I think they are justified unless they have a good reason to suppose you aren't speaking truthfully. What good reason do I need to believe that my mother is speaking to me truthfully, if she tells me she has a headache? I suppose her telling the truth usually is good justification, but I think the best justification is that she is the most reliable authority in regards to her own pain.

Seeing my cat in my room is my justification for my believing my cat is in my room, but seeing my cat in my room is not adequate justification for believing I know my cat is in my room. With the former, you need no concept of knowledge, but with the latter, you do.

Please see Emil's post #139, in which he argues that you don't always need the concept of knowledge in order to be justified in believing that you know something. An alternative justification (according to his argument) could be that someone reliable has told you that you know.

But if I don't have the concept of knowledge will I understand what that reliable person has told me? Indeed, would I know what it means for that person to be reliable?

How much about knowledge do you think you would have to know? I don't think you would need to know the conditions of knowledge, for instance.

Annie sees her cat in her room and has a justified true belief (thus knows) that she sees her cat in her room. She has no idea whatsoever what knowledge is. While in her room, I ask her where her cat is, and she tells me that she believes it's in her room. I explain to her that not only does she believe it, but she knows it as well. She still has no clue what knowledge is, but she believes me and is justified in believing me since I'm an authority on such matters, and it's true that she knows, so not only does she have knowledge that her cat is in her room, but she now knows that she has knowledge that her cat is in her room--and still has no clue or concept of what knowledge is.

Interesting. We can know and not know that we know, and we can know that we know and not know what knowledge is.

I think I need to give-up on this. My view ain't panning out.

Please see Emil's post #139, in which he argues that you don't always need the concept of knowledge in order to be justified in believing that you know something. An alternative justification (according to his argument) could be that someone reliable has told you that you know.

---------- Post added 12-26-2009 at 10:36 AM ----------



Yes, and of course such a justification would be weird, but it's possible and that is all that is necessary.

Do we understand the notion of reliability, unless we understand the notion of knowledge?

I don't understand that sentence.

Hmm. I guess I was asking whether the idea of reliability does not suppose the notion of knowledge. Don't we believe people are reliable because they know what they are talking about?

I think the phrase "know what they are talking about" should not to be taken too literally. I suggest that reliability can be understood in statistical terms and truth. The % of saying something true (i.e a sentence which expresses a true proposition) about some subject is high.

You are taking it literally. You are saying that if X is reliable about some matter, then he knows a lot of truths about that matter. I thought that was what I said too. ("He knows what he is talking about")

I am not. Why do you think that I am?

I didn't use the word "know" at all. You did "he knows a lot of truths about that matter", I merely stated that the statistical likelihood of the person saying a truth is high, no matter if he knows or not.

But how is he a reliable source unless he knows about the matter. Have you an example of that?

It is not only persons that are reliable. .

That is, of course, true. But when it is applied to persons, and all authorities are persons (or operated by persons) then it implies that those persons know whereof they speak (or, in plain English, know what they are talking about).

You keep saying, but what about giving some arguments?

I also suggested that "knowing what one is talking about" should not be taken too literally.

I am not. Why do you think that I am?

I didn't use the word "know" at all. You did "he knows a lot of truths about that matter", I merely stated that the statistical likelihood of the person saying a truth is high, no matter if he knows or not.

Well, consider authorities. A judge is an authority on the law; a professor of archeology an authority on ancient artifacts, authority on the history of art, and so on? Authorities are so considered because they have certain credentials which support their claim that they are authorities. Credentials like education, experience, estimation by their peers, position in their fields, and so on. But what is it that these credential support? Isn't it that they know a lot about their fields, and so, are likely to be right when they pronounce on on matters in their field? If not, why else are they believed to be authorities? What do you mean by taking "knowing what you are talking about literally". What it means literally is what it says. Namely, knowing what you are talking about. What do you think is its figurative meaning?

How would you come to the conclusion that the likelihood of someone being correct about a matter was high, if you had not evaluated what they knew about the matter previously? It seems to me that if that person had not demonstrated that they knew a lot about the matter, we would not call them an expert. We wouldn't just start saying X has a high likelihood of being correct about a matter for no reason, would we?

No, when we say that someone has a high likelihood of being correct, we are not necessarily saying they know. But, of course, them knowing and demonstrating they know about the matter has much to do with our trust in them. Do you disagree?

For instance, take a scientist who is an expert in biology. This scientist has demonstrated time and time again that he knows much about biology, and many other scientists have been witness to his experiments and research. If we ask him a biology question, no, just because he is an expert that does not mean he knows the answer. But, as you note, the likelihood of him being right would be high. And, his having demonstrated that he knew many things related to his field previously is why we think this.