What do we mean by "know"
Often in discussions theist-vs-atheist discussions comes a point where a theist claims "our ancestors knew about atoms" and stuff like that. Or there are threads like speed of light in vedas which imply the vedic people knew the speed of light. Then the discussion typically goes in the direction of revisionism or rationalism or empiricism etc. There is one facet which more often than not gets ignored and that is "what do we mean by 'knew'"

I want to dedicate this thread to our understanding of what we mean by I/she/we know

Quoting from a wiki link
The question of what are the conditions that must be met for something to really qualify as "knowledge" is as old as philosophy itself, and is a constant theme of Plato's dialogues, notably Meno 97a-98b

The first thing to realize is that getting an answer right is NOT same as "knowing" it. This should be obvious to anybody who has taken a multiple choice question test. Guessing can fetch right answers, but that is never considered equivalent to knowing the right answer.

For major part in philosophy's history Justified true beliefs (JTB) were considered to define what constitutes as knowledge. In simplified terms it basically means "A belief, that is true, and is validly justified is knowledge". Ofcourse what constitutes as valid justification is whole another issue.

This definition looks obvious and pretty good until came Gettier with Gettier Problems. Gettier was able to show instances where all the conditions of a JTB are met yet we won't call it knowledge. My favorite example is the clock one.
Smith checks his wall clock, which is showing 2'O clock, and exclaims "Oh Cosmos must be on" and starts his television. What he doesn't know is that the clock is broken and has been showing just one time for the last two days. But it incidentally is 2'O clock and Cosmos is indeed going on.

Now would Smith's belief that Cosmos is going on be considered as knowledge, or is it just another incidental occurrence like guess work? His belief definitely satisfies all the JTB criterias, yet it is completely chance based.

Science has a very interesting and different perspective on the knowledge game. Because it really concerns itself with predictive power, Science concentrates more on the "how" part. So Science tries to investigate how was the answer arrived at. Additionally it doesn't care whether the method is "justified" as long as it can be shown to be more effective than random guess. So basically if the method of arriving at the result defies conventional wisdom and is thus not justifiable, it still will be accepted by Science if it can be shown that it is applicable repeatedly and produces more accurate results than chance.

One thing to be noted is that for both Science and Philosophy, an isolated incidence of "getting the right answer" has no importance!
[+] 2 users Like Kanad Kanhere's post

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)