Hmm... I'm not sure what this does... never was really a blogger... testing testing... 1,2,3
Let's see, so Knowledge supposedly "Justified True Belief"
Consider this situation: Bob and Jim apply for the same job.
Bob thinks Jim will get the job because Jim seems more qualified.
Jim has 10 coins in his pocket. (bob saw)
Bob concludes through his reason, logic, and emotions the knowledge claim that 'the person who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket.'
Unbeknownst to Bob, he will actually get the job. And, though he hasn't checked his pockets, in reality, he also has 10 coins in his pocket.
Thusly, the knowledge claim was true, however,
Bob's justifications were invalid.
His belief was an incorrect "map of reality."
But he still came to the right conclusion.
Uh oh spaghetti-ohs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't see how this disproves the jtb part of knowledge claims: Bob's knowledge claim was, and I quote, "the person who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket." Bob had 10 coins in his pocket, so the justification wasn't wrong. His belief that having 10 coins in your pocket makes you more qualified is also not a false "map of reality", because he had 10 coins in his pocket, and he was more qualified for the job.
Interesting post... all I'll say is pay attention to the "logic" portion of your argument. How might this be at the center of why you claim it is NOT a PJTB?
Paper 3
1) Prove that winston is wrong.
Given that K=A, JTB=B, and JTB'=B'
=> draw a venn diagram
=> winston needs more than only one example of how some special knowledge isn't justified true belief; A\B or that kind of knowledge that is not JTB must encompass all A or A\B=A
=> as for this specific case, if something is "properly", "justified", "true", and "belief", then it is guaranteed to be knowledge; this Bob guy got lucky and managed to get to the correct conclusion; his knowledge claim is perfectly valid but it takes a different logical pathway, like a make-it-yourself story where you choose door A and get eaten or door B and smite your enemies. This is somewhat like science where, instead of interpreting data in an incorrect way, your data is just wrong because you have bad lab technique
=> but should the definiton of knowledge even be expanded? well, the complete set of justifications/observations was not "in" yet until the job decision was made; in science, true power of a "knowledge claim/hypothesis" is its ability to withstand new data
=> that's wierd, with bob's new info he might question his original knowledge claim instead of checkin' his pockets...but, if a good justification for knowledge is thorough induction, not a single observation
on the right track...
Post a Comment