Thinking about knowledge
If it isn’t clear already, I always attempt to disprove the existence or possibility of concepts, which is science, according to Karl Popper, a 20th century philosopher.
Most people fail to question what knowledge is and whether it can be obtained. I will do so here.
OK Google, define knowledge
noun
facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
[This is Google’s definition of knowledge]
Until the 1960’s, the common definition of knowledge was a Justified True Belief (JTB).
As outlined by CrashCourse Philosophy, JTB states that if a subject supports a true statement grounded in evidence or other support, it is knowledge.
Take the statement “you (the reader) are reading this ‘ere article”. As the reader, I can assume that you agree with this statement (Belief). If this article makes sense to you (I apologise if it doesn’t, in which case I’d ask you to read something else, but then again, I wouldn’t be able to), then you are processing information that I have written (Justification). You are reading this article (Truth); unless this is being read aloud, in which case, I’m flattered that it’s worth reading out to someone; or if it’s the age where people can absorb information from the internet without reading then, I’m glad this survived for so long.
Get ‘ere quick
This is Edmund Gettier.
And this is his original example, in case you couldn’t be bothered to read the header.
In his 1963 paper, Gettier suggested circumstances where JTB is not knowledge. In his original example, it seems that Smith’s JTB was based on false premises that happened to leading him to the truth. To many, this does not seem to be knowledge.
According to Wireless Philosophy, in 1967, Alvin Goldman, introduced the causal theory of knowledge to solve the problem Gettier cases provided. Causal Theory of knowledge states that a subject can only know something if the fact is causally linked to the subject’s belief in an appropriate way. Appropriate causal connections are: Sensory perception, Testimony and Inference.
In Gettier cases, because a false premise causes a certain belief (e.g. Smith’s belief was deduced from the false premise of Jones getting the job), it is not knowledge. However, if a person were to encounter a glass of water, and all their senses indicate the existence of a glass of water, then their belief that there’s a glass of water is a JTB with appropriate causal links.
However, Goldman discovered a flaw in Causal Theory.
A father and son are unknowingly driving through a fake barn county (a county with fake barns). The father begins to name things passing by and identifies a barn. His JTB and causally linked belief happens to be correct but the problem is that within the context of the scenario, his sensory perception (an appropriate link) was unreliable.
Goldman then created Reliabilism, where a subject can only know a fact if they have a true belief formed by a reliable belief forming process. This means that the causal links, such as vision, do not have to be 100% accurate as long as it’s likely to deliver the truth. However this further creates a Generality Problem.
If we consider the father’s “visual barn-detecting capacity in fake barn county”, it is unlikely that he is looking at a barn. However, if we look more generally at his “sensory perception” it is quite likely that what looks like a barn to him is a barn. Again, if we focus on his “visual barn-detection directed at this very barn”, then his senses have 100% reliability.
I believe a fair definition of knowledge is a true belief based on appropriate causal connections. Now, can we obtain it?
Is this the real life?
Sensory perception, Testimony and Inference can lead to the truth but there is a huge problem. If each of these links can be unreliable, then how is it possible to note whether a proposition is true?
The Matrix does a great job in questioning reality which ties in with truth which is required by knowledge. The movie’s premise is where humans have been enslaved by robots and everyone has cables connected to their brains that feeds their senses. The virtual world around them isn’t real, so any observation made within the matrix (the name of the virtual world) cannot be proven to be true. For example, Mouse points out that maybe everything tastes like chicken because the machines got it wrong.
Even when they leave the matrix, it is impossible to know what chicken actually tastes like because they are extinct. Senses can be fooled and randomly inconsistent, so how can be determine if any of our observations are caused by the truth?
Say a man is walking through the desert and hallucinates an oasis. Regardless of whether there is an oasis or not, light particles bouncing off an oasis did not reach his eyes. He continues his way towards the oasis and touches the water, smells it and tastes it. He feels it go down his throat. But as long as he’s hallucinating, he can never know whether there is an oasis or not.
It may appear that an outsider would have to confirm whether there in fact is an oasis, but nothing can guarantee that the outsider isn’t hallucinating either. This applies to any other human being, no one can know whether there is an oasis or not.
Without guarantee that any of our senses are at any given moment, 100% accurate, we can never determine whether a proposition is true or not. If we cannot determine the truth, we cannot say whether something is knowledge or not.
TOO LAZY; DIDN’T READ (conclusion)
We reach the end of another article and yes I changed the title template.
I define knowledge as: a true belief based on appropriate causal connections
If
Our senses are not always accurate
then
there is no way to determine truth, which is a core attribute of knowledge
therefore
knowledge can never be obtained
Consequences
Karl Popper, who I mentioned before, defined the line between science and pseudoscience. The difference is that while pseudoscience makes conclusions from past observations, science seeks out ways to disprove hypotheses. Science doesn’t find the truth, it rules out what isn’t, which only brings us closer to what is true.
Not being able to know anything for certain may feel quite imprisoning but I see it as a liberation. Rather than being bound to a straight road that leads to a metaphorical book of facts out there, we can wander the universe learning new things along the way.
