Justification is not a requirement for knowledge.

**Doreen** · 01-13-10, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by lixluke

No. Not in the slightest. I never said we should use Knowledge as conclusion.

Sorry. True conclusion. True belief. You are removing the justification criterion from knowledge. Right?

**Dywyddyr** · 01-13-10, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by lixluke

"It hasn't happened yet." has no relevance.

Wrong again.
As you yourself said:

Knowledge is a belief that corresponds to actuality

But at 12:00 the actuality hasn't happened - it does NOT EXIST AT 12:00, and is therefore unknown and unknowable and unprovable.

**Doreen** · 01-13-10, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by jpappl

The scenario is we are watching a game, my team is town by 5 points, it is 12:00. There is 10 minutes to go.

At 12:00 I believe my team will win. 10 minutes before the game is over.

At 12:10 the game ends and my team won.

Did I have knowledge at 12:00, 10 minutes before the game ended ?

I would say that in LL's schema this was knowledge. And by the way

JTB has problems also. See Gettier Problems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

**Dywyddyr** · 01-13-10, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Doreen

I believe he has said that justification is not an issue, but truth is. So it is a TB. And you are free to verify in your way.
Get it?

Isn't justification a method of finding the truth? Of determining whether something is true or not?
So if I choose my own method of justification (dreams..) then I am free to deny what YOU call truth because I haven't dreamed it.

**Doreen** · 01-13-10, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Wrong again.
As you yourself said:

But at 12:00 the actuality hasn't happened - it does NOT EXIST AT 12:00, and is therefore unknown and unknowable and unprovable.

This argument would work against any predictive knowledge, but it shouldn't, unless you think science, for example, cannot predict future states.

**Doreen** · 01-13-10, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Isn't justification a method of finding the truth? Of determining whether something is true or not?
So if I choose my own method of justification (dreams..) then I am free to deny what YOU call truth because I haven't dreamed it.

You cannot deny it if it is true. But of course you can if it is not true.

Jim comes to you and says it will rain today. He knows he says because he had a dream. It does not rain.

He had a belief that was incorrect. It was not knowledge in his schema. It has to be correct to be knowledge. And you are always free, just as Jim is, to use your own verification procedures and justification procedures for forming your own beliefs.

Jim comes to you and says that cats are afraid of water. He knows because a bag lady told him. You try to verify this through whatever method you have and it turns out Wow, cats are afraid of water. You, in his system, accept that Jim had knowledge despite whatever doubts you have about his justification process.

Assume for my second example that cats being afraid of water is true. I would call it semi-true in reality.

**lixluke** · 01-13-10, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Doreen

Sorry. True conclusion. True belief. You are removing the justification criterion from knowledge. Right?

Yes. Knowledge = a belief that corresponds to actuality. Often known as plain TB. Moreoever, when people impose justifications as a necessity for knowledge, they effectively turn subjective beliefs into objective givens. Thereby, leading to all kinds of traps as seen in many of the statements being made.

**jpappl** · 01-13-10, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Doreen

I would say that in LL's schema this was knowledge. And by the way

JTB has problems also. See Gettier Problems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

Ok, so can one have knowledge and misconception at the same time, at 12:00
if yes, then we have a problem with such a statement at 12:10 when the game is over.

**Dywyddyr** · 01-13-10, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Doreen

You cannot deny it if it is true.

Again: is not verification/ justification the method of determining truth?
How do you know something is true if you haven't proved it?

**jpappl** · 01-13-10, 04:32 PM

Doreen,

You cannot deny it if it is true. But of course you can if it is not true

Which is why justification becomes neccesary. Otherwise it's just a guess.

**jpappl** · 01-13-10, 04:36 PM

Lix,

No. It isn't. At 12:00, his belief is either knowledge or misconception. It has nothing to do with whether or not he 'visually perceives' the phenomenon located at 12:10. At 12:10, it doesn't matter if there is any subject to observe. The proposition exists as either true or false whether there is anybody to preceive/observe it or not.

This is very first time I have seen you properly state what it is "his belief" but then you muck it up by saying it IS either knowledge or misconception.

And once again you change the scenario and say he doesn't know the result. He IS there at the end of the game and witnesses the end, the result.

He does not have knowledge or misconception of the RESULT until 12:10. In which case, at 12:10 it becomes knowledge because he now knows the result.

Your getting closer, but stick to the scenario we are working on only and do not change anything please.

**Doreen** · 01-13-10, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Again: is not verification/ justification the method of determining truth?

Sure. Though LL is bracketing it off. He is suggesting that we do not consider the other person's justification process when determining if they have knowledge. Just the brute fact of them having a correct belief.

How do you know something is true if you haven't proved it?

Think of his suggestion are a practical, social suggestion, not an epistemological one. You Dywyddyr are free to engage in any justification verification processes you like. You do not have to take anyone's word for an assertion. LL is NOT telling you you have to accept another person's belief. Be as skeptical as you like. Be as rigorous as you like. He is only saying that if,

if they are correct, we should consider it knowledge.

People are taking LL's approach as saying

YOU must accept the messages in your dreams as knowledge. This is not the case.

and also

YOU must accept someone's assertions as true, even if it came from dreams. This is not the case.

You can continue to approach knowledge in the way you have.

**Doreen** · 01-13-10, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by jpappl

Doreen,
Which is why justification becomes neccesary. Otherwise it's just a guess.

Maybe, maybe not. That is bracketed off. Over time that person's belief that he can predict the outcomes of games will likely prove to be false. But on this one off instance he was right and LL wants to call this knowledge. In that instance. He has practical reasons for doing this.

Note my message to D above.

You do not have to take on the other person's epistemology.

**Dywyddyr** · 01-13-10, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Doreen

Sure. Though LL is bracketing it off. He is suggesting that we do not consider the other person's justification process when determining if they have knowledge. Just the brute fact of them having a correct belief.

But we still come back to: what is a correct belief?
If everyone is free to choose their method of verifying (i.e. proving true) then how do we determine what actually is true?
Consensus?
Vote?
Tossing a coin?

**jpappl** · 01-13-10, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Doreen

Maybe, maybe not. That is bracketed off. Over time that person's belief that he can predict the outcomes of games will likely prove to be false. But on this one off instance he was right and LL wants to call this knowledge. In that instance. He has practical reasons for doing this.

Note my message to D above.

You do not have to take on the other person's epistemology.

I am not talking about justification for a belief.

We are talking about what is knowledge.

In my scenario, X does not have knowledge until the game is over at 12:10. Otherwise I would suggest that you haven't seen very many sports events.

I used this simple scenario to avoid the many variables such as you cat hates water scenario.

The game has an very specific answer, it removes subjectiveness.

So can one at 12:00 have both knowledge and misconception ?

If so, than what happens at 12:10 when the game ends and there is a winner. The bottom line is, that one of the two above is wrong and we won't know until 12:10 no matter how many times you have guessed correctly in the past.

**glaucon** · 01-13-10, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

But we still come back to: what is a correct belief?

It is merely an opinion.

Happenstantially, a correct one, but one nonetheless...

**Doreen** · 01-13-10, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

But we still come back to: what is a correct belief?
If everyone is free to choose their method of verifying (i.e. proving true) then how do we determine what actually is true?
Consensus?
Vote?
Tossing a coin?

I hate to break it to you, but we are, already, all free to choose this.

If everyone is free to choose their method of verifying (i.e. proving true) then how do we determine what actually is true?

So the answer to this question would be

as you choose to.

But you do not, in his schema, tell someone else that their TBs are not knowledge. If you are right about methodology, over time, their belief that their dreams are good predictive tools, will turn out NOT to be a TB.

**Doreen** · 01-13-10, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by jpappl

If so, than what happens at 12:10 when the game ends and there is a winner. The bottom line is, that one of the two above is wrong and we won't know until 12:10 no matter how many times you have guessed correctly in the past.

In a sense there are two beliefs at issue:

X will win.
Prediction guy Y can predict the outcomes of sporting events.

LL is saying that if he is correct in this instance we call this particular belief knowledge.

This does not mean one must accept the second belief as true. This would only become true over time if it does.

So if Y has a belief he can accurately predict outcomes we still have to see if this is true, over time.

If you are correct about reality, over time Ys belief in himself will not become true. It will not be knowledge.

**Dywyddyr** · 01-13-10, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by glaucon

It is merely an opinion.
Happenstantially, a correct one, but one nonetheless...

Ach no!!

How do we know (or how do you claim) that it is a correct one?

**Dywyddyr** · 01-13-10, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Doreen

But you do not, in his schema, tell someone else that their TBs are not knowledge. If you are right about methodology, over time, their belief that their dreams are good predictive tools, will turn out NOT to be a TB.

No you miss my point (I think).
Of course I can tell someone their TBs are not knowledge, because my method of proving what is real shows ME that what they call real isn't.
I could (pushing it to extremes) be so deluded (there's got to be a "better" word

) that I can deny, for example, that it rained today because MY verification methods say that it didn't.
Yes, rain is probably a poor example: how about god? Sub-atomic particles? The existence of, say, Borneo? (Never been, never seen it, don't know anyone who claims to have been there: the maps in atlases are propaganda...).
9/11 conspiracies? Elvis is dead?