propensity to smother sexual thoughts,
It is not that I think I know, it is that I know when I think.

Legion
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117

Posted 10/23/09 - 05:52 AM:	#30
nousPLOTINU wrote: The hardest thing to achieve is knowing yourself... Oh I agree with you NousPLOTINU. I think that we know even our very selves rather dimly.
We sense. We reason. We predict. We don't always get those right.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.