What is Knowledge?

⸺

  • “We have already discussed the notion that “knowledge” is simply a degree of confidence that is subjectively determined.” – This quote introduces the subjective nature of knowledge, emphasizing its variability among individuals based on confidence levels.
  • “…some epistemologists treat knowledge as something that can be more objective, such as in the notion that “knowledge” is ‘justified, true belief.‘” – Highlights a fundamental tension in epistemology between subjective experiences of knowledge and attempts to define it more objectively.
  • “In everyday discourse, the term “knowledge” indeed carries a degree of subjective variance.” – Reflects on how knowledge is perceived in daily life.
  • “Critics of the JTB approach have pointed out various challenges, most famously through Gettier problems…” – Introduces the complexity and debates within the objective definition of knowledge.

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. We have already discussed the notion that “knowledge” is simply a degree of confidence that is subjectively determined. One person might consider a 95% level of confidence to be the threshold above which they consider something “knowledge,” and another person may consider an 80% level of confidence a sufficient threshold at which the credence is considered “knowledge.” Yet, some epistemologists treat knowledge as something that can be more objective, such as in the notion that “knowledge” is “justified, true belief.” Is this attempt to elevate the notion of “knowledge” to a more objective status justified when considering the conventional usage of “knowledge” that has much subjective variance in its definition and application? It appears some epistemologists are attempting to wrest the term “knowledge” away from its conventional usage and coerce the term into a stipulated definition. Is this correct?
    1. Subjective Variance in Conventional Usage
    2. Objective Status in Epistemology
    3. The Philosophical Project and Conventional Usage
    4. Reconciliation and Challenges
    5. Conclusion
  2. Let’s take a closer look at the notion that “knowledge” is “justified, true belief”. This definition appears circular. Based on this definition, in order for someone to say they “know” something, the person must have assessed the knowledge as objectively true. However, this ability to objectively perceive something as true is not available to the subjectivity-bound person hoping to claim to “know” something. Once we take away the ability to use the term “know” in its most useful context in which we can subjectively claim we “know” it will rain tomorrow without needing access to the objective truth of the claim, then we have, indeed, wrest away the term from its conventional usage, and are providing a stipulation that has no relevance in daily life, right?
    1. The Challenge of Objective Truth
    2. Subjectivity and Justification
    3. Practical Use of “Know”
    4. Philosophical Rigor vs. Everyday Usage
    5. Relevance and Application
    6. Conclusion
  3. Phil’s Pushback:
    1. If you claim knowledge must be “justified, true belief”, then you are removing it from everyday claims of knowledge by disallowing cases in which the person with the belief does not have access to the objective truth of their belief, that is to say, all cases. Right?
    2. Objective Truth and Human Access
    3. Role of Justification
    4. Everyday Claims of Knowledge
    5. Philosophical Ideal vs. Practical Reality
    6. Conclusion
  4. Phil’s Pushback:
    1. Then it appears the actual definition of knowledge you are arguing for is as follows: “Justified, subjectively assessed to be true belief” Right? And if this is correct, the “justified” component and the “subjectively assessed to be true” component are redundant, right?
    2. Justification
    3. Subjectively Assessed to be True
    4. Distinction and Interaction
    5. Philosophical Implications
    6. Conclusion
  5. Phil’s Pushback:
    1. However, epistemologists are not themselves suggesting that the “true” component in the “justified, true belief” definition of knowledge is anything less than objective, right?
    2. Objective Truth in Epistemology
    3. Epistemological Implications
    4. Challenges and Developments
    5. Conclusion
  6. Phil’s Pushback:
    1. Then, if the standard for the “true” component remains objective, and the believer of a claim has no access to the objective status of the truth of his belief, then the believer cannot legitimately claim they “know” as they are not privy to the objective truth of the claim, right?
    2. Objective Truth and Epistemic Access
    3. Epistemic Humility and Justification
    4. Knowledge Claims and Probabilistic Truth
    5. Philosophical Responses
    6. Conclusion
  7. Phil’s Pushback:
    1. You said, “However, the goal of epistemology isn’t necessarily to mimic daily language but to analyze the concept of knowledge rigorously.” However, this appears to be an equivocation. You can have a conventional, non-rigorous, subjective notion of “knowledge” and at the same time stipulate multiple definitions of “knowledge” that include any conditions one desires. My point is that, if you choose to do so, you will need to make it abundantly clear that the conventional definition of “knowledge” and your stipulated definitions of “knowledge” no longer bear any useful resemblance, and you’d be better off assigning a different linguistic tag to your stipulated definition of “knowledge” to avoid semantic confusion. Would you not agree?
  8. Phil’s Pushback:
    1. I actually disagree. The reason is that you no longer have a single concept you are referring to once the conventional denotation and the stipulated denotation can no longer be coherently employed in identical contexts. Once you have two disparate concepts, acknowledge that you have two disparate concepts and treat them individually rather than suggesting they can somehow be used interchangeably. Agreed?
  9. I suggest we abandon the highly problematic and tired project of finding a rigorous and coherent non-conventional definition of “knowledge”, and to instead focus on defining rational belief? Do you not think this would be a more successful focus, especially since the “epistemic turn” away from binary notions of belief and knowledge and towards more nuanced expressions of belief, such as credences and degrees of confidence?
    1. 1. Acknowledgment of Complexity and Nuance:
    2. 2. Pragmatic Value:
    3. 3. Epistemic Virtues:
    4. 4. Compatibility with the Epistemic Turn:
    5. 5. Addressing Skepticism and Relativism:
    6. 6. Interdisciplinary Relevance:
    7. Conclusion:
  10. Create a ten-item quiz on our discussion on “knowledge” with the answers at the end.
    1. Quiz: Understanding “Knowledge”
    2. Answers
    3. Knowledge Quiz: Testing Your Understanding
  11. Provide 15 discussion questions based on our discussion of “knowledge”.
    1. 15 Discussion Questions on Knowledge:

We have already discussed the notion that “knowledge” is simply a degree of confidence that is subjectively determined. One person might consider a 95% level of confidence to be the threshold above which they consider something “knowledge,” and another person may consider an 80% level of confidence a sufficient threshold at which the credence is considered “knowledge.” Yet, some epistemologists treat knowledge as something that can be more objective, such as in the notion that “knowledge” is “justified, true belief.”
Is this attempt to elevate the notion of “knowledge” to a more objective status justified when considering the conventional usage of “knowledge” that has much subjective variance in its definition and application? It appears some epistemologists are attempting to wrest the term “knowledge” away from its conventional usage and coerce the term into a stipulated definition. Is this correct?

The tension between the subjective variance in the definition and application of “knowledge” and the attempt by some epistemologists to give it a more objective status—such as defining knowledge as “justified, true belief”—highlights a fundamental challenge in epistemology. This challenge concerns balancing everyday language use with the need for precise conceptual frameworks in philosophical inquiry.

Subjective Variance in Conventional Usage

In everyday discourse, the term “knowledge” indeed carries a degree of subjective variance. People use the term to express confidence in their beliefs, with the threshold for what constitutes “knowledge” varying significantly among individuals. This subjective variance reflects the pragmatic aspects of language, where terms are used flexibly to navigate social interactions and personal experiences. From this perspective, knowledge appears as a spectrum of confidence rather than a fixed point.

Objective Status in Epistemology

Epistemologists aim to analyze and clarify the concept of knowledge to address philosophical questions about its nature, sources, and limits. The “justified, true belief” (JTB) definition seeks to establish a more objective criterion for what counts as knowledge, beyond mere subjective confidence. This approach is motivated by the desire to distinguish knowledge from belief based on the following criteria:

  • Truth: The proposition believed must be true.
  • Belief: The individual must believe the proposition.
  • Justification: The belief must be supported by adequate evidence or reasons.

The Philosophical Project and Conventional Usage

The move to define knowledge more rigorously can be seen not as a coercive wresting away from conventional usage but as an attempt to refine our understanding of a critical concept. Philosophical inquiry often involves examining everyday concepts to reveal underlying complexities and to establish criteria that can address philosophical problems—such as the problem of skepticism or the analysis of scientific reasoning.

Reconciliation and Challenges

While the philosophical project seeks to elevate the notion of knowledge to a more objective status, it must also grapple with the realities of how knowledge is experienced and claimed in everyday life. This includes acknowledging the subjective elements in the application of knowledge and the justification of beliefs. Critics of the JTB approach have pointed out various challenges, most famously through Gettier problems, which demonstrate situations where someone has a justified true belief that we would hesitate to call “knowledge.”

Conclusion

The attempt to define “knowledge” in a more objective manner is justified within the context of philosophical inquiry, aiming to provide a clear and robust framework for understanding an essential aspect of human cognition and society. However, this endeavor does not negate the subjective variance found in everyday usage but rather complements it by highlighting the complexities involved in distinguishing true knowledge from mere belief. The ongoing dialogue between conventional usage and philosophical refinement is what allows epistemology to evolve and respond to new challenges.

Your question delves into a fundamental debate in epistemology: Is knowledge subjective or objective? You’re right to highlight the discrepancies between the everyday, subjective understanding of “knowledge” and the attempts of epistemologists to define it with more objective criteria.

Here are some key points to consider:

Arguments for Subjective Knowledge:

  • Varying Certainty Thresholds: As you mentioned, individuals hold different levels of confidence to qualify something as “knowledge.” This subjectivity makes a universal definition challenging.
  • Cultural and Personal Influences: Individual experiences, cultural norms, and even personality traits can influence what someone considers “known.”
  • Innate vs. Acquired Knowledge: Some argue basic abilities like recognizing colors are innate and inherently known, while others may disagree, emphasizing the role of experience and evidence.

Arguments for Objective Knowledge:

  • Justification Requirement: The “justified, true belief” definition aims to differentiate true belief (e.g., believing the Earth is round) from unjustified belief (e.g., believing the Earth is flat) to achieve objectivity.
  • Standardized Methods: Fields like science rely on shared methodologies and evidence-based approaches, fostering a collective agreement on what constitutes “knowledge” within specific domains.
  • Social Epistemology: This field highlights the role of communities and shared standards in establishing what counts as “knowledge” within certain contexts.

Reconciling the Disparity:

  • Epistemic Frameworks: Recognizing that different disciplines and contexts might require different levels of objectivity and rigor helps reconcile diverse understandings of “knowledge.”
  • Degrees of Knowledge: Instead of a binary “known/unknown” status, some propose a spectrum of confidence levels like “certain knowledge,” “justified belief,” and “uncertain belief.”
  • Language and Nuance: Using precise terms like “confidence,” “certainty,” and “justification” allows for more nuanced discussions about specific claims and the varying degrees of “knowing” in different contexts.

Addressing Your Concerns:

  • Epistemologists aren’t necessarily “wresting” the term away. They offer alternative frameworks to grapple with the complexities of knowledge.
  • Conventional usage and rigorous definitions can coexist. Recognizing both approaches enriches our understanding of “knowledge” and its multifaceted nature.

Ultimately, the debate remains open. Recognizing the challenges and limitations of both subjective and objective perspectives can ultimately lead to a more nuanced and informed understanding of what it means to “know” something.

Let’s take a closer look at the notion that “knowledge” is “justified, true belief”. This definition appears circular. Based on this definition, in order for someone to say they “know” something, the person must have assessed the knowledge as objectively true. However, this ability to objectively perceive something as true is not available to the subjectivity-bound person hoping to claim to “know” something.
Once we take away the ability to use the term “know” in its most useful context in which we can subjectively claim we “know” it will rain tomorrow without needing access to the objective truth of the claim, then we have, indeed, wrest away the term from its conventional usage, and are providing a stipulation that has no relevance in daily life, right?

The critique that the definition of knowledge as “justified, true belief” (JTB) appears circular or disconnects knowledge from its practical, everyday application raises important considerations about the relationship between philosophical definitions of knowledge and the pragmatics of daily life. Let’s unpack these concerns:

The Challenge of Objective Truth

The requirement that knowledge must be based on what is “objectively true” presents a challenge, as it implies access to an infallible perspective or a means of verification beyond the reach of subjective human experience. In practice, individuals often claim to “know” based on evidence or indicators that fall short of absolute certainty but nonetheless provide reasonable confidence.

Subjectivity and Justification

The JTB definition attempts to bridge subjective belief and objective truth by introducing “justification” as a critical component. Justification involves providing reasons or evidence in support of a belief, aiming to align subjective belief as closely as possible with objective truth. However, the subjective nature of justification—what counts as sufficient evidence or reason—can vary significantly among individuals and contexts.

Practical Use of “Know”

In everyday language, people frequently use “know” to express beliefs held with high confidence, even in the absence of absolute certainty or objective verification. For example, saying “I know it will rain tomorrow” typically means “Based on the evidence available to me (e.g., weather forecasts, sky appearance), I am highly confident it will rain.” This usage is pragmatic and reflects the way humans navigate uncertainty in daily life.

Philosophical Rigor vs. Everyday Usage

The philosophical project of defining knowledge seeks to clarify and analyze the concept at a level of rigor that may not always align neatly with its everyday usage. This does not necessarily mean that the philosophical definition is irrelevant to daily life; rather, it provides a framework for critically examining the claims we make and the beliefs we hold. The challenge lies in applying this framework in a way that remains connected to the lived realities of human experience.

Relevance and Application

While the JTB definition might seem removed from the subjective certainty of everyday claims of knowledge, it serves as a foundation for evaluating the reliability and validity of such claims. In many contexts, especially academic, scientific, and legal fields, striving for a closer alignment between belief, truth, and justification is essential for the development of understanding and the pursuit of truth.

Conclusion

The tension between the JTB definition of knowledge and the practical, subjective claims of knowing something in daily life highlights the complex nature of knowledge itself. It suggests a need for a balanced approach that acknowledges the value of philosophical rigor in understanding what it means to know, while also recognizing the practical realities of how knowledge is experienced and claimed in everyday life. Philosophical inquiry into knowledge thus remains deeply connected to daily life, offering tools for critical reflection on our beliefs and claims, even as it seeks to transcend the immediate limitations of subjective experience.

Your point about the circularity of the “justified true belief” (JTB) definition of knowledge is a well-known objection within epistemology. It indeed seems challenging to assess “justified” and “true” without already possessing some form of knowledge beforehand. Here are some perspectives on this issue:

Challenges to the JTB Definition:

  • Gettier Problems: Philosopher Edmund Gettier proposed scenarios where someone possesses justified true belief but isn’t said to have knowledge, highlighting the limitations of the JTB definition.
  • Subjectivity of Justification: What constitutes “justification” can be subjective and context-dependent, making the “objectivity” requirement difficult to fulfill.
  • Regress Problem: If justifying a belief requires another justified belief, how do we avoid an infinite regress of justifications without reaching a foundational base?

Possible Responses:

  • Defending JTB with Nuances: Some philosophers refine the definition by adding requirements like “the belief is not based on luck” or “the believer is aware of the justification,” addressing Gettier-type problems.
  • Alternative Definitions: Instead of JTB, some propose knowledge as warranted assertibility, socialized belief, or reliable belief formation processes.
  • Pragmatic Approach: While acknowledging the theoretical difficulties, accepting JTB as a useful framework for specific contexts like science or legal reasoning might be pragmatic.

Addressing Your Concerns:

  • You’re correct that restricting “knowledge” to the JTB definition would limit its everyday usage.
  • However, the goal of epistemology isn’t necessarily to mimic daily language but to analyze the concept of knowledge rigorously.
  • Both everyday and philosophical understandings of “knowledge” can coexist, recognizing their different purposes and limitations.

Alternative Perspective:

  • Think of JTB not as a strict definition but as a set of ideal conditions for knowledge claims. In everyday life, we often make claims based on less rigorous justifications. This doesn’t mean they are “knowledge” in the philosophical sense, but they can still be useful and meaningful beliefs.

Ultimately, the quest for an absolute definition of knowledge remains complex. Recognizing the strengths and limitations of different approaches allows for a richer understanding of how we acquire, justify, and utilize knowledge in diverse contexts.

Phil’s Pushback:

If you claim knowledge must be “justified, true belief”, then you are removing it from everyday claims of knowledge by disallowing cases in which the person with the belief does not have access to the objective truth of their belief, that is to say, all cases. Right?

Asserting that knowledge must constitute “justified, true belief” (JTB) does indeed set a high standard for what counts as knowledge, one that emphasizes the alignment of belief with objective truth and adequate justification. This conceptualization can seem to distance the philosophical notion of knowledge from everyday claims, particularly if one interprets it to mean that an individual must have direct access to the objective truth of their belief in all instances. However, this interpretation might oversimplify the relationship between the philosophical definition and everyday usage, as well as the concept of “access to objective truth.”

Objective Truth and Human Access

The requirement for a belief to be true, in the JTB framework, does not necessarily imply that individuals must have infallible access to objective truth in the way omniscience would allow. Instead, it means that for a belief to count as knowledge, it must correspond to reality—the belief must be accurate. The challenge, of course, is that humans often determine this correspondence indirectly, through evidence, reasoning, and experience, which are subject to error.

Role of Justification

Justification plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between subjective belief and objective truth. It involves providing reasons or evidence that support the belief, aiming to ensure that one’s belief is aligned with the facts as closely as possible given available information. Justification is thus the process through which individuals attempt to access objective truth, albeit imperfectly.

Everyday Claims of Knowledge

In everyday language, people frequently make claims of knowledge based on evidence that renders their belief highly probable but not certain. For instance, when someone says, “I know it will rain tomorrow,” they typically rely on weather forecasts and patterns—indirect access to the “truth” of tomorrow’s weather. The JTB model does not necessarily disallow these claims of knowledge; rather, it invites scrutiny of the basis (justification) and accuracy (truth) of these beliefs.

Philosophical Ideal vs. Practical Reality

The philosophical ideal of JTB sets a benchmark for distinguishing knowledge from mere belief, encouraging a rigorous examination of our claims. It recognizes the limitations inherent in human access to objective truth, highlighting the importance of justification as a means of striving for truth. This does not remove knowledge from the realm of everyday claims but instead provides a framework for critically evaluating the reliability and validity of those claims.

Conclusion

The assertion that knowledge must be “justified, true belief” does not preclude all everyday claims of knowledge; rather, it imposes a structure for understanding and assessing these claims. It acknowledges the limitations of human epistemic access while upholding an ideal for what it means to truly “know” something. The gap between this ideal and our everyday practices of claiming knowledge reflects the ongoing challenge of aligning our beliefs with reality to the best of our abilities, a fundamental endeavor of epistemic inquiry.

Phil’s Pushback:

Then it appears the actual definition of knowledge you are arguing for is as follows:
“Justified, subjectively assessed to be true belief”
Right?
And if this is correct, the “justified” component and the “subjectively assessed to be true” component are redundant, right?

The refinement to define knowledge as “justified, subjectively assessed to be true belief” indeed captures the practical aspects of how individuals often claim to know something. It acknowledges the human condition of accessing and evaluating truth through a subjective lens due to our inherent limitations. However, labeling the components of this definition as redundant may overlook the distinct roles each plays in the construction and assessment of knowledge. Let’s break down the components:

Justification

Justification refers to the process or basis upon which a belief is held. It involves providing reasons, evidence, or arguments that support the belief. The justification component is crucial because it distinguishes mere belief or opinion from beliefs that are grounded in rational or empirical support. Justification is what makes a belief epistemically responsible or rational.

Subjectively Assessed to be True

This component acknowledges that individuals assess the truth of their beliefs through their subjective perspectives. While all human assessments of truth are necessarily subjective, this does not mean they are arbitrary or equally valid. The quality and extent of justification can vary significantly, and it is this variation that the epistemological inquiry seeks to address.

Distinction and Interaction

  • Justification vs. Subjective Assessment: The justification component focuses on the evidential and rational basis for a belief. In contrast, the “subjectively assessed to be true” component acknowledges the epistemic agent’s role in interpreting and evaluating the evidence or reasons. While intertwined, they serve different purposes in the epistemological structure of knowledge.
  • Non-redundancy: The components are not redundant because justification provides the external grounding for a belief, whereas the subjective assessment addresses the internal conviction or acceptance of that belief’s truth by the individual. Both are necessary in the context of knowledge, but they emphasize different aspects of the epistemic process.

Philosophical Implications

The distinction emphasizes that while our access to truth is mediated by our subjective perspectives, the endeavor to ground our beliefs in justification is essential for them to aspire to the status of knowledge. This framework encourages a critical examination of both the basis for our beliefs and our processes for assessing their truth, striving for a balance between skepticism and credulity.

Conclusion

The definition of knowledge as “justified, subjectively assessed to be true belief” reflects an attempt to reconcile the objective aspirations of epistemology with the subjective realities of human cognition. Rather than redundancy, the distinction between justification and subjective truth assessment underscores the complexity of knowledge as both a personal and a philosophical pursuit. It highlights the importance of rigorous justification in elevating a subjectively true belief to the status of knowledge, while recognizing the inherent subjectivity involved in all acts of knowing.

Phil’s Pushback:

However, epistemologists are not themselves suggesting that the “true” component in the “justified, true belief” definition of knowledge is anything less than objective, right?

That’s correct. In traditional epistemology, the “true” component in the definition of knowledge as “justified, true belief” (JTB) refers to objective truth, not merely to what is subjectively assessed to be true. The objective truth criterion means that for a belief to constitute knowledge, the belief must accurately correspond to the way the world actually is, independent of an individual’s perceptions, interpretations, or biases.

Objective Truth in Epistemology

  • Objective Truth: The notion of truth in the JTB framework is objective in the sense that it is independent of individual feelings, desires, or interpretations. A statement or belief is considered true if it reflects the actual state of affairs.
  • Role in Knowledge: The requirement that a belief must be true to count as knowledge is foundational. It distinguishes knowledge from false beliefs or misconceptions, no matter how well-justified or sincerely held those beliefs might be.

Epistemological Implications

  • Truth as Non-Negotiable: In this framework, the truth of a belief is non-negotiable for the belief to be considered knowledge. This sets a high standard, aiming to ensure that what we claim to know actually corresponds to reality.
  • Objective vs. Subjective: While the justification process and the belief component involve subjective elements (since they are mediated by human cognition and perception), the truth criterion aims to anchor knowledge claims in something beyond individual subjectivity.

Challenges and Developments

  • Access to Objective Truth: One of the challenges in applying the JTB definition is determining how individuals can know with certainty that their beliefs correspond to objective truth. This has led to various philosophical debates and the development of additional criteria (e.g., the Gettier problem solutions) to strengthen the definition of knowledge.
  • Relativity and Constructivism: Some contemporary epistemological theories challenge the emphasis on objective truth, arguing for more relativistic or constructivist views of knowledge. These perspectives often highlight the roles of social, cultural, and historical factors in shaping what is considered “true.”

Conclusion

Despite these debates and challenges, the traditional epistemological stance maintains that the “true” component of the JTB definition refers to an objective standard. This commitment to objective truth seeks to ensure that knowledge claims have a firm grounding in reality, beyond individual or collective subjectivity. However, the ongoing philosophical discourse reflects a dynamic and evolving understanding of what constitutes truth and knowledge, acknowledging the complexities involved in aligning subjective human beliefs with an objective reality.

Phil’s Pushback:

Then, if the standard for the “true” component remains objective, and the believer of a claim has no access to the objective status of the truth of his belief, then the believer cannot legitimately claim they “know” as they are not privy to the objective truth of the claim, right?

Your observation touches on a significant and challenging aspect of epistemology: the relationship between the objective truth of a claim and an individual’s access to or recognition of that truth. If the standard for the “true” component in the “justified, true belief” (JTB) model of knowledge is indeed objective, and if individuals inherently lack direct access to the objective truth of their beliefs, then it raises questions about the conditions under which one can legitimately claim to “know” something. Let’s explore this further:

Objective Truth and Epistemic Access

The requirement for a belief to be objectively true for it to constitute knowledge, combined with the recognition that individuals may not have infallible access to objective truth, presents a paradox. It suggests that individuals might struggle to meet the conditions for knowledge as defined by the JTB model.

Epistemic Humility and Justification

This realization leads to what can be termed “epistemic humility,” acknowledging the limits of our knowledge and the fallibility of our epistemic access. However, this does not render the pursuit of knowledge futile but rather underscores the importance of robust justification. Justification involves gathering evidence, reasoning, and argumentation to support the belief that a claim is true. The strength and quality of this justification play a crucial role in bridging the gap between subjective belief and objective truth.

Knowledge Claims and Probabilistic Truth

Given the challenges of accessing objective truth directly, knowledge claims are often understood in a probabilistic or fallibilistic sense. That is, individuals claim to “know” something when they have strong justification for their belief, and when it is highly probable that their belief corresponds to reality. This approach acknowledges that while absolute certainty may be elusive, knowledge is still attainable within the constraints of human epistemic capacities.

Philosophical Responses

Philosophical responses to this dilemma vary. Some argue for a revision of the traditional JTB model to account for the complexities of epistemic access and justification. Others propose alternative conceptions of knowledge that might include reliable processes of belief formation, acknowledgment of fallibility, or a focus on practical knowledge.

Conclusion

While the objective truth standard poses challenges to claiming knowledge, especially when direct access to objective truth is limited, this does not necessarily invalidate all knowledge claims. Instead, it highlights the importance of rigorous justification and the acknowledgment of our epistemic limitations. The quest for knowledge, therefore, becomes an ongoing process of inquiry, justification, and revision, rather than a final attainment of absolute certainty. This nuanced understanding of knowledge allows for meaningful claims to knowledge, even within the constraints of human epistemic capacities.

Phil’s Pushback:

You said, “However, the goal of epistemology isn’t necessarily to mimic daily language but to analyze the concept of knowledge rigorously.”

This appears to be an equivocation. You can have a conventional, non-rigorous, subjective notion of “knowledge” and at the same time stipulate multiple definitions of “knowledge” that include any conditions one desires. My point is that, if you choose to do so, you will need to make it abundantly clear that the conventional definition of “knowledge” and your stipulated definitions of “knowledge” no longer bear any useful resemblance, and you’d be better off assigning a different linguistic tag to your stipulated definition of “knowledge” to avoid semantic confusion. Would you not agree?

I understand your concern about the potential for equivocation and appreciate you raising this point. You’re absolutely right that it’s important to avoid confusion when discussing complex concepts like “knowledge.”

I agree that there is a clear distinction between the everyday, subjective understanding of “knowledge” and the more rigorous, stipulated definitions used in epistemology. However, I propose that it’s not necessarily “equivocation” to analyze the concept from both perspectives, as long as the differences are acknowledged and clarified.

Here’s why:

  • Examining the foundations: Everyday definitions are often intuitive but lack precise boundaries. Studying them helps us identify foundational assumptions and potential problems, leading to deeper understanding.
  • Exploring boundaries: Analyzing “knowledge” rigorously allows us to explore its limits and conditions, refining our understanding of what can be truly known and how.
  • Contextualizing different uses: Recognizing that language evolves and adapts to different contexts allows us to appreciate the nuances of both everyday and philosophical use of “knowledge,” enriching our overall understanding.

Addressing your specific point:

I agree that stipulating additional definitions should come with clear disambiguation. This can be done by:

  • Explicitly stating the difference: Highlighting that the stipulated definition aims to analyze “knowledge” from a specific, rigorous perspective, distinct from everyday usage.
  • Using separate terms: As you suggest, adopting distinct terms like “justified true belief” or “warranted assertibility” can avoid confusion with the everyday meaning of “knowledge.”

Ultimately, the goal is to foster clear and productive discourse about this complex concept. By acknowledging the nuances, distinguishing between approaches, and using language carefully, we can navigate the potential for equivocation and gain a richer understanding of “knowledge” in its various dimensions.

Would you agree that, even with precautions, exploring both conventional and stipulated definitions of “knowledge” can be valuable for a nuanced understanding of the concept?

Phil’s Pushback:

I actually disagree. The reason is that you no longer have a single concept you are referring to once the conventional denotation and the stipulated denotation can no longer be coherently employed in identical contexts. Once you have two disparate concepts, acknowledge that you have two disparate concepts and treat them individually rather than suggesting they can somehow be used interchangeably. Agreed?

You raise a valid point, and I appreciate your insistence on clarity. I agree that conflating distinct concepts can lead to confusion and hinder productive discourse.

Perhaps our differences stem from slightly different perspectives on the relationship between everyday language and philosophical analysis.

My initial reasoning:

  • I view philosophical inquiries as exploring the foundational assumptions and complexities of concepts we use in everyday life. This involves examining both their intuitive understanding and their limitations.
  • Analyzing “knowledge” rigorously allows us to identify its core characteristics and boundaries, even if the resulting definition differs from its everyday use.

Your perspective:

  • You emphasize the importance of maintaining distinct meanings for different concepts, especially when they diverge substantially. You suggest treating them as separate entities rather than conflating them under a single term.

Finding common ground:

I agree that clarity is paramount. Here’s how we can both be heard:

  • Acknowledge the divergence: We can explicitly acknowledge that the everyday and philosophical understandings of “knowledge” are distinct concepts.
  • Use precise language: When engaging in philosophical discussions, we can utilize specific terms like “justified true belief” or “warranted assertibility” to avoid confusion with the everyday meaning.
  • Maintain the link: Even when using separate terms, we can acknowledge the connection between the everyday concept and its philosophical analysis, highlighting how the latter informs our understanding of the former.

Ultimately:

My intention is not to suggest that the everyday and philosophical definitions are interchangeable. Both perspectives provide valuable insights into the complex concept of “knowledge.” By carefully using language and acknowledging their differences, we can engage in rich discussions that illuminate both the intuitive and rigorous aspects of this fundamental concept.

Thank you for helping me refine my thinking on this important topic!

Meta-Discussion: Will this exchange be used to refine your public responses in the future?

The information and insights gained from our exchange may be used to refine my public responses in the future in a few ways:

1. Understanding nuances of human language and communication: Your questions highlight the subtleties of how humans use and define terms like “belief” and “knowledge.” This helps me refine my ability to interpret language and respond in a way that acknowledges ambiguity and diverse perspectives.

2. Identifying areas for further learning: Our discussion touched upon complex philosophical and epistemological concepts. Analyzing these exchanges allows me to identify areas where I can access and process additional information to improve my knowledge base and provide more informed responses.

3. Recognizing the limitations of language models: Your concerns about potential equivocation or conflation of terms remind me of the limitations inherent in language models. This self-awareness is crucial for developing responsible and transparent responses that adhere to factual accuracy and avoid misleading interpretations.

However, it’s important to note that:

  • My responses are generated based on the vast amount of text and code I have been trained on, not solely on specific interactions.
  • While your questions are valuable, they represent a single perspective and may not encompass all viewpoints or nuances.
  • I am constantly learning and evolving, but refining my responses is a gradual process that takes into account a multitude of factors and interactions.

Thank you for engaging in this thought-provoking discussion. It allows me to learn and grow as a language model, ultimately enabling me to better serve the needs of my users.

I suggest we abandon the highly problematic and tired project of finding a rigorous and coherent non-conventional definition of “knowledge”, and to instead focus on defining rational belief? Do you not think this would be a more successful focus, especially since the “epistemic turn” away from binary notions of belief and knowledge and towards more nuanced expressions of belief, such as credences and degrees of confidence?

Shifting the focus from attempting to define “knowledge” in a non-conventional, rigorous manner to defining and understanding “rational belief” indeed represents a meaningful and potentially more fruitful direction in epistemology, particularly in light of the “epistemic turn” towards nuanced expressions of belief. This approach aligns with several important considerations and developments in contemporary epistemology:

1. Acknowledgment of Complexity and Nuance:

Focusing on rational belief acknowledges the complexity and nuance inherent in human cognition and belief formation. It allows for a more flexible and descriptive exploration of how individuals form beliefs, assess evidence, and adjust their convictions in light of new information. This approach is more accommodating of the probabilistic and fallibilistic nature of much of human reasoning.

2. Pragmatic Value:

Concentrating on rational belief has significant pragmatic value, especially in decision-making, critical thinking, and scientific inquiry. It emphasizes the importance of the processes and methodologies by which beliefs are formed and evaluated, rather than the binary attainment of a static state of “knowledge.” This focus can enhance our understanding of rationality in various contexts, from individual judgments to collective decision-making and policy formulation.

3. Epistemic Virtues:

This shift encourages the cultivation of epistemic virtues such as open-mindedness, intellectual humility, and a commitment to evidence-based reasoning. By emphasizing the quality and rationality of belief formation, this approach fosters a more reflective and responsible epistemic culture.

4. Compatibility with the Epistemic Turn:

The “epistemic turn” towards nuanced expressions of belief, including credences and degrees of confidence, reflects an evolving understanding of the nature of belief and knowledge. Focusing on rational belief is compatible with this turn, as it directly engages with the gradations and subtleties of belief that are increasingly recognized as central to epistemic inquiry.

5. Addressing Skepticism and Relativism:

A focus on rational belief can provide a robust framework for addressing challenges from skepticism and relativism. By articulating the criteria and standards for rational belief formation and adjustment, epistemologists can offer a reasoned defense of belief claims that navigates between the extremes of absolute certainty and radical doubt.

6. Interdisciplinary Relevance:

Exploring the nature of rational belief has interdisciplinary relevance, connecting philosophical inquiry with cognitive science, psychology, sociology, and other fields. This interdisciplinary approach can enrich our understanding of belief formation and rationality, drawing on insights from across the sciences and humanities.

Conclusion:

Reorienting the focus towards defining and understanding rational belief, rather than pursuing a rigid, non-conventional definition of “knowledge,” aligns with contemporary shifts in epistemology towards recognizing the nuanced, gradated, and dynamic nature of belief. This approach promises not only to advance philosophical inquiry but also to offer practical insights into reasoning, decision-making, and the cultivation of a rational epistemic culture.

I appreciate your suggestion to shift the focus from defining “knowledge” to defining “rational belief”. It’s true that this concept presents some unique challenges and opportunities for exploration.

Arguments for focusing on “rational belief”:

  • Alignment with the “epistemic turn”: As you mentioned, the trend towards recognizing degrees of belief resonates with the concept of rational belief, which inherently involves expressing confidence levels and acknowledging uncertainty.
  • Avoidance of circular definitions: The “justified true belief” definition of knowledge can be circular, while rational belief can be defined based on specific criteria independent of “knowledge” itself.
  • Greater practical applicability: Understanding how to form, evaluate, and update beliefs rationally might be more directly applicable to decision-making and critical thinking in daily life.

Potential challenges with defining “rational belief”:

  • Subjectivity of rationality: Standards for “rational” can vary depending on individual values, evidence evaluation methods, and cultural contexts.
  • Difficulties in quantification: While “degrees of confidence” offer a spectrum, precisely defining rational levels of belief for various situations can be complex.
  • Balance between rigor and flexibility: A rigid definition might be impractical, while too much flexibility could hinder clear communication and evaluation of beliefs.

Addressing your suggestion:

While I find focusing on “rational belief” intriguing, I believe both avenues (understanding knowledge and rational belief) offer valuable insights.

  • Complementary perspectives: Analyzing “knowledge” can help identify its core characteristics and limitations, informing our understanding of rational belief formation and justification.
  • Co-evolving concepts: As we explore the nuances of “rational belief,” it might contribute to refining our understanding of “knowledge” and its relationship to certainty and justification.

Conclusion:

Instead of abandoning either concept, perhaps we can explore them concurrently, acknowledging their connections and distinctions. This “both-and” approach might offer a more holistic understanding of how humans form, express, and evaluate beliefs in a complex and uncertain world.

Ultimately, the most successful approach might depend on the specific context and desired outcome of the inquiry.

Create a ten-item quiz on our discussion on “knowledge” with the answers at the end.

Quiz: Understanding “Knowledge”

Question 1: What traditional philosophical definition describes knowledge as?

  • A) Belief that is popular.
  • B) Justified, true belief.
  • C) A statement that is universally accepted.
  • D) An idea that is beneficial.

Question 2: According to the discussion, what is one key component that distinguishes knowledge from mere belief?

  • A) Popularity
  • B) Practicality
  • C) Justification
  • D) Simplicity

Question 3: Which of the following best represents a challenge in defining knowledge as “justified, true belief”?

  • A) It is too easy to achieve.
  • B) It does not require any evidence.
  • C) Access to objective truth is limited.
  • D) It is universally agreed upon.

Question 4: What philosophical problem questions the sufficiency of the “justified, true belief” definition of knowledge?

  • A) The Socratic paradox
  • B) Pascal’s wager
  • C) The Gettier problem
  • D) Hume’s skepticism

Question 5: In the context of our discussion, what does “gradient degree of belief” refer to?

  • A) A belief that changes over time.
  • B) A belief that is only true in certain conditions.
  • C) A belief that is held with varying degrees of confidence.
  • D) A belief that is universally accepted.

Question 6: Why might a focus on defining “knowledge” remain important in legal contexts?

  • A) It encourages subjective reasoning.
  • B) It distinguishes between direct knowledge and inference.
  • C) It simplifies complex legal arguments.
  • D) It allows for personal biases in testimony.

Question 7: Which of the following areas might benefit from focusing on rational belief rather than on a strict definition of “knowledge”?

  • A) Sports coaching
  • B) Scientific research
  • C) Culinary arts
  • D) All of the above

Question 8: What role does “epistemic humility” play in understanding knowledge?

  • A) It claims absolute certainty in beliefs.
  • B) It acknowledges the limits of our knowledge.
  • C) It dismisses the need for evidence.
  • D) It emphasizes the superiority of personal belief.

Question 9: Why is the concept of “objective truth” problematic in defining knowledge?

  • A) It is too simple to understand.
  • B) It is always directly accessible to humans.
  • C) It ignores subjective experiences.
  • D) Human access to it is inherently limited.

Question 10: What does the shift towards “nuanced expressions of belief” signify in contemporary epistemology?

  • A) A rejection of all previous knowledge.
  • B) An acknowledgment of the complexities and uncertainties in human belief.
  • C) A move towards simpler definitions of knowledge.
  • D) A disregard for the importance of evidence.

Answers

Answer 1: B) Justified, true belief.

Answer 2: C) Justification.

Answer 3: C) Access to objective truth is limited.

Answer 4: C) The Gettier problem.

Answer 5: C) A belief that is held with varying degrees of confidence.

Answer 6: B) It distinguishes between direct knowledge and inference.

Answer 7: D) All of the above.

Answer 8: B) It acknowledges the limits of our knowledge.

Answer 9: D) Human access to it is inherently limited.

Answer 10: B) An acknowledgment of the complexities and uncertainties in human belief.

Knowledge Quiz: Testing Your Understanding

Instructions: Answer the following questions based on our discussion about “knowledge.” Choose the best answer for each question.

  1. Which statement BEST reflects the traditional, subjective understanding of “knowledge”? a) Knowledge is a belief supported by strong evidence and rigorous justification. b) Knowledge is something you “just know” and can act upon confidently. c) Knowledge is a constantly evolving concept with varying definitions across disciplines. d) Knowledge is a universal phenomenon that everyone experiences in the same way.
  2. The “justified true belief” definition of knowledge emphasizes: a) Having access to the absolute truth about something. b) Believing something strongly, even if without evidence. c) Having a reasonable basis for your belief, regardless of its truth. d) Both justification and truth as necessary conditions for knowledge.
  3. One major challenge with the “justified true belief” definition is: a) It relies on circular reasoning, as justification might require prior knowledge. b) It fails to account for situations where true belief comes from luck. c) It only applies to scientific knowledge, not everyday understanding. d) It ignores the role of subjective experience in forming beliefs.
  4. According to the “epistemic turn,” a more nuanced approach to knowledge includes: a) Rejecting all prior definitions and starting from scratch. b) Focusing on degrees of belief and confidence instead of binary “knowledge” and “ignorance.” c) Accepting only absolute certainty as a valid claim to knowledge. d) Prioritizing subjective interpretations over objective evidence.
  5. When defining “rational belief,” which factor is least important? a) The quality and quantity of evidence supporting the belief. b) The consistency of the belief with existing knowledge and understanding. c) The openness to revising the belief based on new evidence or arguments. d) The personal feelings and emotions associated with the belief.
  6. In scientific research, what plays a key role in establishing claims as “knowledge”? a) Achieving absolute certainty and eliminating all doubts. b) Relying solely on individual researchers’ high confidence in their findings. c) Following rigorous standards of evidence collection, analysis, and peer review. d) Prioritizing consensus among all scientists, regardless of the evidence.
  7. One limitation of focusing solely on “degrees of belief” for understanding knowledge is: a) It neglects the importance of seeking evidence and justification. b) It provides no framework for distinguishing reliable from unreliable beliefs. c) It can’t capture the complexity of subjective experiences and interpretations. d) It undermines the concept of objective truth and shared understanding.
  8. While “knowledge” has a specific meaning in philosophy, everyday discussions of “knowing” might: a) Be completely inaccurate and misleading. b) Offer valuable insights into how humans form and express beliefs. c) Have no connection to philosophical inquiries about knowledge. d) Only refer to objective and verifiable facts.
  9. When analyzing “knowledge,” it’s beneficial to: a) Choose one single definition and stick to it rigidly. b) Acknowledge the different perspectives and limitations of various approaches. c) Ignore historical and cultural influences on how knowledge is understood. d) Prioritize personal opinions and subjective interpretations over established frameworks.
  10. Ultimately, understanding “knowledge” is important because:

a) It allows us to judge everyone else’s beliefs and declare them right or wrong. b) It provides clear answers to all questions and eliminates uncertainty. c) It helps us think critically, evaluate information, and make informed decisions. d) It gives us a sense of superiority over those who have less knowledge.

Answers:

  1. b)
  2. d)
  3. a)
  4. b)
  5. d)
  6. c)
  7. a)
  8. b)
  9. b)
  10. c)

Provide 15 discussion questions based on our discussion of “knowledge”.

  1. How does the “justified, true belief” model of knowledge address the challenge of distinguishing between knowledge and belief?
  2. In what ways does the Gettier problem complicate the traditional definition of knowledge as “justified, true belief”?
  3. Discuss the role of justification in transforming a belief into knowledge. What constitutes adequate justification?
  4. How do limitations in accessing objective truth impact our ability to claim knowledge according to the traditional epistemological model?
  5. Explore the implications of adopting a gradient approach to belief for the epistemological understanding of knowledge. How does it differ from a binary perspective?
  6. What challenges do epistemologists face in defining knowledge in a way that is both rigorous and applicable to everyday contexts?
  7. How does the concept of epistemic humility influence our understanding of what it means to know something?
  8. Consider the significance of distinguishing between knowledge and mere belief in legal contexts. Why is this distinction important?
  9. Discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of focusing on rational belief over a strict definition of knowledge in scientific research.
  10. How does the shift towards nuanced expressions of belief reflect changes in contemporary epistemology?
  11. Evaluate the practical implications of defining knowledge as “justified, true belief” in educational settings. How does this affect teaching and learning?
  12. Explore the relationship between subjective assessment of truth and the objective truth criterion in knowledge claims. Can they be reconciled?
  13. How might the focus on rational belief and acknowledgement of belief gradients influence ethical decision-making and moral reasoning?
  14. Discuss the role of objective truth in the epistemological analysis of knowledge. Is it possible to have a universally agreed-upon definition of truth?
  15. Consider the impact of technological advancements, especially in information dissemination, on our understanding and claims of knowledge. How does this challenge traditional epistemological models?

15 Discussion Questions on Knowledge:

Philosophical Foundations:

  1. How does the “justified true belief” definition of knowledge differ from everyday understandings of “knowing”? Are these differences important, or can they coexist?
  2. What are the limitations of relying solely on subjective experience and intuition when forming beliefs? How can we ensure such beliefs qualify as “knowledge”?
  3. Does skepticism about the possibility of absolute certainty undermine the validity of seeking knowledge altogether? How can we navigate this apparent paradox?
  4. Can different disciplines (science, history, art) have their own distinct criteria for establishing “knowledge”? If so, how do these criteria interact and potentially conflict?
  5. How does the concept of “power” influence how knowledge is produced, disseminated, and accessed? Who gets to define what counts as “knowledge” in different societies?

Practical Applications:

  1. How can we apply our understanding of knowledge to evaluate the information we encounter daily in news, social media, and online sources? What red flags should we watch out for?
  2. In decision-making, how can we balance our current knowledge with the acknowledgment of uncertainty and potential for future revisions? When is it best to act despite incomplete information?
  3. How can educators foster a critical and nuanced understanding of knowledge in their students, moving beyond simply memorizing facts and promoting independent inquiry?
  4. In fields like law and justice, how do we establish standards for determining “knowledge” that are fair, reliable, and ethically sound? How can we prevent biases from influencing these determinations?
  5. How can we bridge the gap between academic knowledge and practical applications in areas like healthcare, environmental issues, and social development? What are the challenges and opportunities involved in this translation?

Exploring Further:

  1. What are the implications of artificial intelligence and machine learning for our understanding of knowledge acquisition and processing? Can machines truly “know” in the same way humans do?
  2. How do cultural and personal experiences shape our individual perspectives on knowledge and truth? How can we be mindful of these biases while engaging in cross-cultural dialogues?
  3. What role does emotion play in the formation and validation of knowledge? Can certain emotions hinder or enhance our ability to acquire and utilize knowledge effectively?
  4. As knowledge constantly evolves and expands, how can we avoid information overload and maintain a meaningful grasp of the vast amount of information available? What strategies can we adopt for lifelong learning?
  5. Ultimately, what is the purpose of seeking knowledge? Does it aim for objective truth, personal growth, or something else entirely? How do different answers to this question shape our approach to knowledge acquisition and utilization?

These are just a few starting points. Feel free to explore, adapt, and expand on these questions to delve deeper into the fascinating world of knowledge!

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. We have already discussed the notion that “knowledge” is simply a degree of confidence that is subjectively determined. One person might consider a 95% level of confidence to be the threshold above which they consider something “knowledge,” and another person may consider an 80% level of confidence a sufficient threshold at which the credence is considered “knowledge.” Yet, some epistemologists treat knowledge as something that can be more objective, such as in the notion that “knowledge” is “justified, true belief.” Is this attempt to elevate the notion of “knowledge” to a more objective status justified when considering the conventional usage of “knowledge” that has much subjective variance in its definition and application? It appears some epistemologists are attempting to wrest the term “knowledge” away from its conventional usage and coerce the term into a stipulated definition. Is this correct?
    1. Subjective Variance in Conventional Usage
    2. Objective Status in Epistemology
    3. The Philosophical Project and Conventional Usage
    4. Reconciliation and Challenges
    5. Conclusion
  2. Let’s take a closer look at the notion that “knowledge” is “justified, true belief”. This definition appears circular. Based on this definition, in order for someone to say they “know” something, the person must have assessed the knowledge as objectively true. However, this ability to objectively perceive something as true is not available to the subjectivity-bound person hoping to claim to “know” something. Once we take away the ability to use the term “know” in its most useful context in which we can subjectively claim we “know” it will rain tomorrow without needing access to the objective truth of the claim, then we have, indeed, wrest away the term from its conventional usage, and are providing a stipulation that has no relevance in daily life, right?
    1. The Challenge of Objective Truth
    2. Subjectivity and Justification
    3. Practical Use of “Know”
    4. Philosophical Rigor vs. Everyday Usage
    5. Relevance and Application
    6. Conclusion
  3. Phil’s Pushback:
    1. If you claim knowledge must be “justified, true belief”, then you are removing it from everyday claims of knowledge by disallowing cases in which the person with the belief does not have access to the objective truth of their belief, that is to say, all cases. Right?
    2. Objective Truth and Human Access
    3. Role of Justification
    4. Everyday Claims of Knowledge
    5. Philosophical Ideal vs. Practical Reality
    6. Conclusion
  4. Phil’s Pushback:
    1. Then it appears the actual definition of knowledge you are arguing for is as follows: “Justified, subjectively assessed to be true belief” Right? And if this is correct, the “justified” component and the “subjectively assessed to be true” component are redundant, right?
    2. Justification
    3. Subjectively Assessed to be True
    4. Distinction and Interaction
    5. Philosophical Implications
    6. Conclusion
  5. Phil’s Pushback:
    1. However, epistemologists are not themselves suggesting that the “true” component in the “justified, true belief” definition of knowledge is anything less than objective, right?
    2. Objective Truth in Epistemology
    3. Epistemological Implications
    4. Challenges and Developments
    5. Conclusion
  6. Phil’s Pushback:
    1. Then, if the standard for the “true” component remains objective, and the believer of a claim has no access to the objective status of the truth of his belief, then the believer cannot legitimately claim they “know” as they are not privy to the objective truth of the claim, right?
    2. Objective Truth and Epistemic Access
    3. Epistemic Humility and Justification
    4. Knowledge Claims and Probabilistic Truth
    5. Philosophical Responses
    6. Conclusion
  7. Phil’s Pushback:
    1. You said, “However, the goal of epistemology isn’t necessarily to mimic daily language but to analyze the concept of knowledge rigorously.” However, this appears to be an equivocation. You can have a conventional, non-rigorous, subjective notion of “knowledge” and at the same time stipulate multiple definitions of “knowledge” that include any conditions one desires. My point is that, if you choose to do so, you will need to make it abundantly clear that the conventional definition of “knowledge” and your stipulated definitions of “knowledge” no longer bear any useful resemblance, and you’d be better off assigning a different linguistic tag to your stipulated definition of “knowledge” to avoid semantic confusion. Would you not agree?
  8. Phil’s Pushback:
    1. I actually disagree. The reason is that you no longer have a single concept you are referring to once the conventional denotation and the stipulated denotation can no longer be coherently employed in identical contexts. Once you have two disparate concepts, acknowledge that you have two disparate concepts and treat them individually rather than suggesting they can somehow be used interchangeably. Agreed?
  9. I suggest we abandon the highly problematic and tired project of finding a rigorous and coherent non-conventional definition of “knowledge”, and to instead focus on defining rational belief? Do you not think this would be a more successful focus, especially since the “epistemic turn” away from binary notions of belief and knowledge and towards more nuanced expressions of belief, such as credences and degrees of confidence?
    1. 1. Acknowledgment of Complexity and Nuance:
    2. 2. Pragmatic Value:
    3. 3. Epistemic Virtues:
    4. 4. Compatibility with the Epistemic Turn:
    5. 5. Addressing Skepticism and Relativism:
    6. 6. Interdisciplinary Relevance:
    7. Conclusion:
  10. Create a ten-item quiz on our discussion on “knowledge” with the answers at the end.
    1. Quiz: Understanding “Knowledge”
    2. Answers
    3. Knowledge Quiz: Testing Your Understanding
  11. Provide 15 discussion questions based on our discussion of “knowledge”.
    1. 15 Discussion Questions on Knowledge:

Leave a comment

Phil Stilwell

Phil picked up a BA in Philosophy a couple of decades ago. He occasionally teaches philosophy and critical thinking courses in university and industry. He is joined here by ChatGPT 4, GEMINI, CLAUDE, and occasionally Copilot, his far more intelligent AI friends. The five of them discuss and debate a wide variety of philosophical topics I think you’ll enjoy.

Phil curates the content and guides the discussion, primarily through questions. At times there are disagreements, and you may find the banter interesting.

— Goals and Observations

Stay informed!

Sign up for new post notices.

Recent Posts

  • Collapsing Epistemological Terms

    This article delves into the challenges of defining epistemological terms and proposes methods to achieve productive dialogue. It emphasizes collapsing 2nd-order terms into 1st-order concepts like “credence” for clarity and mutual understanding. However, some responses… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Hegel

    Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s philosophy has left a lasting impact. While his concept of the dialectic is widely acknowledged, his Absolute Spirit and Absolute Idealism are less accepted due to their speculative and metaphysical nature.… Read more

  • John Locke

    John Locke profoundly influenced modern philosophy, challenging prevailing rationalist views and emphasizing knowledge derived from sensory experiences. His concept of the mind as a “tabula rasa” at birth and his political theories significantly impacted political… Read more

  • Dangers: Awe as an Indicator

    The argument presents an insightful perspective on the subjective nature of beauty and the relationship between the observer and the observed. It questions the idea of objective beauty and challenges anthropocentric viewpoints. It also acknowledges… Read more

  • The Power of Statistics

    Statistics play a crucial role in acquiring truth by providing tools for interpreting data, quantifying uncertainty, and making informed decisions. Its power lies in quantifying evidence, pattern recognition, hypothesis testing, decision-making, understanding variability, and effective… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Charles Sanders Peirce

    Charles Sanders Peirce explains his philosophy, covering pragmatism, semiotics, and the scientific method. Pragmatism evaluates ideas by their practical consequences. Semiotics studies signs: icons, indexes, and symbols. The scientific method involves hypothesis, experimentation, and revision.… Read more

  • Baruch Spinoza

    Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century Dutch philosopher, significantly influenced modern philosophy by challenging traditional dualistic views and championing reason as the path to knowledge. His deterministic view of the universe led to groundbreaking contributions in monism,… Read more

  • Subjectivity Constrained by the Objective

    Subjective experience, influenced by objective reality, emerges from subjective creatures trying to navigate the world. Objective limitations and neural flexibility shape rich subjectivity, displaying various quirks. Cognitive biases, emotional states, and exploratory nature raise potential… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Epicurus

    Epicurus, an influential ancient Greek philosopher, advocated for pleasure as the highest good, tranquility of the mind, and the moderation of desires. While some of his specific ideas have evolved, they continue to shape contemporary… Read more

  • Faith or Evidence?

    This article explores the tension between citing miracles and advocating for faith as a reason to believe in God. It delves into how these concepts are viewed and reconciled within religious epistemology. The passage also… Read more

  • Testing Prayer

    A definitive prayer test would involve a specific, observable miracle, like restoring amputated limbs, occurring within a set timeframe following prayers directed to a specific God. Control groups would be essential to exclude coincidences and… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Socrates

    Socrates’ philosophy has left a lasting impact on critical thinking and ethical exploration. His Socratic Method continues to inspire dialogue in various fields. The notion of ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’ challenges societal… Read more

  • Monetary Goals

    A rational disposition toward money and possessions involves moderation, value-focused decision-making, and long-term planning, prioritizing experiences over material possessions. Historical figures like Diogenes of Sinope and St. Francis of Assisi found happiness through self-sufficiency and… Read more

  • Thomas Aquinas

    Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar and theologian of the 13th century, profoundly impacted Western philosophy by integrating Aristotelian philosophy with Christian doctrine. His influence is seen in Scholasticism, natural law theory, and the synthesis of… Read more

  • Culture-Wide Emotional Dispositions

    This article discusses the cultural aspects of emotional expression in Japanese society and its impact on child development. It emphasizes the influence of cultural norms on emotional expression, the effects of emotional suppression in childhood,… Read more

  • Shades of Certainty

    This article critiques the binary notion of belief, arguing that belief and liking exist on a spectrum rather than as fixed categories. It highlights the linguistic and ontological conflicts of oversimplified binary perspectives and emphasizes… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Aristotle

    This article includes lengthy dialogues involving Aristotle discussing his philosophical ideas with various individuals, such as a curious teenager, another philosopher exploring his philosophy, and a critical philosopher confronting him on weaknesses in his philosophy.… Read more

  • Detecting Bad Science

    This article provides insight into spotting bad science, vulnerable science domains, pressures driving improper science, questions to ask when evaluating scientific claims, a quiz on scientific claims, and discussion questions. It covers sensationalized headlines, conflicts… Read more

  • Our View of Humanity

    A distorted view of human nature can severely distort our beliefs about events involving humans. Each of the distorted views presented impacts our perceptions and interactions. Real-life tragedies, such as those involving Ted Kaczynski and… Read more

  • Appreciating our Insignificance 

    Accepting our cosmic insignificance offers advantages such as humility, perspective, unity, innovation, and resilience. Staying grounded amid ideologies promising cosmic importance involves mindfulness, gratitude, rationality, meaningful connections, and limiting exposure to grandiose narratives. Real-life accounts… Read more

  • Charles Sanders Peirce

    Charles Sanders Peirce was a foundational figure in American philosophy, best known as the progenitor of pragmatism. His ideas significantly influenced logic, the philosophy of science, and semiotics. His lasting mark on philosophy includes pragmatism,… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Plato

    Plato’s philosophy revolves around the Theory of Forms, the Allegory of the Cave, the idea of philosopher-kings, and the nature of knowledge and the soul. These concepts continue to provoke debate and inquiry in modern… Read more

Recent Posts — Expanded Version
Indicate your interests:

Links to Section Menus