Justified True Beliefs - does the first term matter?

1) You have an acquaintance who like you is a Christian. He believes in God because his parents did and is a Christian because the Bible is the authority. Your beliefs are based on experiences you have had of the presence of God and feelings and inspiration you get via various Christian practices: prayer, contemplation, etc.

You have end up, each of you, with certain core beliefs in common about Jesus and God.

Do the differences around justification matter? If so, how?

Do you both have knowledge of God?

2) You believe in Evolutionary theory and did some study of it in college. You have seen fossils in various sits and in museums and been very curious about how current versions of evolutionary theory have been built up. You wanted to be able to judge the arguments and testing protocols, etc., for yourself. You could answer a wide variety of questions about evolutionary theory, both on abstract, general topics, but also in relation to both specific cases and evidence to theory processes.

All of your friends believe in Evolutionary theory. It seemed right to them in school, and their families, while some are religious, are believers. IOW it is part of the culture they are in. They can, if questioned make some correct descriptions of the theory, but will make a number of errors, the errors increasing the more specific the questions. They have no real notion of how evidence led to the specifics of theory - though they can refer vaguely to the fossil record.

You share with your friends a belief in Evolutionary Theory.

Do the differences around justification matter? If so, how.

Do you both have knowledge of Evolutionary theory or just you?

Feel free to use another belief and other differences in justification if that seems more interesting or appropriate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The old JTB horse.

Interestingly enough, most contemporary philosophical though has moved to eliminate the T element given its attendant ontological problems. If anything is crucial to a definition of knowledge, it would be Justification.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Funny the way the phrase I bolded almost honors it with ontological status. But anyway....

I can assume from what you said that justification would be important to you, then, or at least to most contemporary philosophers.

Does it concern you when those who agree with you on ___________, do so on weak or no justification according to your own evaluation of it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

??

I don't understand.
Justification is integral, so, it could hardly ever be said to be lacking, or weak....

Without justification, all one is left with is opinion.

 

Yes, without justification you have at best TB. Since you took T out of the formula, I went with that. Now without justification we just have B or opinion.

1) Does it matter to you when people who have the same belief as you have it without justification?
2) Is there no gradation in justification? (CCTV of the killing and 2 witnesses vs. 2 witnesses or however you want to work with mental states and/or sense data, is there not something you consider more justified?)

Perhaps it will help to give the context. In many discussions the issue often becomes the problems in the justification of one's opponents. Tacitly the assumption is often that each team has its justification, rather than a potential variety of justifications on one's own team.

Do the criteria we expect to be met by our opponents matter in relation to those who share a belief with us?

 

Issues of justification matter, for a number of reasons:

1. Someone might have an intuitive grasp of a phenomenon, and it might even be the truth. But if this is all they have, then they are unable to teach it to others. The person who has that intuitive grasp can be benefitted by it; but other people cannot - in the sense that that person cannot teach them.

2. Difference of justification of the same value or stance becomes apparent when attempting to develop meaningful relationships with people who hold the same values or stances as yourself. Good examples are your religious congregational fellows, who by definition hold in roundabout the same values and stances as you, yet because some of them have different justifications for them than you, it is hard or impossible to be friends with them.
(Within some religions, however, this difference of justiifcations is seen in terms of different levels of spiritual advancement.)

 

Justifications such as comfort or social advancement are not to be underestimated.

A stance can be both comforting and true.
A stance can both help you advance socially and be true.

 

Touche.

 

So it seems you do find the justification or lack thereof of those who agree with you to be of importance. Further it seems to have a high priority, at least if I am interpreting the above correctly. Further it seems the ability to 'properly' convince others of a position is a high priority. (I am not keen on that adverb, but there it is.) Is this last conclusion of mine correct. Why is this the case? Isn't it OK for most people - not teachers, debaters, etc. - to simply have the correct belief - as you judge it via your own sense of justification. If not why not?

Have there been issues where you challenge likeminded to brush up their justification in the same way you challenge those whose beliefs you see as unjustifiable?

 

Do you think most people need the ability to convince others 'properly' or at all?

Thanks for bringing up both intuition and levels (of spiritual advancement)! I think there is a parallel to the latter in non-religious cultures. Certainly scientists would not hold their lay peer to the same levels of ability to justify this or that theory. But likely they can (or should!?) be irritated by poor justification(s). In science, of course, there would be less sense of 'hopefully everyone will get to my level' on the part of the advanced.

 

A second layer of reactions...

The bolded portion would indicate that you think true beliefs without, at the very least, articulatable justification can be of value.

As you may have guessed I was in part thinking of internet discussion sites as the 'congregation' and wondered if people were concerned with the justifications of those with similar or the same beliefs. Some issues: how this is determined? When does it matter? How does it matter? Are their contexts when the intuit (my noun for a person who holds a belief primarily via intution) or the follower (a term for those who base their belief on authority ((which I think can be argued to be a subset of the intuits))) should remain silent?

Reading your number two it seems implicit that beliefs may bind, but that if justifications are not the same - or incompatible - the bonds that form may be weak or, over time, break, or fail to form in some more profound way.

It even raises the issue of whether people of differing beliefs - even to them critical ones - might in some ways form deeper bonds with 'opponents' who approach knowledge in the same ways as them.

do you have an example from your own beliefs where you ran into justification turmoils with others with 'the same' belief?

 

No, this is why there are such things as emotional blackmail, constitutionally demanded respect for the other person, and 'honestly stating your opinion' (and an 'honestly stated opinion' must be accepted as valid!).

Not at all.
Can't you just feel the contempt that some of the more 'advanced scientists' have for the lays?

 

Sure. It's very common among anyone proficient in practical skills, such as cooking, knitting, speaking foreign languages, playing soccer. Some people are very good at these things, but they are unable to transmit their knowledge to others, unable to teach anyone. And it's not like it is necessary to be able to transmit it, anyway.

And some people have a similar propensity when it comes to ontological and epistemological issues.

To wit:

For example, I have many beliefs that are the same as those of atheists or scientists. But my reasons for believing those things, and especially my evaluation of those things is vastly different than theirs.

These differences become obvious in discussion - we start off on 'common ground', but sooner or later end up in silence or ad homs.

To me, it matters because it makes me rethink how meaningful it is to engage in these discussions at all, and rethink what can be gained from them.

Although myself, I engage in these discussions mainly because of the purposes of my education, where I need to be able to take a stance and argue for it - which is why I allow myself more aggressiveness and more persistence than I would in 'real communication'.

Yes, silence is golden sometimes.

For example, within the congregation, it is sometimes obvious that broaching a discussion with a fellow congregationalist and aiming at a quest for justification, would be an act devoid of compassion.
Those more intelligent should know better than to tease or overchallenge those less intelligent.
Of course, thereby one has to understand that one's intelligence is not one's own, that one cannot really take credit for it; just as the other person's stupidity is not their own, and they cannot really be blamed for it either.

Of course, this happens all the time.

Although some congregations are formed around doctrines that accomodate differences between members, and some others are not.

Sure. This is why I sometimes seem closer with some people who are actually opposed to my religion. But the breakup is inevitable, as we do not have the same goal.

Of course. Although they tend to be very specific and would take too much to explain properly here.

Here's a simple example: 'Why do you believe in God?' My justification basically boils down to 'Because I don't have a better idea' - this is the truth, although I know some religionists who take offence at it. Someone else will say, though: 'I know in my heart that God exists'.
I know some people who are like that - and besides superficial conversation, we cannot talk about anything.

 

As I am guessing you realized I meant necessary in another sense, in one's self relation. But point taken about the interpersonal options that tend to suffice.

Almost a play on words on that last word. This does, of course, have parallels in guru systems and the dynamics in various temples, ashrams, churches, etc. Not that these must exist, or at least, I am not making that claim, but they do often seem to exist. The dynamic is precious and appealing to some.

 

I had something more cynical in mind. That groups gloss over differences in justification sot so they have apparent unity and also because it allows 'opponents' the job of dealing with blunt, immune intuits.

Which as simple words on a screen could make you either a gifted intuit or a confused person.

I think it is often not recognized how much dependence we all have on, it seems the best most coherent answer so far, or even less articulate intuit statements.

 

It's similar for the relationship one has with oneself - blackmailing others works, blackmailing oneself works, for example. Some people just don't seem to be disturbed by that, nor do they seem to see any necessity to go beyond that.

For example, I don't know how some people can think of themselves as nothing but meat blobs enslaved by genes, and still find their life meaningful and worth living.
Or how some people can think that existence is futile, but still they get up in the morning.
I just don't understand these things. What am I missing?

 

Sure, this is sometimes the case too (especially when people claim that their intellectual abilities are truly theirs).

I think what it really comes down to is
not what we believe is true or think could be true (ontologically and epistemologically),
but what we value.

But traditionally in the West, the focus is on determining the truth of something first, and valuing it later: e.g. God should be worshipped only after it has been proven that He exists; prior to that, any belief in or worship of God is wishful thinking or even insanity.

'Believing' in something because it has value (to an individual or group) has gotten a bad reputation, as hinted at above by James R. There is a jump that 'if something is comforting or helps you advance socially, then it isn't true'.

Proving that something is true (ontologically and epistemologically) is ... practically impossible.

 

That they, at least also, do not believe these things.
(one could also say they are not the same as you in some fundamental way, and while I am not willing to take a stand on that issue right now, I do not think this is necessary to explain their behavior. Enough times I have seen people who held beliefs like those you listed crash or find themselves in situations where they were forced to bring other contradicting beliefs to the fore. This is often temporary and later explained away as merely irrational thinking brought up under stress - as if such a dismissal did not deserve at least some foray into the philosophy of identity, etc. - but nevertheless what I thought was lurking behind an appararent unified front appeared out of the shadows.

I think one can even approach the issue empirically - but it is very dangerous.

 

Could you give me an example of this or expand in some way here.

I am in at least partial agreement.

It seems you are making a specific version of the justification comes after belief argument, which I tend to agree with. I am not sure I boil it all down to value, I think beliefs can come up from avoidance. They seem safer given an earlier experience. I suppose you could say this is a value judgment of the priority of less pain. But that seems like a different issue somehow.

I also have the sense that certain groups with certain skill areas try to enforce epistemologies that utilize their skills. Without 1) acknowledging that somewhere in their own systems they are dependent, but to a lesser degree, on methods they want to deny completely in others and 2) acknowledging fear of what it would mean if other skills were better or on par with their own.

Often with the implicit idea that the problem of other minds is not a problem in regard to those people. One can read their minds.

I'm not touching that one.