Discussion about this post

User's avatar
DavesNotHere's avatar

“First, a belief would be considered “justified” if it has publicly available and acceptable reasons which would warrant that belief. (J).”

Is “warrant” a distinct concept or just another word for justify? Do we have objective criteria for determining the acceptability of reasons?

“Second, that belief must actually reflect an objective state of the world. No matter how reasonable or well-informed a belief is, you wouldn’t have knowledge unless that belief were true. (T).”

This demands an impossible godlike perspective. This means I can know something that isn’t knowledge. Well, I don’t really know it, I just think I do. That seems like a problem.

Popper thought all knowledge was conjectural. That seems pretty extreme. I’m pretty sure I know 1+1=2 in a way that makes it more than a conjecture.

He also thought that justification doesn’t work. My perhaps bad summary of his argument is, the best we can do is logical deduction, and at best that always proves a hypothetical: if the premises are true and the argument is valid, the conclusion is also true. We can't know that the premises are true, without another argument. So if we have justified anything, it is the entire hypothetical, never the conclusion on its own. And since philosophers are constantly criticizing arguments in new ways, finding new twists and informal fallacies, even the hypothetical may not be fully justified.

This is not really a serious response to your post, just a knee-jerk reaction. Sorry.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts