Re: Epistemology
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've read the gettier paper and although it complicates matters, the requirement of a causal relationship between the justification and the statement overcomes the problems he brings up.

Thus I can still call knowledge true, justified belief - I just must have more stringent requirements on the justifications I use.

[/ QUOTE ]
The main problem I have with TJB is it skips the important bit about knowledge.

I want to tell which of my justified beliefs are true i.e. which are knowledge.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what JTB is supposed to be doing.

S knows P is true iff
1. S believes P
2. P is true
3. S is justified in believing P.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
but its a bit silly

suppose I have 1000's of justified beliefs.
Which ones are knowledge?
the true ones
oh great, thanks very much.

chez

Re: Epistemology
 

I guess if you are looking for a way of determining which of your justified beliefs are true, this definition wont solve all your problems. However, I dont think that is the point of defining knowledge. Perhaps it just is difficult to know which of your thousands of justified beliefs are knowledge and which are quite reasonable, yet wrong beliefs.

I use this definition and if I want to decide whether a justified belief is true (and hence knowledge) then the best I can do is test my justifications rigorously. Look for further evidence, see if the supposed knowledge meshes well with the rest of my knowledge of the world.

It is true that this definition wont convince a 100% skeptic, but I believe that's because the skeptic has unreasonable expectations - after all, what is a better definition?

Re: Epistemology
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is true that this definition wont convince a 100% skeptic, but I believe that's because the skeptic has unreasonable expectations - after all, what is a better definition?

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't make any difference to a skeptic apart from nicking a word they want to use differently.

chez

Re: Epistemology
 

to balance the above posts i would suggest one of the early efforts examining the logic of knowing: 'knowledge and belief'. author is jakko hinttika. chomsky if you can take his pompous style. also, dan dennett, a former prof of mine who has run the gamut from the 18th cent. british phils. to the head of the department of artificial intelligence at tuft's univ..............................b

Re: Epistemology
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess if you are looking for a way of determining which of your justified beliefs are true, this definition wont solve all your problems. However, I dont think that is the point of defining knowledge. Perhaps it just is difficult to know which of your thousands of justified beliefs are knowledge and which are quite reasonable, yet wrong beliefs.

I use this definition and if I want to decide whether a justified belief is true (and hence knowledge) then the best I can do is test my justifications rigorously. Look for further evidence, see if the supposed knowledge meshes well with the rest of my knowledge of the world.

It is true that this definition wont convince a 100% skeptic, but I believe that's because the skeptic has unreasonable expectations - after all, what is a better definition?

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of TJB the problem of skepticism can be seen by the fact you need the T.

A theory of justfication such that that JB->T is the holy grail of justification. It is the skeptics claim that it is impossible for JB->T.

chez

Re: Epistemology
 

[ QUOTE ]
to balance the above posts i would suggest one of the early efforts examining the logic of knowing: 'knowledge and belief'. author is jakko hinttika. chomsky if you can take his pompous style. also, dan dennett, a former prof of mine who has run the gamut from the 18th cent. british phils. to the head of the department of artificial intelligence at tuft's univ..............................b

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, Hinttika looks interesting I'll add him to my reading list. DD is already on it.

chez