is justified belief true knowledge?

[dan020350]

I just want a simply answer. Are all philosphers( academic) all argues through justification? Is there any successful philosophers argue without justification?

Or who might be one of the most talk about epistemologists today?

[cuppajoe_9]

It would be a pretty poor philosopher who makes arguments without justifying them.

[Hyacinth42]

Well, first of all, justified true belief is not knowledge...

There are people who believe that the holocaust never happened, and even have justification, but this does not make it true...

Also, some people know God exists without justification, and yet they still know that God exists....

And I guess that technically, that all religous people are philosophers who are very successful without justification.

[cuppajoe_9]

I rather like Bertrand Russell's definition of knowledge. According to his conception, a person has knowledge under three conditions:

1. The person must believe X.
2. X must be objectivey true.
3. The person must have reason to believe X, in the shape of evidence or a valid sylogism.

[Hyacinth42]

Well that leaves out things you know by intuition/instinct as well as your religious knowledge... Also, you definition means that everything we "know" about history, we don't really "know". Everyone knows that history is written by the winners, and it is impossible to be truely objective. 5 people can witness the same event and not agree on what they saw...

[cuppajoe_9]

Well that leaves out things you know by intuition/instinct as well as your religious knowledge.Not at all. "Instinct" is it self a reason for belief, and if the thing intuited happens to be true then it can accurately be described as knowledge for Bertrand Russell's conception. As for religious knowledge: most believers cite some sort of reason for their faith, personal revelation being a common one. If they happen to be correct, then they have knowledge.

As for historial knowledge: I believe that William the Conqueror won the battle of Hastings in 1066. I have evidence of this in the shape of reports of the battle written at the time. Since it is, in fact, true that William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings in 1066, I have knowledge of that fact.

[Redzeppelin]

I rather like Bertrand Russell's definition of knowledge. According to his conception, a person has knowledge under three conditions:

1. The person must believe X.
2. X must be objectivey true.
3. The person must have reason to believe X, in the shape of evidence or a valid sylogism.

Since Russell's an atheist, this makes perfect sense - but it leaves out much of reality.

[dramasnot6]

Any "knowledge" or fact can be questioned as only a justified belief. It all depends on what perspective you are looking from.



There are people who believe that the holocaust never happened, and even have justification, but this does not make it true...

Also, some people know God exists without justification, and yet they still know that God exists....

And I guess that technically, that all religous people are philosophers who are very successful without justification.

Not neccesarily true. Religious beliefs are justified with faith in that their beliefs are true. I think in these statements you are letting your own opinion and justified beliefs dominate your definition of "real" knowledge or truth. Anything can be justified, and everything has the possibility of being disproven. The validity of many arguments and justifications for some less agreed upon beliefs is certainly more questionable than more generally accepted knowledge, like your example with the Holocaust, but we can look at an individuals knowledge as a question of subjectivity. In society knowledge and history are presented to us in many ways, most people accept the dominant belief system as they consider the justification for that knowledge to be most believable. But the individual chooses to differentiate between what is "knowledge" and what is just a "belief". This can be very frustrating for those who believe the mainstream set of ideas but can also be seen as the meaning of free speech and belief.

[cuppajoe_9]

Since Russell's an atheist, this makes perfect sense - but it leaves out much of reality.There's no reason why it can't incorporate God as well, if he exists, as I show in my post above.

[Redzeppelin]

There's no reason why it can't incorporate God as well, if he exists, as I show in my post above.

OK - I'll go along with that.

[Hyacinth42]

What about people who have objective justification, but are wrong? I got into a very long arguement over whether light has mass or not, he had very good reasons why light has mass, but he was wrong...

And, what about ethical/moral things? Like when you know something is wrong, but you can't explain why it is wrong... I was asked once why it was bad to be arrogant/good to be humble, and I couldn't think up a good reason why.... And I once asked some friends why they thought polygamy was wrong, and they just said it was....

[Redzeppelin]

And, what about ethical/moral things? Like when you know something is wrong, but you can't explain why it is wrong... I was asked once why it was bad to be arrogant/good to be humble, and I couldn't think up a good reason why.... And I once asked some friends why they thought polygamy was wrong, and they just said it was....

Things that are "wrong" generally do some harm - either to the person commiting the action, the person the action is committed against, or the society within which the behavior occurs. Arrogance offends because it denies a connection with someone else; it damages relationship because it denies equality (the basis of friendship); humility equalizes us because it tries to bring us into alignment; polygamy denies the sanctity of marriage and carries with it high potential for jealousy and inequality within the marriage relationship.

At least that's how I see it.

[Hyacinth42]

Well I think it isn't fair that if you love more than one person equally, and they both consent to marry you and have no problem with polygamy, that you aren't allowed to marry them... So, how is it that we both have valid reasoning/belief and yet know that two totally opposite things are true/right?

[Redzeppelin]

Well I think it isn't fair that if you love more than one person equally, and they both consent to marry you and have no problem with polygamy, that you aren't allowed to marry them... So, how is it that we both have valid reasoning/belief and yet know that two totally opposite things are true/right?

I will contend that marriage cannot be more than two people; you cannot love both equally; and, once the inevitable conflicts emerge within the marriage with one of the wives (for example), then the other wife can play sympathetic and get the majority of attention. Human beings are very possessive creatures; I do not accept that people are capable of full equality in such situations.

[Hyacinth42]

I'm sorry if I insulted you're beliefs, but I was really just using the differences between our to point out why I disagree with Bertrand Russell's definition of knowledge... I really don't want to stray off topic, so I'd rather not counter your reasoing with mine...

Sorry if I came off as patronizing/arrogant there, don't mean to.

[cuppajoe_9]

I'm sorry if I insulted you're beliefs...You didn't.


...but I was really just using the differences between our to point out why I disagree with Bertrand Russell's definition of knowledge... I really don't want to stray off topic, so I'd rather not counter your reasoing with mine...Fair enough. Perhaps we need an epistimology thread.


Sorry if I came off as patronizing/arrogant there, don't mean to.You didn't, no hard feelings :).

[dan020350]

That was pretty good guys. I have to give you my graditudes on this one.
This is a technical knowledge that I do not know about.

But do you guys like Edmund Gettier?

I just read read a little about betrand russell - knowledge of acquitance seems very interesting to me.

[sharpe123]

I don’t think you could ever describe belief as ‘true’ knowledge (even if justified). True knowledge is knowledge based on facts i.e. the law of gravity.

[dan020350]

isn't false knowledge is knowledge as well?

but according to you Sharpe you have agree with Gettier's problem.

May I ask you what is fact? Isn't fact is a justifed belief?

[sharpe123]

Facts are something that exsist if you believe them or not I suppose

[dan020350]

facts does, and the abstraction of facts also which are non-fact ( not true)

We cannot tell what is a fact unless someone tells us it is a fact, now adays