Mixing
Why is belief necessary for justified true belief?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In justified true belief it is said that for a person to know a fact it must be true, she must believe in it and she must be justified in believing it.
My question is: Is belief necessary? Why is the following not enough:
- The fact is true.
- She has justifiable reasons to conclude it is true.
knowledge truth belief
edited 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
asked 4 hours ago
george
211
New contributor
george is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In justified true belief it is said that for a person to know a fact it must be true, she must believe in it and she must be justified in believing it.
My question is: Is belief necessary? Why is the following not enough:
- The fact is true.
- She has justifiable reasons to conclude it is true.
knowledge truth belief
edited 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
asked 4 hours ago
george
211
New contributor
george is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
This is an interesting question; but why would anyone not believe something they have reason to believe is true, unless it is something that conflicts with their ideals? I personally find some things extremely difficult to believe for that reason, even with adequate evidence to the contrary. And I don't think that my reaction to, say, unpleasant truths, is all that uncommon. So there are things I rationally believe to be true, which my conscience or subconscious mind rejects.
– Bread
4 hours ago
I made an additional edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Good question to ask why all three of these are needed. +1
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
On your proposal we'd have to say that creationists know that the evolution theory is true. That is not a common use of "know". There are theories of knowledge that discard belief as a condition, especially in artificial intelligence contexts, but they put in place more than 1 and 2, see Do machine learning algorithms have knowledge?
– Conifold
26 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In justified true belief it is said that for a person to know a fact it must be true, she must believe in it and she must be justified in believing it.
My question is: Is belief necessary? Why is the following not enough:
- The fact is true.
- She has justifiable reasons to conclude it is true.
knowledge truth belief
edited 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
asked 4 hours ago
george
211
New contributor
george is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
In justified true belief it is said that for a person to know a fact it must be true, she must believe in it and she must be justified in believing it.
My question is: Is belief necessary? Why is the following not enough:
- The fact is true.
- She has justifiable reasons to conclude it is true.
knowledge truth belief
knowledge truth belief
edited 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
asked 4 hours ago
george
211
New contributor
george is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
asked 4 hours ago
george
211
New contributor
george is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
edited 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
edited 2 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
3,6852836
asked 4 hours ago
george
211
New contributor
george is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
george
211
asked 4 hours ago
george
211
211
New contributor
george is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
george is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
george is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
This is an interesting question; but why would anyone not believe something they have reason to believe is true, unless it is something that conflicts with their ideals? I personally find some things extremely difficult to believe for that reason, even with adequate evidence to the contrary. And I don't think that my reaction to, say, unpleasant truths, is all that uncommon. So there are things I rationally believe to be true, which my conscience or subconscious mind rejects.
– Bread
4 hours ago
I made an additional edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Good question to ask why all three of these are needed. +1
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
On your proposal we'd have to say that creationists know that the evolution theory is true. That is not a common use of "know". There are theories of knowledge that discard belief as a condition, especially in artificial intelligence contexts, but they put in place more than 1 and 2, see Do machine learning algorithms have knowledge?
– Conifold
26 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
This is an interesting question; but why would anyone not believe something they have reason to believe is true, unless it is something that conflicts with their ideals? I personally find some things extremely difficult to believe for that reason, even with adequate evidence to the contrary. And I don't think that my reaction to, say, unpleasant truths, is all that uncommon. So there are things I rationally believe to be true, which my conscience or subconscious mind rejects.
– Bread
4 hours ago
I made an additional edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Good question to ask why all three of these are needed. +1
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
On your proposal we'd have to say that creationists know that the evolution theory is true. That is not a common use of "know". There are theories of knowledge that discard belief as a condition, especially in artificial intelligence contexts, but they put in place more than 1 and 2, see Do machine learning algorithms have knowledge?
– Conifold
26 mins ago
1
1
This is an interesting question; but why would anyone not believe something they have reason to believe is true, unless it is something that conflicts with their ideals? I personally find some things extremely difficult to believe for that reason, even with adequate evidence to the contrary. And I don't think that my reaction to, say, unpleasant truths, is all that uncommon. So there are things I rationally believe to be true, which my conscience or subconscious mind rejects.
– Bread
4 hours ago
This is an interesting question; but why would anyone not believe something they have reason to believe is true, unless it is something that conflicts with their ideals? I personally find some things extremely difficult to believe for that reason, even with adequate evidence to the contrary. And I don't think that my reaction to, say, unpleasant truths, is all that uncommon. So there are things I rationally believe to be true, which my conscience or subconscious mind rejects.
– Bread
4 hours ago
I made an additional edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Good question to ask why all three of these are needed. +1
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
I made an additional edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Good question to ask why all three of these are needed. +1
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
On your proposal we'd have to say that creationists know that the evolution theory is true. That is not a common use of "know". There are theories of knowledge that discard belief as a condition, especially in artificial intelligence contexts, but they put in place more than 1 and 2, see Do machine learning algorithms have knowledge?
– Conifold
26 mins ago
On your proposal we'd have to say that creationists know that the evolution theory is true. That is not a common use of "know". There are theories of knowledge that discard belief as a condition, especially in artificial intelligence contexts, but they put in place more than 1 and 2, see Do machine learning algorithms have knowledge?
– Conifold
26 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Your (1) and (2) are not enough. Here is an example: suppose I have excellent reasons to believe that the earth is round (I've seen photos, listened to lectures, etc.), and that it is in fact true that the earth is round, but nevertheless I do not believe it (because I'm irrational). Clearly this is not a case of knowledge.
There is a recent view, however, Knowledge First, that holds that knowledge cannot be analyzed in terms of belief (indeed, that it cannot be analyzed at all). But even on this view belief is a necessary condition for knowledge simply because knowledge entails belief.
answered 4 hours ago
Eliran H
3,67121031
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
According to Eric Schwitzgebel,
Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief†to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “beliefâ€Â, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology.
From this perspective the "belief" part of "justified true belief" is what is characterized as "true" and "justified" since we may have beliefs that are neither true nor justified.
It is not something that we, in addition, have to believe in. We already believe the fact but our belief might be incorrect. Now the question is whether that fact, that belief, actually is true and justified.
Reference
Schwitzgebel, Eric, "Belief", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/belief/.
answered 21 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Your (1) and (2) are not enough. Here is an example: suppose I have excellent reasons to believe that the earth is round (I've seen photos, listened to lectures, etc.), and that it is in fact true that the earth is round, but nevertheless I do not believe it (because I'm irrational). Clearly this is not a case of knowledge.
There is a recent view, however, Knowledge First, that holds that knowledge cannot be analyzed in terms of belief (indeed, that it cannot be analyzed at all). But even on this view belief is a necessary condition for knowledge simply because knowledge entails belief.
answered 4 hours ago
Eliran H
3,67121031
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Your (1) and (2) are not enough. Here is an example: suppose I have excellent reasons to believe that the earth is round (I've seen photos, listened to lectures, etc.), and that it is in fact true that the earth is round, but nevertheless I do not believe it (because I'm irrational). Clearly this is not a case of knowledge.
There is a recent view, however, Knowledge First, that holds that knowledge cannot be analyzed in terms of belief (indeed, that it cannot be analyzed at all). But even on this view belief is a necessary condition for knowledge simply because knowledge entails belief.
answered 4 hours ago
Eliran H
3,67121031
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Your (1) and (2) are not enough. Here is an example: suppose I have excellent reasons to believe that the earth is round (I've seen photos, listened to lectures, etc.), and that it is in fact true that the earth is round, but nevertheless I do not believe it (because I'm irrational). Clearly this is not a case of knowledge.
There is a recent view, however, Knowledge First, that holds that knowledge cannot be analyzed in terms of belief (indeed, that it cannot be analyzed at all). But even on this view belief is a necessary condition for knowledge simply because knowledge entails belief.
answered 4 hours ago
Eliran H
3,67121031
Your (1) and (2) are not enough. Here is an example: suppose I have excellent reasons to believe that the earth is round (I've seen photos, listened to lectures, etc.), and that it is in fact true that the earth is round, but nevertheless I do not believe it (because I'm irrational). Clearly this is not a case of knowledge.
There is a recent view, however, Knowledge First, that holds that knowledge cannot be analyzed in terms of belief (indeed, that it cannot be analyzed at all). But even on this view belief is a necessary condition for knowledge simply because knowledge entails belief.
answered 4 hours ago
Eliran H
3,67121031
answered 4 hours ago
Eliran H
3,67121031
answered 4 hours ago
Eliran H
3,67121031
answered 4 hours ago
Eliran H
3,67121031
3,67121031
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
According to Eric Schwitzgebel,
Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief†to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “beliefâ€Â, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology.
From this perspective the "belief" part of "justified true belief" is what is characterized as "true" and "justified" since we may have beliefs that are neither true nor justified.
It is not something that we, in addition, have to believe in. We already believe the fact but our belief might be incorrect. Now the question is whether that fact, that belief, actually is true and justified.
Reference
Schwitzgebel, Eric, "Belief", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/belief/.
answered 21 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
According to Eric Schwitzgebel,
Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief†to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “beliefâ€Â, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology.
From this perspective the "belief" part of "justified true belief" is what is characterized as "true" and "justified" since we may have beliefs that are neither true nor justified.
It is not something that we, in addition, have to believe in. We already believe the fact but our belief might be incorrect. Now the question is whether that fact, that belief, actually is true and justified.
Reference
Schwitzgebel, Eric, "Belief", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/belief/.
answered 21 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
According to Eric Schwitzgebel,
Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief†to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “beliefâ€Â, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology.
From this perspective the "belief" part of "justified true belief" is what is characterized as "true" and "justified" since we may have beliefs that are neither true nor justified.
It is not something that we, in addition, have to believe in. We already believe the fact but our belief might be incorrect. Now the question is whether that fact, that belief, actually is true and justified.
Reference
Schwitzgebel, Eric, "Belief", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/belief/.
answered 21 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
According to Eric Schwitzgebel,
Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief†to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “beliefâ€Â, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology.
From this perspective the "belief" part of "justified true belief" is what is characterized as "true" and "justified" since we may have beliefs that are neither true nor justified.
It is not something that we, in addition, have to believe in. We already believe the fact but our belief might be incorrect. Now the question is whether that fact, that belief, actually is true and justified.
Reference
Schwitzgebel, Eric, "Belief", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/belief/.
answered 21 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
edited 15 mins ago
answered 21 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
answered 21 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
answered 21 mins ago
Frank Hubeny
3,6852836
3,6852836
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
george is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
george is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
george is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
george is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f55710%2fwhy-is-belief-necessary-for-justified-true-belief%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
This is an interesting question; but why would anyone not believe something they have reason to believe is true, unless it is something that conflicts with their ideals? I personally find some things extremely difficult to believe for that reason, even with adequate evidence to the contrary. And I don't think that my reaction to, say, unpleasant truths, is all that uncommon. So there are things I rationally believe to be true, which my conscience or subconscious mind rejects.
– Bread
4 hours ago
I made an additional edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Good question to ask why all three of these are needed. +1
– Frank Hubeny
2 hours ago
On your proposal we'd have to say that creationists know that the evolution theory is true. That is not a common use of "know". There are theories of knowledge that discard belief as a condition, especially in artificial intelligence contexts, but they put in place more than 1 and 2, see Do machine learning algorithms have knowledge?
– Conifold
26 mins ago