No.
1. Why did Socrates say ';true'; belief? How does one define a ';false'; belief--by believing someone else, perhaps?
2. Who is the one to ';justify'; it? He also said we are born with all knowledge in our minds and we need only find the right questions to extracts the knowledge.
If we are all born with it, it must be justifiable on its own merits. If it is justifiable on its own merits, it is not a ';belief'; of any type.
';Knowledge'; is 鈥?a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.';Do you agree with Socates that the definition of knowledge is ';justified true belief';?
I prefer '; The accumulation of personal experiences';. I think Socrates' definition works well for ';fact';, but knowledge is very different. Socrates would have said that the world was flat. That was his knowledge, the accumulation of what he had sensed, seen, heard, and experienced, however it would not fall within his definition, because it was not true, nor justified.
This question is way more complicated than it looks.
What if you are justified for believing something--and that something is true--but your justification is in no way connected to the truth of the belief?
For example, you are driving through the Scottland countryside and see what you believe to be a sheep on a hill. You say ';there is a sheep on that hill.'; Unfortunately, what you are actually seeing is a cleverly designed cardboard figure that looks exactly like a real sheep. Behind that figure, however, there is a real sheep! So you are right, but are you right for the right reasons?
Because of this problem, some theorists have claimed that our justification must be causally related to the truth of our belief. There's a lot of material available about this. I recommend Epistemology: An Anthology.
No comments:
Post a Comment