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

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2126

Posted 10/28/09 - 10:24 PM:	#41
Hanover wrote: I won't sidetrack you regarding the Gettier issue, but I think your definition of knowledge avoids the Gettier problem because it does not define knowledge as Justified True Belief. It defines knowledge as objectively justified true belief, which is a distinct theory. Your argument has really become that "knowledge" has always been defined as objectively justified true belief and never subjectively justified true belief. I think that's just historically incorrect. My argument is that when a person claims knowledge that X, what that person is in effect saying is that: (a) X; and (b) I have a 'belief that X'; and (c) my 'belief that X' is justified. If she is incorrect about any of these three claims (if any one of them is false), she is mistaken in thinking that she has knowledge that X. I won't argue about the objective truth of (b) - we assume she has access to the truth of what she believes. Thus although her BELIEF is subjective, the TRUTH of the statement "I have a 'belief that X'" is an objective truth. Similarly, I think we both agree that there is an objective truth value for (a) (where X means, for example "rocks exist") - the problem is that we do not have infallible access to this objective truth value, and not that the truth value is somehow subjective. But getting to the truth of (c) is problematic. If (c) is and always must be subjective (ie there is no objective truth value to the statement "my 'belief that X' is justified"), then it follows that knowledge itself (if defined as JTB) is also (always) subjective. Edited by reincarnated on 10/28/09 - 10:35 PM
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

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

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/29/09 - 06:18 AM:	#42
reincarnated wrote: If (c) is and always must be subjective (ie there is no objective truth value to the statement "my 'belief that X' is justified"), then it follows that knowledge itself (if defined as JTB) is also (always) subjective. I don't agree with this conclusion. Since JTB is purely a definition, and not an applied physical formula, let us ignore the fact that we lack access to the truth and assume as follows: (1) there are rocks (T element satisfied), (2) I see the rock and trust my senses (J element satisfied), and (3) I believe there are rocks (B element satisfied). Since those 3 elements are satisfied, I have knowledge. Number (2) does not require that my senses be accurate, thus the Gettier objection. That is, if (2) were "Rocks make me happy, and I trust that my happiness reflects reality," I would still have knowledge because there are rocks, I have a subjective (yet stupid) justification for them, and I believe there are rocks. Requiring that justifications be objectively true is a response to the Gettier objection, but, of course, there are responses to why that response is insufficient. One response would be: suppose I negated an objectively accurate justification due to subjectively poor reasoning? For example, (1) There are rocks, (2) I see a rock but do not trust my senses (because I've taken one too many philosophy courses), although my senses really are objectively accurate, and (3) I believe there are rocks anyway (because I am stubborn). What then? I lack knowledge despite having an objectively justified true belief because I have subjectively denied an objectively true justification.
"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

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 959

Posted 10/29/09 - 07:06 AM:	#43
In the JTB formulation, what is meant by "justified" is not clearly defined, not universally agreed upon, and not consistently applied. So "justified" is highly ambiguous--whether or not a claim is "justified" is dependent on the particular criteria any given person happens to deem appropriate for that claim. For some people it can mean that the claim has met very rigorous standards of rational analysis and intersubjectively corroborated empirical evidence, and for other people it can mean that their particular tradition or scriptures says so, and for others it can mean that they have strong intuitions that the claim is true, and for others it can mean that all their friends say so, and for others that they read it on the internet. So because "justify" is not clearly defined, not universally agreed upon, and not consistently applied, there is no way even in principle to resolve disputes about which criteria are necessary and sufficient to "justify" a particular claim. Secondly, what is meant by "true" and how to differentiate true claims from false claims is not clearly defined, not universally agreed upon, and not consistently applied. In the end, people call claims "true" if they judge that the claim meets whatever criteria they've deemed appropriate for that claim. Thus "true" is simply shorthand for "meets my criteria for justification." But as shown above, these justification criteria are not clearly defined, not universally agreed upon, and not consistently applied. Note that when there is dispute about whether or not a given claim is true, the dispute inevitably centers on whether or not the justification criteria are necessary or sufficient. Thus "true" is a highly ambiguous term. Since neither what counts as justified nor what counts as true is unambiguously defined by JTB, the formula is noise. Much confusion can be avoided if we simply state our claim and the criteria that it can meet. What can anyone demonstrate is added to our understanding by insisting that a claim is "true" and "justified" and "knowledge"?
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

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

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 10/29/09 - 09:40 AM:	#44
brainpharte wrote: Much confusion can be avoided if we simply state our claim and the criteria that it can meet. What can anyone demonstrate is added to our understanding by insisting that a claim is "true" and "justified" and "knowledge"? I think it avoids the metaphysical question, which is what really exists in our world. The ultimate epistimological issue is what can be known about our universe and your solution seems to dispense with that. That is, when I provide a claim about the world and then I provide the criteria I used to reach that claim, isn't the real reason that I'm making any claim is so that I can assert it is true? If we don't care whether the claim is true, then haven't we avoided the ultimate quest here, which is to have knowledge about the world?
"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

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 959

Posted 10/29/09 - 01:08 PM:	#45
Hanover wrote: I think it avoids the metaphysical question, which is what really exists in our world. The ultimate epistimological issue is what can be known about our universe and your solution seems to dispense with that. That is, when I provide a claim about the world and then I provide the criteria I used to reach that claim, isn't the real reason that I'm making any claim is so that I can assert it is true? If we don't care whether the claim is true, then haven't we avoided the ultimate quest here, which is to have knowledge about the world? So after you state a claim and the epistemic criteria it can meet, what else do you think you are adding to anyone's understanding of the matter by insisting that your claim also is "justified" and "true" and counts as "knowledge"? And how does one possibly defend an assertion that a claim is is "justified" and "true" and counts as "knowledge" except by invoking the epistemic criteria one deems necessary and sufficient for that claim?
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2126

Posted 10/30/09 - 12:58 AM:	#46
Hanover wrote: Since JTB is purely a definition, and not an applied physical formula, let us ignore the fact that we lack access to the truth and assume as follows: (1) there are rocks (T element satisfied), (2) I see the rock and trust my senses (J element satisfied), and (3) I believe there are rocks (B element satisfied). Since those 3 elements are satisfied, I have knowledge. On what objective basis are you claiming that (2) is satisfied? Your claim that “you see the rock and you trust your senses”, and that this claim somehow suffices as “justification”, is a purely subjective claim, it has no basis in objective verification. It is not even inter-subjectively verified. Thus your claim that (2) is satisfied is a purely subjective claim, you have not shown (or even attempted to show) that your senses in this case are providing you with accurate information about the world. The problem is that if just ONE of the necessary conditions for JTB knowledge is subjective, it follows that the claim to knowledge (by virtue of JTB) would also be a “subjective” claim. The problem with the notion of such “subjective” claims to knowledge is that by their very nature there is no guarantee that two different people will agree on such claims to knowledge. The only way to arrive at true (objective) knowledge is to ensure that all three necessary conditions for knowledge are objectively satisfied – but how to do that is the fundamental problem. Hanover wrote: suppose I negated an objectively accurate justification due to subjectively poor reasoning? For example, (1) There are rocks, (2) I see a rock but do not trust my senses (because I've taken one too many philosophy courses), although my senses really are objectively accurate, and (3) I believe there are rocks anyway (because I am stubborn). What then? I lack knowledge despite having an objectively justified true belief because I have subjectively denied an objectively true justification. Firstly, how do you know that any given justification is “objectively accurate”? How do you arrive at this conclusion? Secondly, how does your (2) above support your (3) above? You are claiming that you do not trust your senses, therefore it follows that (if you have no other basis for your belief that rocks exist apart from your senses) you (believe that you) have no justification for your belief. Thus you cannot rationally claim that you possess knowledge. What other conclusion can you reach? Would you claim that you know that rocks exist even though you also claim that you (believe that you) have no justification for your belief that rocks exist? Such a thing would be irrational. brainpharte wrote: In the JTB formulation, what is meant by "justified" is not clearly defined, not universally agreed upon, and not consistently applied. So "justified" is highly ambiguous--whether or not a claim is "justified" is dependent on the particular criteria any given person happens to deem appropriate for that claim. For some people it can mean that the claim has met very rigorous standards of rational analysis and intersubjectively corroborated empirical evidence, and for other people it can mean that their particular tradition or scriptures says so, and for others it can mean that they have strong intuitions that the claim is true, and for others it can mean that all their friends say so, and for others that they read it on the internet. So because "justify" is not clearly defined, not universally agreed upon, and not consistently applied, there is no way even in principle to resolve disputes about which criteria are necessary and sufficient to "justify" a particular claim. I agree 100%, except for the conclusion “there is no way even in principle…”. In principle, a group of people can agree on the standards required for justification, hence justification can be measured against that standard. It’s like the problem of agreeing on “what is pretty?”. If a “standard for prettiness” is agreed then it is easy to define “pretty” as anything which meets or exceeds that standard. So also with justification. brainpharte wrote: Since neither what counts as justified nor what counts as true is unambiguously defined by JTB, the formula is noise. The formula necessarily leads to a subjective assessment when applied empirically. Subjective is not the same as “noise”. Hanover wrote: when I provide a claim about the world and then I provide the criteria I used to reach that claim, isn't the real reason that I'm making any claim is so that I can assert it is true? If we don't care whether the claim is true, then haven't we avoided the ultimate quest here, which is to have knowledge about the world? If there is no infallible access to truth and to the objective validity of justifications, then it follows that there is no access to infallible knowledge about the world. The most we can do, in such a case, is to make claims to knowledge, based on our subjective assessments of truth and justification, and in some cases we may even possess the knowledge that we claim to possess, but there is no way that we can ever correctly assert such claims to knowledge as infallible. Edited by reincarnated on 10/30/09 - 01:03 AM
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 959

Posted 10/30/09 - 05:34 AM:	#47
reincarnated wrote: I agree 100%, except for the conclusion “there is no way even in principle…”. In principle, a group of people can agree on the standards required for justification, hence justification can be measured against that standard. It’s like the problem of agreeing on “what is pretty?”. If a “standard for prettiness” is agreed then it is easy to define “pretty” as anything which meets or exceeds that standard. So also with justification. ... The formula necessarily leads to a subjective assessment when applied empirically. Subjective is not the same as "noise". But since different groups (or any given individual for that matter) can stipulate different criteria for what counts as 'justified' or as 'true', those terms are not consistent across groups. And there is no way in principle to resolve disputes across groups (or individuals) about whether or not their claims 'really are' justified or true. My assertion is that calling claims justified or true adds nothing to the matter that is not contained in the criteria. If we know the criteria we know all that anyone can show us they mean by justified and true. So 'justified' and 'true' are added noise that communicate no additional information, but because they are ambiguous, commonly muddle the matter.
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2126

Posted 10/30/09 - 06:25 AM:	#48
brainpharte wrote: But since different groups (or any given individual for that matter) can stipulate different criteria for what counts as 'justified' or as 'true', those terms are not consistent across groups. And there is no way in principle to resolve disputes across groups (or individuals) about whether or not their claims 'really are' justified or true. Any group of people can in principle agree to adopt a certain standard or certain criteria - hence I cannot understand your point? Yes, it is true that groups CAN stipulate different criteria (I am not disputing this), but it is also true that any group CAN stipulate an agreed set of criteria. brainpharte wrote: My assertion is that calling claims justified or true adds nothing to the matter that is not contained in the criteria. If we know the criteria we know all that anyone can show us they mean by justified and true. So 'justified' and 'true' are added noise that communicate no additional information, but because they are ambiguous, commonly muddle the matter. The criteria used to define justified and true form part of what we mean by the terms justified and true, so again I cannot understand your point here? You seem to be claiming that truth and justification add nothing (in the way of information or value) to our concept of knowledge - based on the fact that if we know the criteria for truth and justification then we do not need the truth or justification? Sorry, but I don't follow you. Claiming abiguity seems to me to be a smokescreen, since we have already agreed that the criteria (which removes ambiguity) can be defined.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 959

Posted 10/30/09 - 07:48 AM:	#49
reincarnated wrote: Any group of people can in principle agree to adopt a certain standard or certain criteria - hence I cannot understand your point? Yes, it is true that groups CAN stipulate different criteria (I am not disputing this), but it is also true that any group CAN stipulate an agreed set of criteria. So justify and true to one group means one thing and to another group mean something else and to a third and fourth group etc. mean yet other things. Therefore justified and true are not informative apart from knowing the criteria they were based on--they are added noise that does not communicate any additional meaning. The criteria used to define justified and true form part of what we mean by the terms justified and true, so again I cannot understand your point here? You seem to be claiming that truth and justification add nothing (in the way of information or value) to our concept of knowledge - based on the fact that if we know the criteria for truth and justification then we do not need the truth or justification? Sorry, but I don't follow you. You say "part of what we mean". My question is what else can anyone show in addition to their particular criteria having been met? People commonly seem to be implying that there's something else--what exactly is this else? Claiming abiguity seems to me to be a smokescreen, since we have already agreed that the criteria (which removes ambiguity) can be defined. My point is that justified and true are almost always used as stand alone terms without explicit reference to the criteria on which they were based, and as such they are ambiguous. If in order to under5stand what someone rmeans by justified and true, we always have to ask for the criteria on which they were based, why not just skip justify and true in the first place? An analogy would be if we used some term, say "snorb" as the name of some unit of length measurement, but there was no universally agreed upon, consistently applied reference unit, and the actual unit of length that "snorb" means depends on which particular referent any given person or group happened to use. It would be pointless and distracting to use "snorb", since to understand what a given person means we need to understand the particular referent standard that person is using--just as it is pointless and distracting to use "justify" and "true" since to understand what s given person means by them requires us to understand the referent criteria that person is using. We can drop "snorb" and "justify" and "true" and "knowledge" without loss of meaning.
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2126

Posted 11/04/09 - 05:49 AM:	#50
brainpharte wrote: So justify and true to one group means one thing and to another group mean something else and to a third and fourth group etc. mean yet other things. Therefore justified and true are not informative apart from knowing the criteria they were based on--they are added noise that does not communicate any additional meaning. The first sentence is correct (check “Truth” in Wiki). Words are used in language as a representation for their meanings – one can either take the meaning, or take the word as a shortcut to the meaning, but yes its trivially true that the word truth does not convey any additional meaning over and above the meaning of the word truth. So what? It does not follow that “truth” has no meaning, it only follows that “truth” has no meaning over and above the meaning of truth (that’s obvious isn’t it?). brainpharte wrote: My point is that justified and true are almost always used as stand alone terms without explicit reference to the criteria on which they were based, and as such they are ambiguous. In the sense that they can have meanings which may be different for different people, yes they are ambiguous, but one can remove the ambiguity by defining the relevant criteria. brainpharte wrote: If in order to under5stand what someone rmeans by justified and true, we always have to ask for the criteria on which they were based, why not just skip justify and true in the first place? Why? For two reasons: (1) because in everyday usage, the ambiguity is often not relevant to the context in which the word is being used (when Johnny asks “is it true that there is no school tomorrow?”, we do not answer with “which definition of truth do you mean, Johnny?”) and (2) because for those occasions when the definition is crucial, then once we agree a set of criteria we can usefully use the word as a shortcut. brainpharte wrote: We can drop "snorb" and "justify" and "true" and "knowledge" without loss of meaning. And replace it with… what? If you want to convey a meaning, you need to use things like words.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

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