• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I honestly do not see how that helps. One can be assured by all manner of people and things.

I'm not sure I can rephrase the question in the OP in a manner that would give it greater clarity than I believe it already has. I'll think about it, though. If I come up with anything, I'll post it.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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.
But then when I ask these people questions like "do you know what colour your car is?" or "do you know that the dodo is extinct?" or "do you know how many grocery stores there are in your town?", they respond with "yes, of course!"

... so on RF, it seems that a lot of people have a double standard when it comes to knowledge claims they're personally invested in versus ones they aren't.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I'm not sure I can rephrase the question in the OP in a manner that would give it greater clarity than I believe it already has. I'll think about it, though. If I come up with anything, I'll post it.
It's not you; it's me. I tend to think of knowledge as embraced facts.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
BACKGROUND:

For over 2,000 years, the western philosophical tradition has defined 'knowledge' as "justified true belief".

That is, to say you know X is the case (as opposed to you merely believe X is the case), you must first believe X is the case; next, your belief that X is the case must be true; and last, you must be justified in believing X is the case is true.

Put differently, a belief is not knowledge. Not even a true belief is knowledge. Only a true belief in which you are warranted or justified to believe it is true is knowledge.

Mere belief is not knowledge because a belief can be false. Example: I believe rabbits eat whales. Obviously, a false belief.

Mere true belief is not knowledge because if you believe something is true without any good reason to believe it is true, then you are in effect guessing. But is guessing knowledge? Example: Suppose I guess the correct answer to a math problem on a test. Can I be said to have known the answer even though I had no reason, justification, warrant, or cause to believe my guess was the correct one? The answer is, I cannot say I knew the answer without redefining the meaning of 'know'.

Only if I have a true belief that is justified can I say my true belief is knowledge.​

And with all of that in mind, now the question...

QUESTION:

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

Put differently, are there cases in which we can say we know something based on some kind of evidence or reasoning that does not leave us absolutely certain of knowing something? Such as, the testimony of witnesses in a trial, or the results of a scientifically conducted experiment, or the 'evidence of our own eyes', etc.?
IMPLICATIONS:

If we must be absolutely certain that a true belief is justified before calling it 'knowledge' then anything we are not absolutely certain of cannot be claimed to be known. For instance, if we are not absolutely certain that god exists, we cannot say that we know god exists. If we are not absolutely certain there is an objective reality apart from our own or any mind, then we cannot say we know objective reality exists. Etc. etc. etc.

On the other hand, if we need not be absolutely certain that a true belief is justified before calling it 'knowledge' then it is at least in principle possible that we can say we know god exists even though we are not absolutely certain god exists. Or -- on the flip side -- it is at least in principle possible that we can say we know god does NOT exist even though we are not absolutely certain god does not exist. Etc. etc. etc.



Let the joyful pettifoggery commence immediately!
I think you need to distinguish statements like "I know such and such is the case", implying certainty, from the concept of "knowledge".

It can be argued that we cannot be 100% certain of almost anything, except cogito ergo sum, perhaps. But it would be a perverse fool indeed who concluded from that we have no knowledge about anything.

A very great deal of human knowledge, including all scientific theories and almost all of history, is not 100% certain. The fact it is not certain does not stop it being knowledge. Even the very degree of uncertainty itself represents knowledge, too.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

And the point is that you can never *know* for certain that someone else doesn't have that blue sticker. As this example showed.

It seems to me that the belief that was unjustified was that nobody else had that same sticker. As that failed, the justification for the belief it was his car also failed.

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.

The problem with Gettier defeaters is that they show some assumption about the justification was not, itself, justified.

The point is that you can have a degree of confidence, but there is no such thing as 100% confidence when it comes to the real world.

You *always* have the potential defeater that we are all brains in a vat.

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

I think the issue is still what it means to 'justify' a belief. if the justification isn't 100%, then the degree of knowledge isn't absolute. But what justification *is* 100%?

The fallback is that we have degrees of confidence in our beliefs. And, if the degree of confidence is such that the odds are less than, say, 1 in 10^50 that you are wrong, then I would be willing to say you have knowledge.

And yes, if you can have that degree of confidence about deities one way or the other, I would consider that knowledge. But I have yet to see anything approaching that level of confidence.

In fact, I have said a few times that if there was the same level of confidence in the existence of a deity that we have in the existence of dark matter, it should be considered highly plausible. And if we have the same degree of confidence as we do in the existence of neutrinos, we would consider it knowledge.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
and you have no functional definition for ......god

No one has a coherent definition for a god, everyone's definition is different.

My definition of a god is a thought by those in need of something more in their lives, those who are scared of nature, death etc.

There many reasons to "believe" in a god, none of them are based on knowledge.

But of course, you didn't address my post
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
No one has a coherent definition for a god, everyone's definition is different.
bigger, faster, stronger, most intelligent and greatly experienced

Almighty

self explanatory

and Someone has to be at the top of the list having all attributes

and I KNOW there is a spiritual life
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
BACKGROUND:

For over 2,000 years, the western philosophical tradition has defined 'knowledge' as "justified true belief".

That is, to say you know X is the case (as opposed to you merely believe X is the case), you must first believe X is the case; next, your belief that X is the case must be true; and last, you must be justified in believing X is the case is true.

Put differently, a belief is not knowledge. Not even a true belief is knowledge. Only a true belief in which you are warranted or justified to believe it is true is knowledge.

Mere belief is not knowledge because a belief can be false. Example: I believe rabbits eat whales. Obviously, a false belief.

Mere true belief is not knowledge because if you believe something is true without any good reason to believe it is true, then you are in effect guessing. But is guessing knowledge? Example: Suppose I guess the correct answer to a math problem on a test. Can I be said to have known the answer even though I had no reason, justification, warrant, or cause to believe my guess was the correct one? The answer is, I cannot say I knew the answer without redefining the meaning of 'know'.

Only if I have a true belief that is justified can I say my true belief is knowledge.​

And with all of that in mind, now the question...

QUESTION:

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

Put differently, are there cases in which we can say we know something based on some kind of evidence or reasoning that does not leave us absolutely certain of knowing something? Such as, the testimony of witnesses in a trial, or the results of a scientifically conducted experiment, or the 'evidence of our own eyes', etc.?
IMPLICATIONS:

If we must be absolutely certain that a true belief is justified before calling it 'knowledge' then anything we are not absolutely certain of cannot be claimed to be known. For instance, if we are not absolutely certain that god exists, we cannot say that we know god exists. If we are not absolutely certain there is an objective reality apart from our own or any mind, then we cannot say we know objective reality exists. Etc. etc. etc.

On the other hand, if we need not be absolutely certain that a true belief is justified before calling it 'knowledge' then it is at least in principle possible that we can say we know god exists even though we are not absolutely certain god exists. Or -- on the flip side -- it is at least in principle possible that we can say we know god does NOT exist even though we are not absolutely certain god does not exist. Etc. etc. etc.



Let the joyful pettifoggery commence immediately!




Semantic's Justified, True, Absolutely, Certain, Knowledge

The definition of each is subjective.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
To me @Polymath257 hit the nail with the hammer when we reference the world as we know it.

absolutely certain that a true belief is justified

Further when you get to the realm of absolute certainty, how can we know that our feeling of absolute certainty is really that or an illusion/delusion of certainty.

We know that the senses lie. We know that the brain produces illusions of conscious decision making.

So is my absolute certainty really absolute certainty or the illusion/delusion of absolute certainty and how can I be absolutely certain that my absolute certainty is truly absolute certainty?

I'm certainly feeling that I'll need a drink if I continue this journey down this rhetorical black hole.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
BACKGROUND:

For over 2,000 years, the western philosophical tradition has defined 'knowledge' as "justified true belief".

That is, to say you know X is the case (as opposed to you merely believe X is the case), you must first believe X is the case; next, your belief that X is the case must be true; and last, you must be justified in believing X is the case is true.

Put differently, a belief is not knowledge. Not even a true belief is knowledge. Only a true belief in which you are warranted or justified to believe it is true is knowledge.

Mere belief is not knowledge because a belief can be false. Example: I believe rabbits eat whales. Obviously, a false belief.

Mere true belief is not knowledge because if you believe something is true without any good reason to believe it is true, then you are in effect guessing. But is guessing knowledge? Example: Suppose I guess the correct answer to a math problem on a test. Can I be said to have known the answer even though I had no reason, justification, warrant, or cause to believe my guess was the correct one? The answer is, I cannot say I knew the answer without redefining the meaning of 'know'.

Only if I have a true belief that is justified can I say my true belief is knowledge.​

And with all of that in mind, now the question...

QUESTION:

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

Put differently, are there cases in which we can say we know something based on some kind of evidence or reasoning that does not leave us absolutely certain of knowing something? Such as, the testimony of witnesses in a trial, or the results of a scientifically conducted experiment, or the 'evidence of our own eyes', etc.?
IMPLICATIONS:

If we must be absolutely certain that a true belief is justified before calling it 'knowledge' then anything we are not absolutely certain of cannot be claimed to be known. For instance, if we are not absolutely certain that god exists, we cannot say that we know god exists. If we are not absolutely certain there is an objective reality apart from our own or any mind, then we cannot say we know objective reality exists. Etc. etc. etc.

On the other hand, if we need not be absolutely certain that a true belief is justified before calling it 'knowledge' then it is at least in principle possible that we can say we know god exists even though we are not absolutely certain god exists. Or -- on the flip side -- it is at least in principle possible that we can say we know god does NOT exist even though we are not absolutely certain god does not exist. Etc. etc. etc.



Let the joyful pettifoggery commence immediately!




I have a quite different perspective when it comes down to what entails being 'absolutely certain' about something...
As I see it, being absolutely certain about something doesn't entail that it is impossible to be wrong. Rather it is just the utmost confidence, which might arise strictly due to a gut feeling and nothing else. And when it comes down to daily conversations, having the utmost confidence often passes for knowledge.

Talking about philosophy though, I think it suffices to say that as I view it as such: A posteriori knowledge is unknownable.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
bigger, faster, stronger, most intelligent and greatly experienced

Almighty

self explanatory

and Someone has to be at the top of the list having all attributes

and I KNOW there is a spiritual life

Thats your definition, i wonder if others will add to or take away attributes
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I doubt that's more than a New Age rumor.
You doubt......... so not much knowledge about that, then.

Native Americans were not epistemological morons.
For sure. So they didn't need pretense, they spoke their truth as far as they felt they could, maybe?

The Hopi language, for instance, embodies a more sophisticated and nuanced epistemology than does English.
So they didn't need to prove anything?

I don't think we can do better than offer our perceptions as in 'This is my truth', and science most surely does find that new discovery often changes it's truth.

If you can do better in four words, then go for it.
 
Top