Related questions:
v Is knowledge justified true belief?
v Analyse knowledge as justified true belief?
INTRODUCTION
A major challenge to epistemologists is the ability to say precisely, what knowledge is. Hence, defining knowledge (like truth) is a problem. However, knowledge has been defined as “justified true belief”, and this write-up seeks to evaluate reasons for and against this idea.
THE PROBLEM OF DEFINING KNOWLEDGE
Knowledge which represents a stage in the search for truth has a definition problem. Over the ages, knowledge has been explained and conceived in various ways by philosophers. Some rationalists (for example) believe that knowledge is the acquaintance of the mind with the essences of objects. On the contrary, some empiricists perceive knowledge as anything the senses are acquainted with. For “John Locke” knowledge is habitual, intuitive and demonstrative. The “Marxists” say that knowledge is a property of matter. For “Saint Augustine” knowledge is, and a function of awareness. Medieval Islamic philosopher “Al-farabi” held the view that knowledge is a product of faith. Again, philosophers like “David Hume” and “Miguel de Unamuno” argued that knowledge is of the heart. So, the question still remains “what is knowledge”?
KNOWLEDGE AS JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF
After much controversy, the traditional definition of knowledge came to be known as “justified true belief”. This then became the most accepted, though criticised definition of knowledge. This definition was given by Plato in his book “Theatetus”. So, what is “justified true belief”? An answer to this would be analysed systematically in three parts, thus;
· The idea of what a “belief” is
According to Plato, knowledge starts with “belief”. A belief is an idea of what one feels or thinks should be the case, based on free choice. This implies that a belief is probable, private, mutable, fallible and subjective. For example, on any particular day, I can choose to believe that the vice-chancellor of my school (University of Lagos) is in his office.
· The concept of a “true belief”
In the process of knowledge, a belief would progress to becoming a “true belief”. A mere belief which is assumed or expected to be true based on some signs or signals, is what constitutes a “true belief”. In simpler words, a true belief is the product of questioning a belief. For example; if someone asks me, why do I believe that the vice chancellor is in his office? And I reply saying “...I believe due to some reasons; he is the head of the school and should be quite busy; also, it is a Monday morning which is the most important and busiest working day of the week; lastly, his car is parked just beside the security hub, on the ground floor of his office in the senate building”. Consequently, my belief has progressed to becoming a true belief.
· The concept of “knowledge”-justification
Even though a “true belief” may sound convincing, it is not enough, as it is still based on an assumption; and is thus not yet qualified to be taken as “knowledge”. Hence, for a true belief to qualify as knowledge, it must pass through a rigorous and critical assessment. It is when the true belief has been empirically justified as a fact, that it is finally then regarded as knowledge- a justified true belief. For example, if I and my interlocutor practically decided to go into the senate building, and up to the vice-chancellor’s office to check if he is really in there, and lo and behold, he is; we can then say “...we know that the vice-chancellor is in his office. Consequently, knowledge is certain, objective, infallible, factual and public.
THE CRITICISM OF “EDMUND GETTIER”
For a very long time, the traditional definition of knowledge as “justified true belief” was widely accepted amongst philosophers, not until 1963, when “Edmund Gettier” –an epistemologist, wrote a short paper titled “Is knowledge really justified true belief”? This paper raised much controversy and thus brought much problems of defining knowledge to epistemology than there was before. Gettier’s major rebuttal against the idea of knowledge as “justified true belief” was his principle of “counter evidence” in which he used what is popularly known as the Gettier cases.
· The element of “counter evidence”
Edmund Gettier tried to show that, there are circumstances where a justified true belief still does not qualify as knowledge. He points out that, when a justified true belief has “counter evidence”, it ceases and fails to be knowledge. An idea of what counter evidence is can be seen in this example. Let us say, I have a justified true belief that I saw my school’s security chief (although from a distance, as I could not talk to him) at the mega shopping mall in town, during the weekend. He was attending to security issues. Now, unknown to me, I just saw the identical twin brother of my school’s security chief (who is also a security personnel at the mega shopping mall). Now, even though I have a “justified true belief” (the person I saw, of which I think, I know it is my school’s security chief), I cannot be said to have knowledge. This is because my justified true belief has “counter evidence” – (the fact that my school’s security chief has a twin brother).
(YOUR PERSONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND CRITICISMS)
CONCLUSION
Really, the controversial nature of philosophy is what makes defining knowledge a problem. Even then, the most accepted definition of knowledge as “justified true belief” has been shown to be insufficient (as exemplified by Gettier). Hence, there is the advocating for a “fourth” condition for knowledge (which some philosophers have responded to) or maybe the formation of something entirely new.
