Justified True Beliefs - does the first term matter?

In response to the OP - yes, justification matters.
It was previously said that if you have no justification all you're left with is opinion.
But opinion is mor the lack of the "truth" aspect.

Without justification you're left with a guess.


The problem with the JTB, other the ontological issues of the T factor, is what constitutes the J.

Some argue that not all justification can provide knowledge... for example, if you know it is Wednesday tomorrow because you trod on an ant... do you really "know"?
Some thus would state that the justification needs to be rational, logical and not based on false-premise. And many philosophers have other issues with the simple JTB.

Justification based on comfort factor is questionable justification in this light. It might well be that the "comfort" one feels is a by-product of something that the person is unable to explain, but in and of itself it is weak.
As is social advancement. Believing something (X) purely because it might help you socially does not make it knowledge, even if X is true.
But again, the social advancement may actually be hiding a valid justification that the person is not aware of. But if they are not aware of it, the person would be appealing to consequence (a logical fallacy) and thus a false-premise.


But, again, to answer the OP, I would think that justification is important.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem with conversations like these is that there is no reason to assume there is a thing as "knowledge" or "justification" as we normally (and purely intuitively) conceive of it. These are folk psychological concepts that work well enough in the everyday in order to continue being used in conversation. They might not relfect what is going on in our brains as we operate.

A better way to explore our cognitive prowess and failures is to take up cognitive science. Perhaps they can be used as entry points into research (study the brain of a person as they are claiming to 'believe' something) but the facts of epistemic and cognitive operations may not match up with our pre-scientific understanding of them.

This is a big problem with philosophy and epistemology: it usually amounts to guys hashing our their intuitions about some feature of the world. This practice has not and does not yield us a better understanding of these features.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just want to raise the issue that some people's guesses may be vastly more likely to work well - me evading T evaluations - despite their inability to articulate justification.

And then there are Gettier problems. But to me this still cuts back to a T issue evaluation. Let's say the person had much 'better' reasons for believing it was a Wednesday, but later found out that they had had a seizure and completely missed Wednesday lying in bed unconscious. Some of the justifications would include: the last remembered day was a Tuesday - they always know what day of the week it is even on vacations - the maid was in the apartment when he woke up and she comes on Wednesdays - but coincidentally she was confused about the day of the week....and so on.

But can we really call this knowing 'knowledge'.

The situation is really rather individual and perhaps flimsy because of that. But there are examples within the history of science where conclusions were reached via really quite professional methods that later turned out to be false after changes in technology or realizations about locality or factors that no professional at the time realized were present.

So again we can have very justified - apparantly - beliefs that turn out to be false. Were they knowledge?
Or to put this another way: once we take T out of the equation, doesn't it slip back as an adverb....

was this truly justified?

I meant it more on a personal level. And not just 'is J important' but does it matter in relation to those you share beliefs with if there justifications seem confused, irrational or non-existent?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On the abstract level this was offered I tend to agree. Can you give a concrete example and could you take up cognitive science in relation to epistemology here?

 

Yes. "Justified" means you have good and valid reasons by which you know something is true.

 

Sure. And does it matter to you if the people you agree with simply have what you consider true beliefs? This was the issue for me.
From the OP....

This question follows each scenario where you and someone with the same belief have arrived at this belief in significantly different ways OR would have very different justifications ( or a lack thereof).

 

Of course it matters. How you arrive at your knowledge is at least as important as what you know. If you use invalid methods and get something right by chance then you may accept other wrong answers as true simply because they derive from the same source. This is the source of a tremendous amount of religious and other superstitions.

 

It is still unclear to me if you understand the OP. You are not religious. I am asking if the justification (processes) of those you AGREE with matter to you. Here you are complaining about the results being religious beliefs, etc. These are obviously not what you consider true beliefs, regardless of the process of justification (or lack of) they used.

That's it. I have to ignore you. I need the minimal respect of at least trying to understand what you are responding to. You are on ignore.

 

I'm sure if I was in the trenches then I wouldn't care less what brought comrades to the same fight... and we could discuss "justification" once the war was won. In such a situation the claim of knowledge is more important than the justification.

As long as the justification that comrade brought with him didn't actually weaken my/our own position.


One way to think of it, though, is that knowledge (objective) is what it is.
If people have different justifications for their knowing X then this can only strengthen the individual's own position when the justifications are shared... instead of the knowledge resting on a single pole of justification, it now has two distinct poles... or more. The individual thus becomes more confident in their position.
And if sharing helps someone realise that their justification was flawed, then they can swap their fragile pole for a stronger one.

Also, it is generally easier to discuss matters of justification of an issue when both claim knowledge, as the end-point is agreed and just the route is under discussion. How much more difficult when even the end-point is disagreed upon.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But generally we seek affirmation of our justification, even when the knowledge is agreed. It would irk me to realise I had "known" something but had based it on false premise, and would seek to correct that justification.

Also, I think I would prefer to discuss with someone who could point out errors in my justification whether or not they actually laid claim to the same knowledge or not.
So in that respect I find the justification to be important.

If someone can not point out an error in the justification (logic / rational etc) then the difference in any claim of knowledge must come down to other matters... such as "other minds" issues... or simpler, merely different experiences that can not easily be shared. It might leave a slightly bitter taste in the mouth, realising that that is probably as far as the discussion goes.

 

So this raised 2 issues for me...
1) what philosophical issues do you feel 'in the trenches' in relation to? (philosophy in a broad sense)
2) what if the issue that you raise with opponents is focused on justification issues? Does this increase one's obligations to look to one's own team and inventory their justification processes?

(A hockey metaphor might be appropriate. Some enforcers are really not hockey players, they are skaters who can fight.)

Well, what if your comrade mentioned logic and reason, but did not display it. IOW they advocated reaching conclusions via logic and reason, but never explained their own process of logic and reason, but did focus on the opponents' (posited lack thereof)?

But you would probably have to know what the comrades' justifications are. If you have not explored this they may simply have the belief because of family or microculture reasons - even if the ideas are 'scientific'. If you do not know the justification your sense of being strenghtened may be based on fallacy.

OK. I responded too quickly. You have explored the justifications.

And both have the same idea of what knowledge is.

I think it was earlier in this thread that I and/or Signal, I believe, brought up how similarities in justification processes may be more socially binding then similarity of beliefs. Of course these are a subset of beliefs also.

It does seem like a hard thing for people to do - to drop the issue, whatever it is - rather than go on talking past each other as if this will one day work.

 

Hockey metaphors would mostly be lost on me... although I think I get the idea with this one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

1) Any, every, and all... it is just a matter of degree and personality as to what one wants to make a stand over.
Me, personally? I'm someone who could probably dig a hole anywhere if the mood took me. On this forum, however, it is very much one of the notion of "immaterial" - where one side slings over their immaterial grenades and we fire back with material lead.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But of course it is not (or at least should not be) quite as confrontational as the analogy implies.


2) Maybe my analogy was a tad too confrontational after all!!
If we are discussing claims of knowledge then I am as likely to raise issue with matters of justification more than conclusion, as the former should lead to the latter. Sort out the justification and the conclusion should be agreed on.

If they were merely picking holes in the opponent but remaining free of making their own claims, then as long as their comments I saw as valid I'd be okay.
If they then made a claim and in doing so acted hypocritically, I might just ignore them or pull them up on it... mood thing.

Probably "claim" is better than "knowledge".

Subset of beliefs? How so?

Pick your opponent wisely, I say.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So in the material vs. immaterial battle you are willing to set aside concerns about your teammates justification processes?

Well, in the example you raised. Materialists often accuse immaterialists - ha, ha - of having weak or no justification for their beliefs. This often becomes the repeated focus of the materialist attack. If however it turned out that the materialist team had many members who were materialists sort of like people are republicans and really did not understand or could not justify materialism would this matter to you.

Might it not be rather illusory the way the debate gets framed - materialists belief in this form of justification, immaterialists have no justification or only appeal to authority, etc? Isn't it possible that really most people, period have rather sloppy intuitive justification processes, though perhaps less in this or that group? And does this matter?

Does it matter if many of the people on the evolution side of a creationist vs. evolutionist debate really have little grasp of how evolutionary theory was built up, have no idea how symbiotic processes have come to be seen as a much larger part of evolution, for example, couldn't distinguish Lamarkism from epigenetics, have no real idea of how mutation takes place and has effects, etc? Perhaps for many, perhaps most, it 'made sense' and the smarter intellectual people in their milieu believed in it so it seems logical and reasonable.

None of this detracts from evolutionary theory or boosters the creationist position, but it does, perhaps undercut a dominant myth in the debate: team A has better justification processes in general. It might be rather specific to a few members of team A.

Could this glossing over exacerbate the divide between the Cs and the Es?

Honest.

Beliefs about epistemology as a subset of all beliefs one has.

Good point. Though one can take this a number of ways.

 

Justification, in and of itself, has nothing to do with being religious or not. I'm quite happy to agree with well justified beliefs held by religious people.

Religion and superstition are famous for their basis in unjustified beliefs.

It is the well justified belief which I find agreeable. The person's other beliefs, like being religious, aren't relevant.

Lite weight.

No one can understand you if you can't be bothered to understand yourself and present yourself clearly.

 

Sounds like justification still matters in spite of the immediacy of your need.

 

Justified true beliefs has no relevance.
Everything a subject claims to know is that subject's belief.

The issue whenever discussing these matters boils down to certainty thresholds.
There is a difference between the following:
1. A subject in the state of certainty that X is true.
2. Whether or not X is true in actuality.

Cetainty is a purely subjective quality. Of course, if a subject is certain that X is true, it doesn't necessarily mean that X is true. The point is that nobody can tell anybody that they cannot be certain of anything. Even if X is false, it doesn't mean that you cannot be in a state of certainty that X is true.

 

Yes... I think you're right. The more I responded to this thread and wiseacre's questions the more I realised my relatively flippant opening comments were not too well developed, and that justification - at least to me - is rather key as it is the foundation for one's claim of knowledge. Get the justification right and you have a better chance of knowledge.

 

And what distinguishes a false belief, an unjustified belief and a justified true belief (aka knowledge)? The ability to justify the belief as true.

 

And what distinguishes a false belief, an unjustified belief and a justified true belief (aka knowledge)? The ability to justify the belief as true.

 

And thus the justifications of one's own team are also critical. One might experience short term gains when one's team wins a confrontation - whatever this would ultimately mean in practical terms - but long term this short term gain is probably illusory. Actually strenthening the justification processes of peers could have many positive effects 1) it is humbling - if most people angrily defending evolutionary theory really have similar reasons for believing in it as their opponents, the sense of superiority en masse is brought into question. This may, in fact defuse some of the tension between groups. And this holds true for religious believers as well. 2) I think it puts the focus where the focus should be, on justification and not on beliefs. I have no illusions that this will make everybody nice nice. But shifting the issue away from team vs. team and belief vs. belief, but to justifications clarifies things. If someone believes in something because of their faith in authority - regardless of which team - they have hit a final impasse - for now - with someone who thinks justification is something else.

I do think that the hardening into teams where in fact individuals are actually scattered and diverse
is a core problem.

I also think that, for example, the hatred of monotheisms given this or that childhood or awareness of this or that historical dynamic can enter a debate with religious people AS IF justification differences are the issue and one group are irrational idiots and the other group is rational and logical with a great grasp of epistmological care.

If one's goal is to 'get the enemy' then actually looking at the individuals on one's team and seeing what their justification processes are is probably counterproductive. I think 'getting the enemy' is likely to be counterproductive, but that's only my intuition, I certainly haven't approached the issue in an organized empirical way.

If the goal is to actually get somewhere in the debate/discussion over time, I think team inventories help dialogue, however much it may seem like giving the enemy weapons in the short term.

I also notice in these kinds of debates how much the theoretically logical rational team often allow themselves and their teammates all sorts of leeway - fallacies, ad homs, mind reading of opponents, etc. - I can only assume because they feel like they are right so fuck the other team.

I suppose if this seems to be working for people, I am not likely to convince them otherwise.

 

Hmmm.
I'm not sure I agree that this is the purview of one side any more than the other... both sides do it. But I guess if one side isn't claiming logic or rationality then they see no need to pick up on the irrationality and illogic of others.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Further, you must not ignore the fact that person X might be holding separate conversations in the same thread, e.g. with Y and Z, with Y and Z both only responding to posts directly responding to them etc - with Y ignoring anything responding to Z, and vice versa.

It is not as common to get into genuine multi-person discussion, but when this does happen then flaws in arguments on either side do tend to get picked up on by people of either side, not only by people on the "other team".

But this forum does tend toward the one-on-one discussion, even if multiple one-on-ones, rather than genuine many-on-many. And I am as guilty of this as the next.