Must We be Certain of Knowing Something Before We Can Legitimately Say We 'Know' Something?

[Thief]

Knew better than what? Experience, education?

let's not play naïve

but if you have no care that Something Greater might notice you......
no problem

They won't ask
you won't answer
and They will leave you wherever you fell

 

[Polymath257]

An illustrative story:

As a family was leaving the amusement park, they realized that they had forgotten where they parked.

The dad climbed on top of the picnic table for a better view. He scanned all the parking lots until he saw it: a silver 2018 Grand Caravan with a blue sticker on the side window. "Our car is in Lot F," he shouted.

The family headed straight for the car that Dad had spotted. As they approached, they noticed something strange: the Caravan had out-of-state plates. This wasn't their car.

They stopped and looked around again. The daughter shouted out, "there it is! There's our car!"

And there it was: 2 aisles over but still in Lot F, was their silver 2018 Grand Caravan with the blue sticker on the side window.

So here's the question: when the dad said "our car is in Lot F," was he expressing knowledge?

- it was a belief: he sincerely expressed what he actually believed.
- it was true: the family's car really was in Lot F.
- it was justified: he was acting on reasonable evidence that his belief was true.

I think the question is actually in the matter of justification. While he had reasonable evidence, that evidence was not causally linked to his car, but to another. In other words, the evidence was not evidence about his car, but rather evidence about another car with similar properties. So, he had knowledge that there was a car with those properties in that lot, but he did not have knowledge that the car was his because *that* belief was not justified.

 

[Thief]

So seeing a car in a parking lot that looks exactly like yours isn't justification to believe that your car is in that parking lot?

if you want to set yourself up
believing only what you see.......

good luck

 

[Polymath257]

So seeing a car in a parking lot that looks exactly like yours isn't justification to believe that your car is in that parking lot?

It depends on how many cars look like yours. In this case, it would have a high degree of confidence, as there is an assumption that no other car looks exactly like yours. But, in this case, you were not justified in that belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the question is actually in the matter of justification. While he had reasonable evidence, that evidence was not causally linked to his car, but to another. In other words, the evidence was not evidence about his car, but rather evidence about another car with similar properties. So, he had knowledge that there was a car with those properties in that lot, but he did not have knowledge that the car was his because *that* belief was not justified.

So what would be justification?

License plates can be swapped with basic tools; even VIN plates can be forged.

 

[Sunstone]

An illustrative story:

As a family was leaving the amusement park, they realized that they had forgotten where they parked.

The dad climbed on top of the picnic table for a better view. He scanned all the parking lots until he saw it: a silver 2018 Grand Caravan with a blue sticker on the side window. "Our car is in Lot F," he shouted.

The family headed straight for the car that Dad had spotted. As they approached, they noticed something strange: the Caravan had out-of-state plates. This wasn't their car.

They stopped and looked around again. The daughter shouted out, "there it is! There's our car!"

And there it was: 2 aisles over but still in Lot F, was their silver 2018 Grand Caravan with the blue sticker on the side window.

So here's the question: when the dad said "our car is in Lot F," was he expressing knowledge?

- it was a belief: he sincerely expressed what he actually believed.
- it was true: the family's car really was in Lot F.
- it was justified: he was acting on reasonable evidence that his belief was true.

You're raising what's known in philosophy as a 'Gettier Problem' or a 'Gettier Case'. Even though you are perfectly right to do so, I was hoping to avoid mention of those because they needlessly complicate the issue raised in the OP, sending it down a controversial rabbit hole. Basically, think of what I wrote in the OP about knowledge being defined as "justified true belief", then rephrase it in your mind as "justified true belief plus a Gettier Defeat". In other words, what we're really discussing here is whether a justified true belief plus a Gettier defeat needs to be absolutely certain for it to legitimately be called knowledge. I just didn't write it out that way in the OP in order to avoid complicating the OP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It depends on how many cars look like yours. In this case, it would have a high degree of confidence, as there is an assumption that no other car looks exactly like yours. But, in this case, you were not justified in that belief.

I was careful to include the blue sticker on the side window: a personal customization that would be very unlikely to be on someone else's car.

 

[ChristineM]

let's not play naïve

but if you have no care that Something Greater might notice you......
no problem

They won't ask
you won't answer
and They will leave you wherever you fell

No lets not play naive, lets play knowledge, something greater than what? Please be specific as to whether you have knowledge if something greater or it a "truth" you believe? Notice the quotes

 

[Sunstone]

It depends on how many cars look like yours. In this case, it would have a high degree of confidence, as there is an assumption that no other car looks exactly like yours. But, in this case, you were not justified in that belief.

Here we go. Down the rabbit hole. Wake me up when you guys get back on-topic, please.

 

[Sunstone]

Well, at least we got to 20+ posts before the thread swerved off the road and into the mud. I'd say for RF, that's pretty good.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Must we be absolutely certain that a true belief is justified before we can legitimately call our true belief 'knowledge'?

There seems to be something recursive here. Is not certainty a belief?

 

[Thief]

something greater than what?

you

note the op

 

[Sunstone]

There seems to be something recursive here. Is not certainty a belief?

Perhaps if you would think of 'certain' in this context as being more or less synonymous with 'assured'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're raising what's known in philosophy as a 'Gettier Problem' or a 'Gettier Case'. Even though you are perfectly right to do so, I was hoping to avoid mention of those because they needlessly complicate the issue raised in the OP, sending it down a controversial rabbit hole. Basically, think of what I wrote in the OP about knowledge being defined as "justified true belief", then rephrase it in your mind as "justified true belief plus a Gettier Defeat". In other words, what we're really discussing here is whether a justified true belief plus a Gettier defeat needs to be absolutely certain for it to legitimately be called knowledge. I just didn't write it out that way in the OP in order to avoid complicating the OP.

Fair enough - we can set that aside.

I think that our language choices depend on context; in everyday speech, it's generally fine to describe things that have a reasonable degree of certainty as knowledge.

Now... there are some people and cultures who put caveats on every declarative statement (e.g. the practice of saying "inshallah" or "God willing" every time a person says what they're going to do), but in most cases, this isn't seen as necessary.

In most contexts that are more rigorous than everyday speech, the question of what's "knowledge" per se generally doesn't come up. For instance, in science, they'll usually describe results in terms of things like error bars, p-values and R^2 values. They don't use a binary determination of "this is knowledge, that isn't."

The question of how a rigorous determination of what "knowledge" is seems constrained to a very narrow branch of philosophy.

 

[Thief]

'assured'.

by Whom?

Who do you trust?......hubba hubba
(Joker of Batman fame)

 

[Sunstone]

The question of how a rigorous determination of what "knowledge" is seems constrained to a very narrow branch of philosophy.

In a sense, yes. Except it comes up on RF all the time. e.g. "You cannot be absolutely certain god doesn't exist, therefore god might exist." etc. etc.

 

[ChristineM]

you

note the op

I have, i actually replied to it.

Just as i am now replying your post

So what you are apparently saying is that i am greater than me...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps if you would think of 'certain' in this context as being more or less synonymous with 'assured'.

I honestly do not see how that helps. One can be assured by all manner of people and things.

 

[Revoltingest]

For me, knowledge has to be shown to be factual.

I am cautious of the word true because its flexible. Truth should be 'that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality' as far as i am concerned, however truth has a rider 'that which is believed to be true'. And many religious people use this rider to say their belief is true.

Knowledge is less hairy fairy in It's definition. Knowledge implies a certain level evidence, be it aquired through education or experience.

My view on the distinction are quite strong, just ask someone who has claimed to know what is impossible to know. Also ask those who have slapped my hand for using definition in argument.

So now i avoid people making such extraordinary claims without providing extraordinary evidence and leave them to their own delusions.

What Poly said.
I'm now certain of the fact that I must consider
my level of uncertainty regarding various facts.

 

[ChristineM]

What Poly said.
I'm now certain of the fact that I must consider
my level of uncertainty regarding various facts.

Facts are facts, while they remain facts (of course liable to change) i rely on them being factual