1 Way For Attaining Knowledge

Mr. Gettier realized there was a problem with the original Justified True Belief (JTB) account we discussed a few blog posts ago, here is a link to read more. This post we will learn about the steps Mr. Gettier took to solve the problem for justified true beliefs. This allows a person to know the proper process for attaining knowledge. By using the defeasibility approach mixed with a redundancy issue to finally present an account to form knowledge.

To attain knowledge while getting around Mr. Gettier's problem we need a fourth condition, which is referred to in the book as the defeasibility approach. We provided information and an example of the defeasibility approach in our last post in regards to relationships. A defeasibility approach essentially keeps an argument true, so long as there are no propositions to factually defeat the total system of evidence.

As satisfying as the defeasibility approach/condition is a JTB account is now redundant. In the sense these four conditions: truth, belief, justification and defeasibilty are conflicting. The conditions on their own hold, but the truth condition and the defeasibility condition clash, making the defeasibility condition redundant. For the reason that a defeasibility approach entails the truth condition.

Mr. Gettier fixes this and amends the previous justified true belief account that was presented at the beginning of the book. He did this by removing the truth condition allowing an account to remain a JTB account, so long as:

S knows that p if and only if
(1) S believes that p;
(2) S has justifying evidence for believing that p;
(3) there is no proposition d that factually defeats S's evidence for believing that p.

Allowing us to remove the truth condition well satisfying a justified true belief.

Solving the Gettier problem by presenting a defeasibility condition for a JTB, and a satisfied process for attaining a wealth of knowledge. Which, makes sense as an argument can remain true one second and turn out to be false with new discovered evidence the next. Showing us one way for a justified true belief to become knowledge.

To be clear, I am taking notes from a book titled An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Matthias Steup; if you need a copy to follow along click on the the title in this sentence and a link will direct you. ISBN 0-13-037095-9

Reference:
Steup, Matthias. An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996. Print.

Another Day of Relationships

Defeasibility approach is based on the idea that the full range of relevant facts must not defeat-- in the factual sense of the word -- S's justification for believing that p. (Matthias, 1996)

 This approach goes back to the Gettier Problem, stating all three conditions (true, belief and justified) are not sufficient enough to turn evidence into knowledge. Hence, the defeasibility approach is aimed to turn evidence into knowledge by presenting a fact that aids a system of evidence to factually be a true justified belief. So let's look at an example.

(1) S has two behaviors.
(2) S behaves with great potential when he/she is using supplements.
(3) S behaves like a regular person when he/she is in a sober state of mind.
(4) S ultimately, has one character.
(5) S should be liked for who she/he is rather than what they can become.
(6) If, S is liked for what they can become instead of who she/he is than, S2 doesn't deserve S anyway.

With this system of supporting evidence we can see that S has more than one behavior, a character and is who they ought to be. (5) mentions that S should be liked for who she/he is rather than what they can become. Which, is true to many extents, but for the purposes of this post is a belief that many have in regards to relationships. And, (6) is the defeasible approach, by adding a fact that can defeat S2 reasoning for liking S. However, if S is liked for who they are as a person than none of this matters in the first place and the relationship can live to see another day.

To be clear, I am taking notes from a book titled An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Matthias Steup; if you need a copy to follow along click on the the title in this sentence and a link will direct you. ISBN 0-13-037095-9

Reference:
Steup, Matthias. An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996. Print.

Epistemizing Potential

"Cogito Ergo Sum", translates into "I think, therefore I am"(Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy). This statement provides your conscience with evidence and facts to prove you exist, making you a reliable authority.  While at the same time giving you an example for two forms of defeat ultimately influencing epistemological systems. With this said, here are two definitions, factual and justificational defeat. We need to know these two definitions for the remainder of this post as they affect supported evidence in an epistemizing way.

Justificational Defeat (defeating beliefs with evidence)

d evidentially defeats S's justification for believing that p if and only if (i) S has evidence e for believing that p; (ii) S has also evidence e' for a proposition d that defeats e as evidence for p.

Factual Defeat (defeating beliefs with facts)

d factually defeats S's justification for believing that p if an only if (i) S has evidence e for believing that p; (ii) there is a proposition d such that d is true, S does not have evidence for d, and d defeats e as evidence for p.

Non-Epistemizing

 True belief is not knowledge when non-epistemizing justification occurs. Facts defeating a system of beliefs signifies this sort of defeat. When evidential defeat happens, a belief is defeated. Only factually defeating a system of beliefs allows a system to be known as non-epistemizing justification.

Epistemizing Potential

When an entire system of supported evidence is undefeated, meaning there is no more evidence or facts to defeat p. The system of true beliefs have epistemizing potential. This grants the system of beliefs to than turn into knowledge. 

When a system of elements can remain factually and justificationally undefeated we can say true beliefs have epistemizing potential, allowing us to know with confidence. Almost always we are not fully in a position to know p due to hidden facts, Socrates paradox knew only one thing, which was nothing. However, we do know Descartes "Cogito Ergo Sum" proved our existence as a thinking thing; resulting in a system of elements with epistemizing potential. 

* * *

Go ahead and leave comments below to help me, help you. Note: I use examples from the book and from my own experience.

To be clear, I am taking notes from a book titled An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Matthias Steup; if you need a copy to follow along click on the the title in this sentence and a link will direct you. ISBN 0-13-037095-9

Reference:
Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Raleigh, N.C.: Alex Catalogue, 199. Print.

The Usefulness of Supporting Evidence

Attention: All Reliable Authorities, 

Everyday a justified belief has the potential to form, remaining until you, someone, or some experience/event crushes said justified belief with supporting evidence. In our last post we expressed why you should believe in yourself as a reliable authority with a conscience; click here to read more. This post will cover propositions with the potential to defeat an argument by way of supporting evidence. One proposition can undermine, or contradict another proposition resulting in an evidential defeat, with this said, there is also a way to potentially restore defeated beliefs.

Evidentially Defeating

An evidential defeat occurs when a reliable authority such as yourself presents or experiences new evidence that defeats a justified belief (proposition), such as beliefs about the past and future. This is to say, that you can experience something that undermines or contradicts your previously justified belief about one's past or the predicted future. Something simple as a sporting event allows reliable authorities to form justified beliefs about the outcome of a game. 

Undermining

Unless a person justified their belief for a game to end in a tie. A game resulting in a tie is an example of an undermining defeater, because both teams didn't win or lose; they tied. Which in turn, doesn't prove or deny the reliable authority of a justified belief about the prediction of the game. This is to say, an undermining defeat occurs when a justified belief has a proposition (such as a tie) that doesn't prove or deny a justified belief (team A will win the game). On the other hand, a win or lose will affect the justified belief. 

Contradicting

Suppose then a reliable authority predicted team A will win the game, and they gave enough supporting evidence to justify their belief system. In order for the justified belief to remain, team A will have to win. If team A loses supporting evidence has been formed, namely the game resulted in team B winning the game. Defeating the reliable authorities justified belief, which was team A will win the game. This is to say, a contradictory defeat occurs when the justified belief (team A will win) has a proposition (team B won), making the justified belief (team A will win) false. Now, suppose there was a way to restore the belief, allowing team A to win. 

Restoring Beliefs

In a game this would be known as overtime, or a final play containing a penalty. For the purpose of this post we will stick with overtime. Furthermore, let's assume this is a game of... football. Consisting of overtime if and only if both teams ending score results in a tie. For example, the final score of a game was 35 points for team A and 35 points for team B. This will cause both teams to go into sudden death, meaning the score remains, with a few extra quarters, and the object of the game is to score first. Giving the team who scores first the right to say they won the game. If team B scores first than they win, but if team A scores first than they win. Restoring the reliable authorities justified belief in predicting (team A will win) the game. 

Conclusion

As you can see this is an example for evidential defeats by using undermining, and contradicting supporting evidence as a reliable authority can apply this to relationships regarding multiple reliable authorities about any given subject both positive and negative. This is just a simple example to expresses how a justified belief can be undermined and contradicted, as well as, restoring a defeated belief. If you have ever got into an argument with yourself or someone else, I am sure you have taken an approach similar to this, using supporting evidence for a given situation; click here to read more about supporting evidence. This approach is also used in almost every legal dispute, until a decision has been made by the judge or jury

Go ahead and leave comments below to help me, help you. Note: I use examples from the book and from my own experience.

To be clear, I am taking notes from a book titled An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Matthias Steup; if you need a copy to follow along click on the the title in this sentence and a link will direct you.

Justify The Presence of Your Conscience

Good Day

We like evidence that supports/reaffirms what we already believe, because supporting evidence makes it easier to justify our beliefs to others. Supporting evidence was covered in our last blog posting, click here to read more. This will make it easier to comprehend your beliefs as justification heavily depends on the supported evidence, ultimately making your thoughts and feelings stronger. This is so, because justification comes in degrees due to levels of certainty. 

Non-Conclusive

A lack thereof would lead to non-conclusive evidence with a less than higher degree of justification. Typically beliefs that are about the physical world, the past, future and things that are presently observed contain non-conclusive evidence making levels of certainty lower than 99.9%. The reason for these beliefs being non-conclusive is because the evidence supported leads to uncertainty forcing lesser degrees of justification. 

Conclusive

Stronger beliefs stem from evidence that are conclusive, supporting the truth of the belief with complete certainty. Simply believing about one's own conscious state, axioms of logic and elementary truths of arithmetic are forms of stronger justified beliefs. For example, becoming mindfully aware will lead you to believe in your thoughts and feelings. Simply due the the facts supported by conclusive evidence granting 100% certainty for a specific justified belief. With this said, becoming mindfully aware can take practice and will enhance with time. 

Deductive Reasoning

It is important to note that conclusive evidence must use deductive reasoning as each premise entails the next one. This is done to keep complete certainty of a justified belief, and when a premise doesn't hold a justified belief will be non-conclusive. Furthermore, the premises are held in degrees of justification based on the hierarchical order of entailment. 

Placing beliefs on a high-to-low or strong-to-weak scale of justification based on supported evidence and the deliver of a reliable authority. Making experiences of instances ever so important to each and every one of us as we justify our beliefs for others and more importantly for ourselves. So, believe in your thoughts and feelings, for you are a reliable authority who has the evidence to justify the presence of your conscience.

Go ahead and leave comments below to help me, help you. Note: I use examples from the book and from my own experience.

To be clear, I am taking notes from a book titled An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Matthias Steup; if you need a copy to follow along click on the the title in this sentence and a link will direct you.

You Are A Reliable Authority

No One Else Can Be You

Let's see, your mind has made its way to this post, which proves through perception to be one source of evidence. Helping you form opinions about simple and complex things that may or may not be reliable information/knowledge. A reliable authority such as our individual minds combine four sources of evidence to attain, retain and experience with knowledge and life; coincidentally furthering the well being of our collective universe. 

The four sources of evidence are perception, memory, introspection and reason.

Perception

The mind processes external information by perceiving evidence from our five senses. Now, each of us vary to the degree of which we can use our senses, some of us may be lacking one or two of them, but the potential is there for the human body and mind to see, smell, touch, taste and hear external and internal stimulus. Which, provides evidence for physical objects as we perceive and store experiences into our memory. 

Memory

You like me, rely on memory to act in certain situations, and retain information from our past to use for present and future instances. Aside from the four sources of evidence our memory can pull resources from experts, published content, cognitive processes and research & development.

Introspection

In fact, we develop habits based on our memory as we introspectively act to attain a third source of evidence. By way of mental states such as being hungry and eating, tired and sleeping, emotional and crying, or fantasizing about the future or whatever else you dream of. Most of the time these mental states are autonomous, but we are able to survive and adapt by using our fourth source of evidence. 

Reason

Reasoning grants you and I with the privilege to rationalize our thoughts and behavior, along with other variables. This is done by recognizing variables that follow from other variables. In turn making another variable probable, because we are able to learn from our mistakes and attain valuable knowledge to prevent unwanted behavior. 

Conclusion

Perception | Introspection | Reason | Memory

These four sources of evidence allow each and everyone of us to attain and retain knowledge as we survive and adapt with our very own experiences. Furthermore, knowing this will allow you to become far more effective with any situation you face. After all, you are the reliable authority to face a situation and seek understanding, luckily for you, other reliable authorities have already experienced similar issues who can be of assistance. 

Enjoy 

To be clear, I am taking notes from a book titled An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Matthias Steup; if you need a copy to follow along click on the the title in this sentence and a link will direct you.

Loop Hole

A Loophole is an uncertainty or inability to deal with a situation in the law or a set of rules. 

There is a loophole for everything these days whether they are used or not, they exist. Unbeknownst to us until a situation is presented to figure it out. Whatever "it" may be a problem arises with truths, beliefs and justifications as conditions of knowledge. Gettier's problem states that the three conditions (truths, beliefs and justifications) are not sufficient for a JTB of knowledge; so let's examine theories for each one. 

The truth theories consist of three approaches correspondence, verificationism and pragmatism. All of which, fail for there own reasons dealing with each theories variables. Stemming from questions, experience and potential infinite's. 


Correspondence Theory:
P is true iff, it corresponds with the fact that P. This theory has a circular argument: what is a fact? and what does it take for a fact to correspond to belief. Moreover, a fact is hard to determine without mentioning the truths of the matter. 

Verificationism: 
P is true iff, it is an instance of (idealized) rational acceptability. Verificationism is hard to justify, typically leading to a false belief. Meaning this theory will be an uphill battle to preclude a belief to be possible. Mostly for the fact that each person dealing with P would have to form an opinion based on their education, experience and training. 

Pragmatism: 
P is true iff, it is useful. Pragmatism doesn't hold because it is easy to imagine true beliefs that are not useful at all. Therefore, true beliefs can fail to be useful, and useful beliefs can fail to be true.  

A belief is the attitude a person can have toward P a proposition. For example lets say P = God exists
On one side of the fence believer would be a Theist, in the sense that a theist would believe God exist forming the belief that P is true. The fence would be an Agnostic as judgement is suspended forming an indifferent belief. On the other side of the fence would be the disbeliever known as the Atheist will take P to be false. However, all of these believers are forming a belief to believe, disbelieve or suspend a belief.  Furthermore, occurent beliefs are also important to this matter as they are presently before our mind as a standing (3+3=6) or newly formed belief (I believe in behavior P's domino effect). These beliefs are justified in certain degrees, which we will delve into at a later time. 

Justification seems easy, but it can be a little tricky. The two forms are justified true beliefs (lucky truths) and unjustified true beliefs (lucky guess). A lucky truth is a true belief that is not a lucky guess. S's belief that P is a lucky guess iff, (i) P is true; (2) S believes that P; (3) S has no evidence that P is true. These forms of justification are tricky because evidence or reason has to be presented to convince others, including yourself. Also for the reason that, a belief can have the property of being completely justified without having to show or explain the belief's justification, or we have no idea how to explain a belief yet, the belief is still justified. i.e. reading a blog post and existing.

Making the truth theories, beliefs and justifications fail on every level. This is an under rated phenomenon that has metaphysically created loop holes for laws, knowledge and anything else attempting to prove a point.  

Mr. Gettier succeeded to note the problems with each condition and devised a solution that comes later in the book after further developing evidence for justification. 
Since, these three conditions will not suffice for knowledge to be a justified true belief. He had to solve a problem, that is to say, what kind of condition can prevent a true belief from being a lucky truth? 

To be clear, I am taking notes from a book titled An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Matthias Steup; if you need a copy to follow along click on the the title in this sentence and a link will direct you.