Is knowing a mental event?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... to restate that last sentence, you know now that what you thought you knew you in fact did not know ... that is, you currently have a justified true belief that your previously held justified true belief was mistaken ... but are you certain that your current justified true belief isn't also mistaken? - and if not, what has "truth" added to this picture that could not be said more simply as "you currently have a justified belief that your previously held justified belief was mistaken"? ...



... fair enough - how 'bout this then: if there truly is a discernible difference between a justified belief and a justified true belief, then why isn't knowledge simply the truth that you are aware of? ...

Of course I am not certain that what I think is my present justified belief is not mistaken. That is why I distinguish between knowledge and certainty.What truth adds to justified belief is that the true justified belief is true, but only justified beliefs may also be false.

Since every belief I have is one that I believe is true, otherwise, I would not have that belief in the first place. So, if I thought that my belief was false (as it could be) I would not have that belief. So, how could I possibly, when I hold a belief "discern" that it is false. I cannot hold a belief that I also discern is false. To say, "I believe that p, but p is false" would make no sense, although, of course, I could hold a belief that was false. Of course, I could be aware of a truth, but not know that the trurh was a truth. After all, when I believe something is a truth, I am aware of that truth. But that would not be knowledge.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

What truth adds to justified belief is that the true justified belief is true, but only justified beliefs may also be false.

... and that is indeed the theoretic distinction ... the question is, is it nothing more than a theoretic distinction? ... that is, can one only ponder this theoretic distinction abstractly and never actually be able to practically apply it? ...

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Of course, I could be aware of a truth, but not know that the trurh was a truth. After all, when I believe something is a truth, I am aware of that truth.

... actually, I was using "aware of" precisely in contrast to "believe in" or "know" - I did not intend for them to be synonymous ... anyhoo, the point I was shooting for is that if there is a distinguishable difference between justified belief and justified true belief, that difference is truth ... and if truth itself cannot be ascertained (but only justifiably believed), then for all practical purposes there is no distinguishable difference between justified belief and justified true belief - for as you remarked, one does not hold a justified belief unless they also believe it to be true ...

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... and that is indeed the theoretic distinction ... the question is, is it nothing more than a theoretic distinction? ... that is, can one only ponder this theoretic distinction abstractly and never actually be able to practically apply it? ...



... actually, I was using "aware of" precisely in contrast to "believe in" or "know" - I did not intend for them to be synonymous ... anyhoo, the point I was shooting for is that if there is a distinguishable difference between justified belief and justified true belief, that difference is truth ... and if truth itself cannot be ascertained (but only justifiably believed), then for all practical purposes there is no distinguishable difference between justified belief and justified true belief - for as you remarked, one does not hold a justified belief unless they also believe it to be true ...

I don't know what you mean by "practically apply". Don't you think it is practically better to have a justified true belief than to have a justified false belief. I do.

But, what would it be to "ascertain" truth over and above having good reason to think what you belief is true? The Rationalists thought that there is a kind of illumination that comes with truth. Spinoza wrote that "truth is its own mark". But that is because they thought that it was possible to by-pass evidence. They thought we could have what has been called, "angelic knowledge". What Descartes called, "a clear and distinct idea". In other words, that knowing was a purely mental state, so that when one knew, one would know that one knew, just as when one was in pain, one would know that one was in pain. That is the point of the question of this thread.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Don't you think it is practically better to have a justified true belief than to have a justified false belief.

... of course! ... and if the theoretic distinction could be practically applied, I would be able to ascertain the difference! ...

Originally Posted by kennethamy

But, what would it be to "ascertain" truth over and above having good reason to think what you belief is true? The Rationalists thought that there is a kind of illumination that comes with truth. Spinoza wrote that "truth is its own mark". But that is because they thought that it was possible to by-pass evidence. They thought we could have what has been called, "angelic knowledge". What Descartes called, "a clear and distinct idea". In other words, that knowing was a purely mental state, so that when one knew, one would know that one knew, just as when one was in pain, one would know that one was in pain. That is the point of the question of this thread.

... ah - that point flew right over my head because I'm not nearly as well-read on the open issues of epistemology as you ... so it sounds like what you are asking is if there is such a thing a "direct access" to (communion with?) truth, yes? ...

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

... of course! ... and if the theoretic distinction could be practically applied, I would be able to ascertain the difference! ...



... ah - that point flew right over my head because I'm not nearly as well-read on the open issues of epistemology as you ... so it sounds like what you are asking is if there is such a thing a "direct access" to (communion with?) truth, yes? ...

If you mean whether you can discern the difference between believing what is true, and believing, at the time, the answer is, of course not, since what you believe you believe is true. But you can do so, of course, later.

I don't think I am asking that question, since the answer is, no. But Plato, Descartes, and Spinoza, all believed there was such a thing. That truth was "luminous", and that when you had the truth you knew you had it. So that evidence could be by-passed. It was that that distinguished Rationalists from Empiricists. Plato believed that it was that faculty that distinguished philosopher-kings from the hoi polloi ("the mob") Descartes was more equalitarian. He believed we were all endowed with that capacity to directly know the truth. For knowledge was a luminous mental state.

[prothero]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

But, what would it be to "ascertain" truth over and above having good reason to think what you belief is true? The Rationalists thought that there is a kind of illumination that comes with truth. Spinoza wrote that "truth is its own mark". But that is because they thought that it was possible to by-pass evidence. They thought we could have what has been called, "angelic knowledge". What Descartes called, "a clear and distinct idea". In other words, that knowing was a purely mental state, so that when one knew, one would know that one knew, just as when one was in pain, one would know that one was in pain. That is the point of the question of this thread.

And it seems to me that is precisely the way many of the greatest scientific advances have been made as well, by single individuals sitting in a room, conducting thought experiments, and hitting upon an idea which became "angelic,certain or luminous knowledge". Most great ideas are simple, elegant and profound in art, music and even in science. In science these ideas are latter confirmed by empirical observation and predictive power but in their origin they are the result of illuminated reason and the insight of individuals. "imagination is more important than knowledge" Einstein.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by prothero

And it seems to me that is precisely the way many of the greatest scientific advances have been made as well, by single individuals sitting in a room, conducting thought experiments, and hitting upon an idea which became "angelic,certain or luminous knowledge". Most great ideas are simple, elegant and profound in art, music and even in science. In science these ideas are latter confirmed by empirical observation and predictive power but in their origin they are the result of illuminated reason and the insight of individuals. "imagination is more important than knowledge" Einstein.

Perhaps. But unless there is evidence for it (justification) it isn't knowledge. How knowledge is discovered is one thing, but how it is confirmed as knowledge is quite a different thing.

[prothero]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Perhaps. But unless there is evidence for it (justification) it isn't knowledge. How knowledge is discovered is one thing, but how it is confirmed as knowledge is quite a different thing.

It seems new knowledge is discovered by a combination of reason, imagination and intuition. (rationalism)?
It seems knowledge is confirmed by prediction, observation, and measurement (empiricism)?
It took several years between the presentation of Einsteins general theory of relativity and its confirmation by observation of light bending during solar eclipse and careful measurements of mecury's orbit.
What was the status of the theory between presentation and confirmation?
Was it a truth that had been discovered but not confirmed?
Truth but not yet knowledge?
It seems to me it depends on how one defines and uses the terms?

[ACB]

Originally Posted by prothero

What was the status of the theory between presentation and confirmation?
Was it a truth that had been discovered but not confirmed?
Truth but not yet knowledge?
It seems to me it depends on how one defines and uses the terms?

It seems there are two possible answers:

1. It was a true belief but not yet a justified true belief; or
2. It was only a hypothesis - a hunch - so it was not yet a fully-fledged belief.

Either way, it was not yet knowledge according to the JTB definition.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

When I claim to know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, am I saying that something that is going on in my mind, or that something is going on in Ecuador? Just what am I saying?

It is definitely not an event. It is a state of affairs. I suppose that you're asking whether it is a mental state of affairs. Yes it is. ^^