Justification is not a requirement for knowledge.

I challenge anybody to prove this wrong: Knowledge is a belief that corresponds to actuality regardless of method of justification for the belief. Regardless of the subjects frame of reference in space/time.

The parameters within this debate are that of logic. We are establishing that logic works as a method of figuring out how knowledge works. And we are not operating outside of the parameters of logic.


PROPOSITION 1: A subject is a person/entity who observers a proposition. A proposition is either true or false. The subject's conclusion (determination) about the proposition cannot change the t/f state of the proposition.


PROPOSITION 2: A subject has a level of certainty about any particular proposition. Below a certain threshold of certainty, the subject has not arrived at any conclusion about whether the proposition is true or false.

Above this threshold, the subject has arrived at a conclusion (made a conclusive determination) about the t/f state of the proposition. This conclusion (determination) may or may not correspond to the actual t/f state of the proposition. This conclusion is the subject's belief about the proposition.

The subject must claim that his belief about a proposition is knowledge. It is impossible for the subject to claim misconception about his belief. It is impossible for the subject to claim inconclusion about his belief.

Examples:
Subject 1: I know that X is true.

Subject 2: I am inconclusive about X. Subject 1 believes that X is true.

Subject 3: I know that X is false. Subject 1 believes that X is true. Because X is false, Subject 1 has misconception about X.

Subject 4: I know that X is true. Subject 1 believes that X is true. Because X is true, Subject 1 has knowledge about X.


PROPOSITION 3: In order for a subject to be in a state of belief, there must be some form of material that compelled the subject beyond the threshold of certainty (whether the subject is aware of or is capable of defining this material or not). Whatever material that has compelled a subject to a belief is, relative to that subject, justification (proof/evidence/verification/confirmation etc).

One subject may disagree about what another subject considers to be justification. However, the material that has compelled a subject to a belief is solely that subject's justification.


PROPOSITION 4: If there is no universal "Justification" that is a necessary requirement for a subject to be in a state of belief, then it is impossible for a subject's state of knowledge to be dependent on any particular form/system of justification.


PROPOSITION 5: If there is no universal "Justification" that is a necessary requirement for a subject to be in a state of belief, then it is impossible for a subject's location/position//frame of reference in space/time to be a necessary factor in a subject's possession of knowledge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or undecidable.

Note the word "if". You have yet to show that there is no universally valid justification methodology.

Maybe you should start a thread on the validity of various systems of justification.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Plus which that has nothing to do with the thread title.
Justification is not a requirement for knowledge.
Yet you yourself stated:

So how do you know it corresponds to actuality if you can't justify (verify) it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1. You're asserting that a proposition can be true/false/undecidable as opposed to true/false only?

2. You're asserting that there is some universal form of justification that every subject uses in order to arrive at their particular conclusion about a proposition?

 

You know very well I am.
And have done repeatedly.

Correction the assertion that there isn't was effectively yours.
And you're creating a strawman.
I didn't say (or even imply) that every subject uses a universal method.
I also noted that people arrive at conclusions based on other things than a system of justification/ validation.

 

"How do you know" is what this is all about.

Here is the format:
1. A subject perceives a proposition. The proposition can only be either true or false.

2. The subject uses some sort of justification to arrive at his belief. It's not that the subject can't justify it. It's that in order to be in a state of belief in the first place, there must have been some form of justification (material compelling the subject to conclusion) present. So the subject then concludes:
"X is true" (or X is false).

3. The t/f state of the proposition is not dependent on the subject's conclusion. From the frame of reference of the subject, he MUST consider himself to have knowledge. This is exemplified in Proposition 2.

If you want to ask me "how do you know if his belief corresponds to actuality", all I can say is that it is impossible for a subect to say that his belief does not correspond to actuality.

 

Or undecidable.

And if it doesn't in fact correspond to reality then the subject is ignorant or deluded or prejudiced (or lying - to himself or others).
In fact not using a valid method of "justification" at all.

 

Yes I am aware. I'm trying to figure out what you're asserting.

I'm aware of your position about undecidability as a possible state of a proposition. As for justification, I simply stated that there is no "universal system of justification" that every single person uses in order to arrive at their conclusion. In other words, not everybody uses the same system of justification to draw conclusions about propositions. There is no system of justification that every single person considers to be valid. This is part of why it's impossible for knowledge to be dependent on "justification".

Say 2 people arrive at the same conclusion in 2 completely different manners. Which has knowledge? The one who's manner of verification that you personally consider valid? Meanwhile, the other one does not have knowledge simply because you consider his manner of verification to be abusrd and invalid. Even though they both arrived at the same conclusion.

 

If a subject's conclusion doesn't correspond to actuality, then the subject must still consider his conclusion to be knowledge. It is impossible for a subject to claim that X is true, and then claim his conclusion doesn't correspond to actuality. In other words, claim that X is true, and that X is false.

 

Not quite: you claimed that there is no universal "Justification" that is a necessary requirement for a subject to be in a state of belief, then it is impossible for a subject's state of knowledge to be dependent on any particular form/system of justification.
Most of the so-called systems of justifying i.e. confirming a belief do NOT lead to knowledge, merely strengthening of the belief: ignorance, prejudice or delusion.

Which does not follow.
Simply because some (many) people do not use a system to validate belief does not mean that is impossible for knowledge to be dependent on justification.
It simply means that some people are resorting to claiming belief as knowledge.

He can claim it's knowledge, but it's merely belief.
Until verified.

 

Some people? This is all people.

The idea that "knowledge is only a belief until verified (justified)" is what this is all about. If a subject believes: X is true. Either X actually is true, and he possesses knowledge or X is actually false, and he possesses misconception. Therefore, a belief MUST be either knowledge or misconception. Either way, it is impossible for him to claim that his belief is a misconception. All people MUST claim that their belief is knowledge.

There is no universal "Justification" that is a necessary requirement for a subject to be in a state of belief. This simply means that there is no such method for arriving at conclusions that every single person abides by. One person might conclude that X is true using the scientific method. Another person might have concluded that X is true by dreaming that Darth Vader came from the planet Vulcan, and told him so.

 

Re-read my comment.

Knowledge, not belief...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sort yourself out: are we discussing knowledge or belief?
You've already stated:

A belief is NOT knowledge, neither does believing that what you believe is knowledge make it knowledge.

But they don't have knowledge if they don't follow the correct method of justifying (validating) that belief.

 

lixluke:

You're wrong.

Read up:

justification

 

LOFL. Oh my god, not again.

I mean really, just please stop this madness. LOL.

Saying things that are false again an again doesn't change the fact that it is false.

That works in politics and conspiracy theory sites etc but that's about it, that's because the people you are trying to convince don't need convincing.

 

First of all that article pointed to 2 other types of knowledge:
-Knowing a person/place.
-Knowing how to do something.

WTF? That sound so kindergarten. While the knowing how to do something is on track, the other type of knowledge isn't. The other form of knowledge is awareness. Not simply knowing a person/place. Awareness is anything in reality that is within a subject's scope of awareness. But that's a whole different subject.


To the point. Here is just one simple example from that article:
Given 1: Subject takes some pill that gives him the belief he has cancer.
Given 2: He has never been tested for cancer.
Given 3: He happens to have cancer.

Therefore, subject does not possess knowledge that he has cancer.

First of all, a medical test as well as a pill are 2 different forms of justification (material that has compelled a subject to a belief). Let's say he was medically tested. The test shows the doctor he has cancer. The doctor now believes that the subject has cancer. 2 people used 2 different forms of justification to arrive at the same belief. Which one possesses knowledge?

Well, one might say that the doctor does simply because he agrees that the doctor's justification is valid, and that the subject's justification isn't valid (or isn't justification at all). Likewise, another might say that the that the subject has knowledge because he believes that subject's justification is valid, and that the doctor's justification isn't valid.

Both people have their own subjective takes on who's justification they agree with. Both people may even be approaching the matter religiously without considering the idea that justification is relative to the subject that used it. Both people will say that one is justified in their belief while the other isn't. The problem in life is that people are bias about justification. Somebody seeing, touching, feelings something vs. Somebody dreaming about something. In their minds, they cannot conceive anything else as justification. The relationship between what one person considers to be justification and what another person considers to be justification are the same nonetheless.

Yet both the doctor and the subject believe that cancer is present. Cancer is indeed present. There is no reasoning to even consider justification as a necessesity for knowledge. Regardless of how they got there, they both know that cancer is present.

 

At this point, we are trying to figure out the following:
From the frame of reference of the subject, justification is whatever compelled him to his belief. So from your frame of reference, you're saying it's impossible for others to consider something justification if you deem it unacceptable as justification?

 

Bold is mine, this contradicts your whole premise.

Because what you have been saying the whole time is that if he has cancer then he possesed knowledge when in fact he merely believed that the pill would cause cancer. The cancer could have been completely unrelated to the pill and the pill may not cause cancer at all. So he as you admit does not have knowledge he has cancer. He just believes he does.

If the doctor told him he has cancer without doing any tests (justification) then he should find another doctor.

Which again, shoots your whole premise down. Because a good doctor would want to do test to verify and to justify telling the patient he does indeed have cancer.

I would ask you to come up with a better example but you won't be able to. Sorry, but you are just plain wrong on this. Get over it and move on.

 

I think a definition of KNOWLEDGE will be needed for a debate to take place. In fact it might settle the whole debate.

 

No it isn't, since if it's not justification, it's simply confirmation of the belief.

Belief or knowledge?
Given this definition of "justify"

Then certainly.
If it isn't a valid method of justification then it isn't justification. At all.
It doesn't show that the belief is correct.
And again: what are these "other methods"?

 

Somebody may consider the doctor performing the test as valid justification, and the pill as invalid.
Another person may consider the pill as valid justification, and the doctor as invalid.