Truth vs Belief vs knowledge: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Truth vs Belief vs knowledge » Truth vs Belief vs knowledge

Truth vs Belief vs knowledge

Truth vs Belief vs knowledge

Cuttress
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2002

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 54

Posted 11/10/04 - 03:04 AM:	#1
Consider 2 scenarios: Scenario 1: Your driving by a meadow and see a horse and get out of your car and go pet it. Scenario 2: Your driving by a meadow and see a replica of a horse but really there is a horse behind the big tree so u petted it. -In both scenarios you got out of your car because you belived there was a horse. -In both scenarios it was true that there was infact a horse in the meadow. Set that aside. It is true that africa is a country I believe that africa is a country (I have never been to africa) Do i truly know that Africa is a country? What is the criteria for knowing something since we can sometimes be mislead by our senses?

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 11/10/04 - 03:53 AM:	#2
Normally knowledge is thought to be justified true belief. That is, it must be true, for one, you have to believe it and you must have some justification for believing it. Whether this criterion is sufficient, there are many threads about this. What comes to your scenarios, I think they are way too vague. I do not go out of the car because there is a horse on the meadow, but because I see a horse on the meadow. In the former case, I really do see one, in the latter one, I only see a replica. In the latter one I am lured out of the car by false belief, but get lucky. You would have to be more specific than that. What comes to the latter one, HOW is it true that Africa is country (which it is not), if you don't know it? It seems to me that you have no justification for saying that Africa is a country (which it is not), but just a belief that it is. Perhaps you have some justification (hopefully it was not your teacher who said that), but it does not show in your argumentation. Moving to intro for the time being. ~Morrandir~
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003

Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 11/10/04 - 01:34 PM:	#3
It is true that africa is a country I believe that africa is a country (I have never been to africa) Do i truly know that Africa is a country? What is the criteria for knowing something since we can sometimes be mislead by our senses?[/QUOTE] ______________________________________ Africa is not a country. Africa is a continent. There are a lot of countries in Africa: Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, and so on. The criterion (not "criteria" which is the plural) for knowing is that, besides the proposition being true, and our believing it, our belief has to be justified. Our belief may be justified by our senses even if sometimes our senses mislead us, since that doesn't imply that they mislead us now.

Paradigm
not heard or validated

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 305

Posted 11/10/04 - 06:39 PM:	#4
Gassendi1 wrote: Africa is not a country. Africa is a continent. There are a lot of countries in Africa: Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, and so on. applauds Gassendi1 once again Simple answer: I strongly suggest looking at artificial life simulations. If an agent of a simulation did have knowledge of everything in its 'environment' then all of its belief need only be certain. Otherwise stored truths can only be of a particular degree as they are inferences. This is much like us and our reality/world. We 'remember' inferences that serve to inform our decisions. It is our hope that better informed decisions lead to our desired goal. We are a mindful 'boid' in an artificial life simulation (rather than mindless).
A Paradigm not known thoroughly is indescribable, but not beyond description

metacristi
gone

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 14, 2003
Location: Iasi, Romania

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 422

Posted 11/11/04 - 01:46 AM:	#5
Cuttress wrote: Consider 2 scenarios: Scenario 1: Your driving by a meadow and see a horse and get out of your car and go pet it. Scenario 2: Your driving by a meadow and see a replica of a horse but really there is a horse behind the big tree so u petted it. -In both scenarios you got out of your car because you belived there was a horse. -In both scenarios it was true that there was infact a horse in the meadow. Set that aside. It is true that africa is a country I believe that africa is a country (I have never been to africa) Do i truly know that Africa is a country? What is the criteria for knowing something since we can sometimes be mislead by our senses? It's clear that we have to drop 'true' in the syntagm 'justified true belief'.Otherwise it would mean that all previous,very successful at their time,scientific theories (but disproved now) did not deserve to be labeled 'knowledge' at their time of 'glory'... Thus knowledge is merely justified belief.'Objective' knowledge,scientific knowledge,is also justified belief.It's acceptance as knowledge and the [fallible however] epistemological privilege of science being warranted by the overall fecundity of scientific theories devised using a (minimal) scientific method.And the stability,on long run,of scientific knowledge inferred (not deduced!) from observations using Mill's methods,nonwithstanding that only as the norm (this type of theory devising is fully compatible with the conjectures and refutation,hypothetico-deductive,approach). It is important to note however that knowledge (in the sense of having more reasons,justification,to prefer a certain conjecture) is not restrained by scientific knowledge.Subjective experiences,observations,do count as knowledge (still justified belief) for a certain person though it might not qualify also at the status of 'objective',scientific knowledge,which involves intersubjectivity and careful observations. Especially in cases when we deal with unique events (or having a very low rate of repetability) and cannot be subjected to scientific inquiry.Indeed for example if one sees something which seems as an UFO (and some strange creatures floating around) it is fully entitled to interpret the observation as supporting the existence of aliens visiting Earth and thus to prefer,provisionally,that stance.In spite of the fact that,of course,it does not qualify as being scientific,objective,knowledge.This in no way involves (automatically) claims of epistemological privilege (that the enunciation 'There are aliens on Earth' is also 'objective' knowledge).Or ontological commitments (certitudes).

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003

Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 11/11/04 - 08:02 AM:	#6
It's clear that we have to drop 'true' in the syntagm 'justified true belief'.Otherwise it would mean that all previous,very successful at their time,scientific theories (but disproved now) did not deserve to be labeled 'knowledge' at their time of 'glory'... Why should they have been labled "knowledge" even in the time of their glory? They were not knowledge if they were false. Do you really think that the theory of phlogiston. or the geocentric theory of the heavens, were knowledge? Why, for heavens sake? They were believed to be knowledge, but they weren't. (And why do you think they were "successful")?

metacristi
gone

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 14, 2003
Location: Iasi, Romania

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 422

Posted 11/12/04 - 03:37 AM:	#7
I don't see your point.In Copernicus' time for example the geocentric theory was the best existent conjecture and deserved to be labeled [scientific] knowledge,nonwithstanding that fallible knowledge (as the most justified conjecture at the time).My approach by no means involves that science cannot attain even certitudes (or establish at least that a certain conjecture is approximative[l]y true).The problem is that this is seldom the case in practice (in physics for example the underdetermination of theories is manifest) and it might prove quasi impossible to know that we attained certitudes (or almost,meaning that a very successful conjecture is approximatively true).What's your definition of (scientific) knowledge then?If we had a clear method of establishing what is (approximatively at least) true and what is false (about percieved facts) then you'd have your point.Unfortunately we don't have such a method,the actual revival of inductivism in new 'clothes' (bayesianism included) is not enough.Indeed there is,still,no sound argument to back a general inductive method. [To be clearer my point of view is that the requirement of truth is not absolutely necessary,knowledge is simply justified belief]

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003

Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 11/13/04 - 09:57 PM:	#8
metacristi wrote: I don't see your point.In Copernicus' time for example the geocentric theory was the best existent conjecture and deserved to be labeled [scientific] knowledge,nonwithstanding that fallible knowledge (as the most justified conjecture at the time). It may have "deserved to have been labled 'knowledge'" (which is to say, people at the time believed they had good reasons to think it was true) but unless you know something new that I don't know, it wasn't knowledge, since it was false. [QUOTE]What's your definition of (scientific) knowledge then? No special definition for scientific knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge. It has to be true, believed, and adequately supported. If we had a clear method of establishing what is (approximatively at least) true and what is false (about percieved facts) then you'd have your point . We do. I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, and I have a clear method of establishing that. [To be clearer my point of view is that the requirement of truth is not absolutely necessary,knowledge is simply justified belief] Your view would imply that two pieces of knowledge could contradict one another. So, if there were a theory in dispute, and both sides had good evidence, one would know that T is true, and the other would know that ~T is true. But that is impossible.

skatehead
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 14, 2004
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 11/14/04 - 06:13 AM:	#9
interesting point... really got me thinking, i re-wrote this post a few times after thinking about what i'd written... would you say that people with certain mental disorders "know" that someone is after them?, and whilst asleep, do you "know" that something has happened?, but then awaken to find it actually didnt happen... lets have a look at the definition of "know" -To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty. -To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail. It says "to *regard* as true"... i think this means knowledge would be mostly to do with faith and belief, and very little to do with actual truth. perception being the contributing factor to knowledge, i guess the criteria for "knowing" something would be "regarding or perceiving it as true" (but does philosiphy really come down to definition?? or is it more than that ?? ) hope that helps, im 16 and this is my first post here

Matthew C
Ontological Congruence

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2004

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 145

Posted 11/16/04 - 12:53 AM:	#10
Knowledge is what you know. It can be true, it can be false. Belief is what you believe, and you may not even know what you truly believe. But you can only know if you believe. For example if you disbelieve your senses you can never know what you see. Truth is what's real. But we cannot really know what's real. We believe it is out there, and we believe that somehow via knowledge we can get some glimpse of it, but we just don't know, it may be entirely unknowable. Yet we strived for it. The reasons we do so can be pragmatic, because it is useful, or aesthetic, because it is beautiful, or necessary, because it gives meaning to life.

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