Knowledge and Certainty
There are some that say in order to have knowledge, you must have certainty. This is false. Knowledge, classically defined, is three things: True Justified Belief.
If a thing is not true, you cannot know it. For example, if you look at a photo of me shaking hands with the President, and you therefore believed I actually met the President, but the photo was Photoshoped and I never met the President, you cannot count the proposition "Adrian met the President" as knowledge.
If a thing has no justification for its adherence, then it cannot be counted as knowledge. For example, if it is the case that Abraham Lincoln sneezed after his Gettysburg address, and I threatened you with, say, death or a bad grade if you believed otherwise and you therefore believed it, you would not count that as knowledge for the justification is insufficient. My threats are not good grounds to believe anything.
If a thing is not believed, it cannot be counted as knowledge. For example, if it is true that George Washington was the first president of the United States, and I read a reliable book on the matter, but then maybe forgot this information, because I do not adhere to it or believe it, I can't say I know it.
When one sees that knowledge is composed of at least these three things, it becomes difficult to see that certainty is necessary. Justification, which comes in degrees, is much more modest. I've heard the reply, "But how do you know a thing is true?" This misses the point. The qualification of a thing being true is a metaphysical statement. When we consider what counts as knowledge, this epistemology overlaps with metaphysics. The individual concerns himself with his justification and his adherence. If we were to ask the individual why he thinks he counts a proposition as knowledge, he may copy his justification over to the true.
But most importantly, the idea that knowledge requires certainty is self refuting. We ask, "Why believe knowledge requires certainty?" and whatever justification is attempted we may ask, "Is that certain?" to an infinite regress. So even the claim itself cannot meet its own standard and therefore should not be believed.
If a thing is not true, you cannot know it. For example, if you look at a photo of me shaking hands with the President, and you therefore believed I actually met the President, but the photo was Photoshoped and I never met the President, you cannot count the proposition "Adrian met the President" as knowledge.
If a thing has no justification for its adherence, then it cannot be counted as knowledge. For example, if it is the case that Abraham Lincoln sneezed after his Gettysburg address, and I threatened you with, say, death or a bad grade if you believed otherwise and you therefore believed it, you would not count that as knowledge for the justification is insufficient. My threats are not good grounds to believe anything.
If a thing is not believed, it cannot be counted as knowledge. For example, if it is true that George Washington was the first president of the United States, and I read a reliable book on the matter, but then maybe forgot this information, because I do not adhere to it or believe it, I can't say I know it.
When one sees that knowledge is composed of at least these three things, it becomes difficult to see that certainty is necessary. Justification, which comes in degrees, is much more modest. I've heard the reply, "But how do you know a thing is true?" This misses the point. The qualification of a thing being true is a metaphysical statement. When we consider what counts as knowledge, this epistemology overlaps with metaphysics. The individual concerns himself with his justification and his adherence. If we were to ask the individual why he thinks he counts a proposition as knowledge, he may copy his justification over to the true.
But most importantly, the idea that knowledge requires certainty is self refuting. We ask, "Why believe knowledge requires certainty?" and whatever justification is attempted we may ask, "Is that certain?" to an infinite regress. So even the claim itself cannot meet its own standard and therefore should not be believed.
Comments
Post a Comment