For some people, it's not enough that they know what the conditions of knowledge are. Those who aren't quite as content with merely knowing the conditions of knowledge will also want to know if the conditions of knowledge have been satisfied. It's those folks that will go down the list of necessary conditions, one by one, to see if the conditions have been satisfied.

First condition, check. Second condition, check. Third condition, oh boy! See, this is where they run into the problem. Yes, they want to concentrate on the third condition to see if it's been met, but how do they do it? Assuming that the first two conditions are satisfied, and assuming that the person knows that the first two conditions have been satisfied, then whether they have knowledge does depend on whether or not their justified belief is true (we should all agree to that), but my point is that if we have already learned that the first two conditions have been satisfied, then it's pointless to even ask if the third condition has been satisfied (not that it's unimportant but) because there's not a thing we can do to figure out whether it's been satisfied beyond what we have already done when figuring out whether or not we had a justified belief.

For some people, it's not enough that they know what the conditions of knowledge are. Those who aren't quite as content with merely knowing the conditions of knowledge will also want to know if the conditions of knowledge have been satisfied. It's those folks that will go down the list of necessary conditions, one by one, to see if the conditions have been satisfied.

First condition, check. Second condition, check. Third condition, oh boy! See, this is where they run into the problem. Yes, they want to concentrate on the third condition to see if it's been met, but how do they do it? Assuming that the first two conditions are satisfied, and assuming that the person knows that the first two conditions have been satisfied, then whether they have knowledge does depend on whether or not their justified belief is true (we should all agree to that), but my point is that if we have already learned that the first two conditions have been satisfied, then it's pointless to even ask if the third condition has been satisfied (not that it's unimportant but) because there's not a thing we can do to figure out whether it's been satisfied beyond what we have already done when figuring out whether or not we had a justified belief.

Isn't the direct observation that the cat is on the table (the table? I thought it was the mat) justification that the cat is on the whatever it is.

First condition, check. Second condition, check. Third condition, oh boy! See, this is where they run into the problem. Yes, they want to concentrate on the third condition to see if it's been met, but how do they do it? Assuming that the first two conditions are satisfied, and assuming that the person knows that the first two conditions have been satisfied, then whether they have knowledge does depend on whether or not their justified belief is true (we should all agree to that), but my point is that if we have already learned that the first two conditions have been satisfied, then it's pointless to even ask if the third condition has been satisfied (not that it's unimportant but) because there's not a thing we can do to figure out whether it's been satisfied beyond what we have already done when figuring out whether or not we had a justified belief.

Then there's no point in ever saying "I know" instead of "I am justified in believing"...

What people say need have nothing to do with what is, in fact, true. I think that people should say what they believe is true, and if they believe they know that p, then they should say that they know that p. Of course, the point of saying that you know that p may be, first of all, that you believe you know that p, and second of all, that you want to assure others that you have excellent reason to believe that p is true. In other words, you believe that your belief that p is adequately justified so that you are willing and able to stand by your claim that you know that p.

You'll have to forgive me... I grew up in a Southern Baptist family where the idea of absolute knowledge was a regular one... so when I read "knowledge" I guess my mind still wants to replace it with "absolute knowledge".

So that's my beef with this whole thing... I get what you guys are saying but part of me doesn't want to have people saying "I know" because I associate that with the way my parents use it. Thanks for being patient though because I've been needing the distinction to be made explicit because of the above.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 10:20 AM ----------

I do however have another question concerning justification.

If one has to justify one's means of justification, isn't the idea of justification question begging?

If one has to justify one's means of justification, isn't the idea of justification question begging?

I think at some point we have to assume some stability. It's just not reasonable to be required to justify a justification ad infinitum. We have to work with what is reasonable, whilst acknowledging we are fallible.

One of things I think is important to keep in mind is that knowledge depends on whether the conditions have been satisfied, not on our knowledge of the fact the conditions have been satisfied.

Point or no point, there is still a difference between knowing and merely having a justified belief. A person who has a justified belief that P is true may know that P is true, but then again, if P is false (and it might be), then justified belief or not, the person does not know that P is true.

One of things I think is important to keep in mind is that knowledge depends on whether the conditions have been satisfied, not on our knowledge of the fact the conditions have been satisfied.

I don't think that ideas can be question-begging. Only arguments (or questions).

But, I see what you mean. Nevertheless, I think we can justify (say) double-blind studies as a method on the grounds that it will eliminate the placebo effect as an explanation. That would not be question-begging, would it be?

Point or no point, there is still a difference between knowing and merely having a justified belief. A person who has a justified belief that P is true may know that P is true, but then again, if P is false (and it might be), then justified belief or not, the person does not know that P is true.

One of things I think is important to keep in mind is that knowledge depends on whether the conditions have been satisfied, not on our knowledge of the fact the conditions have been satisfied.

In one sense no, because it helps eliminate something within the framework of looking for cause and effect, but I think it goes back to correlation versus cause and effect...

Kind of like... um... "I think therefore I am" vs. "I think therefore I might be", lol.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 10:57 AM ----------



Yeah, it sunk in completely finally, lol. Look at post #26.

In what sense would it be question-begging, then? I don't understand your analogy with "I think.....".

Not "sunk", "sank".

It would be question-begging in the sense that all scientific pursuits are question-begging if there is no cause and effect only correlations. To bring it back to justification, if our intuitions need to be justified then there is a need to justify the concept of cause and effect.

Did that make sense?



Oops, thanks.

If I know what I claim to know, then I'm not mistaken about what I claim to know. I absolutely do know exactly what it is I claim to know if in fact I do know what I claim to know.

there is a need to justify the concept of cause and effect.


What does that mean?

Yes but this falls back to a discussion I was having elsewhere... I am not saying absolute knowledge isn't possible (as you have just shown it to be), but maybe a better way of putting it is that to my parents, their ideas concerning reality and god leave the Fs out of the truth table. If that makes more sense?

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 09:27 PM ----------



It means I'm saying the idea of cause and effect is an intuition. So if our intuitions need to be justified through conscious thought, then cause and effect also needs to be justified.