I know that I know

fast · #1 12-11-2009, 12:04 PM

This thread is intended to differentiate between three possible meanings of the phrase, “I know that I know.”

Possibility number 1:
Consider Tim the teenager who not only believes he knows where Sally went but also knows as well. When questioned about whether he really knows where she went, he responds, “Oh, but I know that I know!” All he is doing is expressing great confidence in that what he is saying is true.

Possibility number 2:
Consider Phil the philosopher who fails to differentiate between knowledge and certainty. Even after Tom the teacher clearly explains to him that we do know things, Phil responds, “Yeah, we all say that we know, but we really don’t know because we don’t know that we know.” Saying “we don’t know that we know,” (aka: we are not certain) in response … is a tell-tail sign that although he grasps the fact we can’t be certain, he has failed to grasp that it has no bearing on whether we actually know what we do.

Possibility number 3:
Consider Phil again. He knows his name, but his philosophizing throughout the years has led him to believe that he really doesn’t know his name because he thinks that we can’t really know anything. However, although he may not know what knowledge is, we do, so we can recognize that he in fact does know his name even though he denies the obvious fact that he knows his name.

He knows his name, but he doesn’t know that he knows his name. Even though he doesn’t know that he knows his name, we do know that he knows his name. Hence, we have a justified true belief that he has a justified true belief.

Also, I know my name, but in addition to that, and because I know the necessary conditions of knowledge, not only do I know P (my name), but I also know Q (that I know P), so I know that I know P means not that I know P (although it does imply it), it means that I know that I know my name.

Comments:
So, can we know that we know? Yes, no, and yes, respectively. It all depends on what we mean when we say it. The first has to do with confidence, the second with certainty, and the third with knowledge. We can have the first and last but only in rare instances can we have the one in-between.

Emil · #2 12-11-2009, 12:14 PM

I always mean the third when I use the phrase.

Zetherin · #3 12-11-2009, 12:22 PM

How would your second possibility differ from your third?

If Phil says, "I do not know that I know my name", even though we knew he did, what does this have to do with knowledge any more than when Phil says, "Yeah, we all say that we know, but we really don’t know because we don’t know that we know". It seems to me he is speaking about certainty in both cases. In the former, he is just speaking about something specific (his name), and in the latter he is speaking generally.

kennethamy · #4 12-11-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fast

Also, I know my name, but in addition to that, and because I know the necessary conditions of knowledge, not only do I know P (my name), but I also know Q (that I know P), so I know that I know P means not that I know P (although it does imply it), it means that I know that I know my name.

Comments:
So, can we know that we know? Yes, no, and yes, respectively. It all depends on what we mean when we say it. The first has to do with confidence, the second with certainty, and the third with knowledge. We can have the first and last but only in rare instances can we have the one in-between.

If by knowing the necessary conditions of knowledge you mean that you know that TJB is necessary for knowledge, why would it follow that you know you know? And, if you mean by knowing the necessary conditions of knowledge that you satisfy those conditions, why would knowing you satisfy the necessary conditions of knowledge mean you know you know?

I don't get the argument. Or I must be missing something.

When I say that I know I know, I always mean something like, "Of course I know". "I am in a position to know". "How could I not know such a thing?"

fast · #5 12-11-2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zetherin

How would your second possibility differ from your third?

If Phil says, "I do not know that I know my name", even though we knew he did, what does this have to do with knowledge any more than when Phil says, "Yeah, we all say that we know, but we really don’t know because we don’t know that we know". It seems to me he is speaking about certainty in both cases. In the former, he is just speaking about something specific (his name), and in the latter he is speaking generally.

If I say, "I know that I know my name" and am confusing knowledge with certainty, then chances are, I am using it in the second sense.

If, however, I say the same thing and am not confusing knowledge with certainty, then chances are, I am using it in the third sense.

In the second sense, I am saying that I am certain, and as you should know, that is false.

In the third sense, I am saying that not only do I know, but I know that I know, meaning not that I am certain but rather that I know S where S is I know P.

Emil · #6 12-11-2009, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennethamy

If by knowing the necessary conditions of knowledge you mean that you know that TJB is necessary for knowledge, why would it follow that you know you know? And, if you mean by knowing the necessary conditions of knowledge that you satisfy those conditions, why would knowing you satisfy the necessary conditions of knowledge mean you know you know?

I don't get the argument. Or I must be missing something.

When I say that I know I know, I always mean something like, "Of course I know". "I am in a position to know". "How could I not know such a thing?"

Maybe that's what you mean, but that's not what is literally meant by the phrase.

fast · #7 12-11-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennethamy

If by knowing the necessary conditions of knowledge you mean that you know that TJB is necessary for knowledge, why would it follow that you know you know? And, if you mean by knowing the necessary conditions of knowledge that you satisfy those conditions, why would knowing you satisfy the necessary conditions of knowledge mean you know you know?

I don't get the argument. Or I must be missing something.

When I say that I know I know, I always mean something like, "Of course I know". "I am in a position to know". "How could I not know such a thing?"

If I know what the capital of Equador is (P) but don't know what knowledge is, then I know P, and I do not know that I know P.

If I know what the capital of Equador is and do know what knowledge is, then not only do I know P, but I also know that I know P.

Emil · #8 12-11-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fast

If I know what the capital of Equador is (P) but don't know what knowledge is, then I know P, and I do not know that I know P.

If I know what the capital of Equador is and do know what knowledge is, then not only do I know P, but I also know that I know P.

We went over this before, he must have forgotten.