Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4750
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 40 of 305 (309340)
05-05-2006 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
04-30-2006 8:58 PM


Knowledge, Gettier problem and solving it
WARNING: This is an incredibly boring post that reads like a textbook for beginners.
RAZD writes:
We also know that science has a tendency of finding new evidence that invalidates previous theories and shows new theories and understandings to be more valid, but because we cannot prove a theory in science we cannot know that we know.
Hence the (JTB) Justified true belief.
The problem might be with the absolutist mentality and the insistance that knowledge is defined as an absolute. But if the knowledge is a solid assumption, then problems decrease.
Example;
All ravens are black
Pete has a raven therefore it is black
.
I've discovered that in our efforts to state things absolutistly, we infact, by our nature, assert things we don't need to assert. In this instance, the premise 'all ravens are black', is infact an unnecessary claim, because each raven, ever to exist, has not been counted by humans. So it's absolutist.
Yet if we remove our own attempt to assert dogmatic or absolute claims, the problems seem to diminish.
Example;
Each (observed) raven is black
Pete has a raven therefore it is black.
So you see, the more we stick with what we do actually know, the better and more valid the inference. it's when probability-based assumptions make the leap to " absolute certainties" that we get problems in knowledge. The Gettier problem is infact not a problem, if we don't assume anything is so very certain. This is a falsehood, as an assumption is not a certainty, it's infact just a justified belief. It's not the assumptions themselves that are faulty, it's that we need to make the assumptions MORE justified, INSTEAD of claiming something is certainly the case, based upon them.
I can insist my sock is black in colour, because it always has been. My knowledge is not based on the illusion of a "certainty", but is infact only based on strong, good, justified assumptions/belief.
Now let's pretend Pete's raven was pink. With the first statement, the false knowledge makes that a possibility, because the un-counted ravens could be pink/ but the second statement is a good knowledge, which means it is not possible that it could be pink, as it qualifies as 'observed'. Afterall, Pete has observed it, so we can pretty much conclude that it can't be pink. So to stay with the full composition is the key here. So the second statement is a valid knowledge, as the facts were actually that every raven observed was black, NOT the ASSUMPTION that one can jump to stating something concrete, as look what trouble it caused.
Gettier problem
IMHO, the more inferences dependant on fact and the stricter the logic, then basically the lesser the problem. In such a Gettier case; my clock is broken, but I don't know it, and I say it is 9am (JTB) and it is 9 am. Did I know it was 9am from a broken clock? In this case, the truth value is the same BUT I assumed my clock was working, hence the false knowledge because it wasn't. 99% of the time we do "know" our clocks are correct, do we not? So I guess this is a rare problem of coincidence. So in that manner, SOME uncertainty about knowledge is understandable, but for the other 99% of the time, knowledge is pretty much okay and especially if your assumption is [extra-reasonable].
In this regard, the Gettier problem is solved via the extra-reasonable assumption-factor, by means of corroboration. If you have a clock that says 9am, you can look at your watch. If the watch says 9am, it is EXTRA reasonable and more justified to assume the clock is correct. This would solve the problem, as the knowledge would now be real, based on the correct workability of the watch rather than the broken clock which means the knowledge is not dependant upon the clock's workability any longer and there is therefore no problem.. So then you have knowledge+truth value.
Case 1.
Truth value of conclusion: True.
Knowledge: Gettier.
Case 2.
Truth value: True.
Knowledge Gettier + valid knowledge.
( If the watch AND clock were broken, and the truth value was the same, that it was still 9 am, then that would mean that the knowledge of both the clock and watch was incorrect, despite it being 9. The chances of this being the case are amusingly rare ofcourse. )
So I'd say knowledge is about simply making sure assumptions are truly justified, and CHECKED rather than jumping to conclusions and taking assumed assumptions as automatically true. I.e. if you checked your clock was working, you'd be confirming that assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2006 8:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2006 8:11 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024