Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse  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. |
That's why I asked. I take the phrase to mean knowledge is a belief that is justified true. I think a justified false belief is a contradiction. You can deduce a false proposition, but only if one starts with false premises.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse 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. |
OK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse 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. |
I would say the conclusion was not deduced from the premises. A fallacious conclusion is not a true deduction. When I say, deducible from true premise, I mean the deduction is valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse 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. |
The correct conclusion is "it is reasonable to believe (strongly) that ‘x’ and ‘y’ will repel each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse 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? |
It is a valid question. We are examining the justification of what we consider our knowledge.
As for Plantinga, does he even get to "knowledge". He speaks of warranted belief. I don't think he concludes that this implies knowledge. Merely that there is a way to judge what is reasonable to believe, and particularly, if Christians have sufficient warrant to hold their beliefs. Knowledge, seems to go on step further.
And still not addressed is the difference between knowledge and knowing. It's one thing to say I have good reason to believe something - my believe is warranted; it's another thing to say what I believe is knowledge.
How one answers this depends on ones understanding of the definition of knowledge. Can someone "know" a false proposition? And consider the implications of either answer.