Hello Gentlemen,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Civbert Does 'justify' modify 'true' or 'belief' or both. Does 'justify' modify 'true' modify 'belief'? Are the three terms a list that defines knowledge, each a predicate of knowledge by itself? Can we say knowledge is justified AND true AND belief? |
I am not sure if these questions where rhetorical or not, but I will answer. For the sake of this discussion, take belief as fundamental. The class of all beliefs can be divided up into four ways: (1) true beliefs that are justified, (2) true beliefs that are not justified, (3) false beliefs that are justified and (4) false beliefs that are not justified. We are speaking about (1). This means that ‘justify’ does not modify ‘true’ nor does ‘true’ modify ‘justify’. The two terms modify the type of belief we are talking about.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Civbert We should also qualify if we are speaking about the epistemological meaning of the word "knowledge" or the word as found in Scripture. |
Ultimately, our answer needs to be informed by Scripture. There is no agreed on “epistemological meaning of ‘knowledge’”. That is why I started the thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Civbert So I will start out with: 'justified' is deducible from prior true premises. |
Assume premises (1) and (2) are true in both cases.
Premise: Tucson is in Arizona.
Premise: Phoenix is in Arizona.
Conclusion: Tucson is in Phoenix.
The conclusion was
deduced from prior true premises. However, I would not say that it is justified.
Premise: Every electron we have seen repels each other.
Premise: ‘x’ and ‘y’ are electrons.
Conclusion: ‘x’ and ‘y’ will repel each other.
Is the conclusion justified? I want to say that it is. However, others may not.
As Tom B points out, is "'justified' deducible from prior true premises" deducible from prior true premises? If so, I would like to know what those premises are. If not, then where are we?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom B I don't think the definition is good (of course, I guess that all depends on how 'justified' is defined!) |
In my opening post I pointed out that ‘justified’ is not well defined. The purpose of this thread is to explore the issue.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom B Thus, following Plantinga, I'd opt for 'warrant' as that elusive property that turns a mere true belief into knowledge. (Unless you're using the terms interchangeably.) |
We may end up in this thread adopting Plantinga’s view of warrant as our definition for ‘justification’.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom B Obviously just holding a true belief isn't sufficient for knowledge since we wouldn't be able to rule out coincidence or lucky guesses. |
This is a good point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom B …a 'justified belief' is a belief you are entitled to hold…they submit to the standards of what we may reasonably believe. |
This just pushes us one step back. What do we mean by ‘entitlement,’ or what are the standards of reasonable belief?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom B And, there are some who add 4th conditions. So, justified, true belief isn't enough. The belief must be formed by a reliable cognitive faculty. |
I would think ‘justified’ is broad enough to include this, and as such there is no 4th condition. If the equipment we use to justify the conclusions we reach (our cognitive faculties) is not aimed at true belief production, then the conclusions reached cannot be said to be justified. In other words, if the conclusions reached are based on faulty equipment, then they are not justified. What do you think?
Sincerely,
Brian