reason
New member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,209
- MBTI Type
- ESFJ
The traditional definition of knowledge has it that for a statement to be classed as knowledge it must be justified, true, and believed. To satisfy these three conditions a criterion of truth is required, that is, a rule or procedure which can prove that a statement is true.
Although a statement which is true for one is true for all, one can have knowledge that nobody else has. Some people may have performed a procedure which proves that a statement is true, while others have not. Knowledge, therefore, depends upon the history of each individual’s personal experience--such as sense perceptions or clear and distinct ideas. It is not enough to merely be believe a true statement to have knowledge, but necessary to "back up" or "support" that belief by appealing to some personal experience. For example, before a true statement can become knowledge, it may be necessary to conduct a scientific experiment, develop a mathematical proof, or even consult a religious text.
Suppose there is a statement which two people think is true, and moreover, it is actually true. However, only one has knowledge, that is, has performed a procedure which proves the statement is true. One day, both are betting on horse racing, and the statement is, 'Flying Scotsman will win the next race.' Both place the same bet on the same horse, and when Flying Scotsman wins the race, both collect the same winnings. Only one knew that Flying Scotsman would win. However, if one without knowledge can be as successful as another with knowledge, then what does knowledge do? Perhaps it provides peace-of-mind or confidence. But suppose that for our two gamblers it does not. Would it matter if knowledge did not exist? Both would have still have won their bet even if neither had knowledge.
Justified true belief offers no practical benefit which mere true belief does not, and it can, therefore, be safely discarded.
Note: In fact, I would argue that it should be discarded.
Although a statement which is true for one is true for all, one can have knowledge that nobody else has. Some people may have performed a procedure which proves that a statement is true, while others have not. Knowledge, therefore, depends upon the history of each individual’s personal experience--such as sense perceptions or clear and distinct ideas. It is not enough to merely be believe a true statement to have knowledge, but necessary to "back up" or "support" that belief by appealing to some personal experience. For example, before a true statement can become knowledge, it may be necessary to conduct a scientific experiment, develop a mathematical proof, or even consult a religious text.
Suppose there is a statement which two people think is true, and moreover, it is actually true. However, only one has knowledge, that is, has performed a procedure which proves the statement is true. One day, both are betting on horse racing, and the statement is, 'Flying Scotsman will win the next race.' Both place the same bet on the same horse, and when Flying Scotsman wins the race, both collect the same winnings. Only one knew that Flying Scotsman would win. However, if one without knowledge can be as successful as another with knowledge, then what does knowledge do? Perhaps it provides peace-of-mind or confidence. But suppose that for our two gamblers it does not. Would it matter if knowledge did not exist? Both would have still have won their bet even if neither had knowledge.
Justified true belief offers no practical benefit which mere true belief does not, and it can, therefore, be safely discarded.
Note: In fact, I would argue that it should be discarded.