THE PHILOSOPHY OF KNOWLEDGE: KNOWLEDGE VS BELIEF (part 2)

ARGUMENT: A PROOF OF KNOWLEDGE?

Arguments are connected beliefs or statements. How they are structured is very important. Cogent argument follows a particular structure, so it’s usually easy to tell if you are listening to one or not.

The logical structure of an argument is pretty simple, but very powerful. We gather things that we know or things that we think might be true, about an issue. We then try and put these things together in a coherent way so that they may lead us to a conclusion. The things that we think might be true are called PREMISES. We list these in a way that makes sense. The conclusion is the end point of our reasoning – at least of that particular argument. But then, going through the premises to the conclusion is called INFERRING.

Being able to recognise and produce good arguments is a matter of understanding how some ideas (premises) support other ideas (conclusion). An argument is valid if the form of the argument is such that if the premises (P) are true, then the conclusion (C) is also true.

But validity, we know, is not enough for a good argument. We have to know that the premises are true. But what is it is to know that something is true? Look at this argument:

image: Kito

                                           

P1: If Kito is a bucket, they Kito can fly.

P2: Kito is a bucket.

C: Therefore, Kito can fly.

Is this a good argument? Well, in some sense, no. The Electric Iron is not a bucket and definitely cannot fly. However, this is a valid argument. It has the form Modus Ponems, which is a valid form of argument. But the problem with the Kito-bucket argument is that it is not sound. Both is the premises (P1 and P2) are false.

So, is knowing then just a matter of having a true belief? No. Saying that someone knows something also implies something about the way in which their belief was formed. In particular, it implies that they have formed their belief on the basis of good reasons.

If you ask me if today is Monday and I decide to toss a coin to give you the answer, then it cannot be said that I know the answer, even if it happens to be true that today is Monday. What is missing? There’s no Justification for my belief that it’s Monday and without justification, so the argument goes, there’s no knowledge.

To be justified in believing something, I must investigate the grounds for my belief. I must examine the available evidence or reasons for believing that proposition to be true as well as any potentially disconfirming evidence. Only if the evidence, all things considered, favours certain proposition, should I believe it.    

 

We all think we know things, but explain knowledge is not easy. What is involved when we know  that something is true? Theatetus Plato (429-347 B.C.E) proposed that knowledge is justified true belief.  It goes this way; Knowledge = Justification + truth + belief.

To illustrate this in an example, it goes this way:

Helen knows that there is a book on the drawer – (Knowledge)

Helen remembers putting the book on the drawer yesterday – (Justification)

There is a book on the drawer – (Truth)

Helen believes that there is a book on the drawer – (Belief)

This appears to be a good analysis of knowledge. Helen has the right belief, the belief is true, and her reasons for believing, namely, her remembering that she put a book on the drawer yesterday is a good reason for her believing that it is still there today. If she has no reason to believe that the drawer has been tampered with between yesterday and today or that her memory is impaired, then her memory of what she did yesterday is good evidence of what the content of the drawer will be today.