What is your definition of justification?

[Iwannaplato]

I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though

No, justification is something that makes a belief true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
Yes. When knowledge is defined as a justified true belief such that the justification
necessitates the truth of the believe then the Gettier problem is eliminated.
Copyright 2020 PL Olcott

In response to bahman whom you quoted...

No, justification is something that makes a belief true.

No. Justification does not make a belief true. There's a category confusion in there since the justification is not making anything true. Justifications gives us reasons to believe something is true. Rigorous justification, presumably good reasons. But there is no full entailment of truth and revision with new evidence is generally possible.

and then...

Yes. When knowledge is defined as a justified true belief such that the justification
necessitates the truth of the believe then the Gettier problem is eliminated.

But there is no guarantee. There is no truth criterion we can cross off. OK, it's both justified and true. We can still be mistaken.

[Agent Smith]

The crow sniffed the air ... the distinct odor stimulated the olfactory nerves nestled somewhere inside its nostrils ... it spread its wings ... a coupla flaps later ... airborne ... flag raising ceremony ... somewhere in Nevada ... hot ... sand ... dust devils ... ice and beer ... good night m'lady.

[PeteOlcott]

No, justification is something that makes a belief true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
Yes. When knowledge is defined as a justified true belief such that the justification
necessitates the truth of the believe then the Gettier problem is eliminated.
Copyright 2020 PL Olcott

In response to bahman whom you quoted...

No, justification is something that makes a belief true.

No. Justification does not make a belief true. There's a category confusion in there since the justification is not making anything true. Justifications gives us reasons to believe something is true. Rigorous justification, presumably good reasons. But there is no full entailment of truth and revision with new evidence is generally possible.

and then...

Yes. When knowledge is defined as a justified true belief such that the justification
necessitates the truth of the believe then the Gettier problem is eliminated.

But there is no guarantee. There is no truth criterion we can cross off. OK, it's both justified and true. We can still be mistaken.

For the entire body of analytical knowledge there is complete justification.
I believe that cats are a type of animal.
I know that this belief is true because cats are animals is an axiom of natural language.
In those cases where the justification does not necessitate the truth of the belief we do not have knowledge.
Knowledge only includes beliefs that are impossibly false.

[Flannel Jesus]

Knowledge only includes beliefs that are impossibly false.

So only tautologies then, nothing useful.

[PeteOlcott]

Knowledge only includes beliefs that are impossibly false.

So only tautologies then, nothing useful.

The sum total of the analytic side of the analytic synthetic distinction is
nothing more than interconnected semantic tautologies thus has logically
justified certainty of the truth of all of its elements.

No other element of knowledge have logically justified certainty of the truth
of its elements.

When knowledge is anchored in the problem of induction this prevents
logically justified certainty.

[Iwannaplato]

For the entire body of analytical knowledge there is complete justification.
I believe that cats are a type of animal.
I know that this belief is true because cats are animals is an axiom of natural language.
In those cases where the justification does not necessitate the truth of the belief we do not have knowledge.
Knowledge only includes beliefs that are impossibly false.

So, you restrict your knowledge to analytic truths and don't consider synthetic truths knowledge.
This would keep most scientis out of being considered knowledge, since one of the fundamental ideas is that science is open to revision, and further it is empirical and mainly synthetic.

It would also mean that you trust 100%, that you will never have thought you were correctly deducing something from categories or definitions.

And also that nothing you consider knowledge can possibly ever turn out to be false.

That's a very rare position, considering only analytical knowledge as knowledge. But it's certainly much more consistant given what you are saying about justification.

[bahman]

I take epistemic justification to mean something that raises the probability that a belief is true. This definition doesn't seem complete though

No, justification is something that makes a belief true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
Yes. When knowledge is defined as a justified true belief such that the justification
necessitates the truth of the believe then the Gettier problem is eliminated.
Copyright 2020 PL Olcott

Finally, a person in this forum agrees with me!

[Iwannaplato]

No, justification is something that makes a belief true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
Yes. When knowledge is defined as a justified true belief such that the justification
necessitates the truth of the believe then the Gettier problem is eliminated.
Copyright 2020 PL Olcott

Finally, a person in this forum agrees with me!

But you don't know, given the fallibility of human interpretation. IOW, as long as you don't consider your conclusion here as knowledge, fine. And as long as you don't consider the conclusions in science as knowledge, fine. Because he makes it clear later that he restricts himself to analytic truths, not synthetic ones.

[Age]

No, justification is something that makes a belief true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
Yes. When knowledge is defined as a justified true belief such that the justification
necessitates the truth of the believe then the Gettier problem is eliminated.
Copyright 2020 PL Olcott

Finally, a person in this forum agrees with me!

At times EVERY person in this forum has agreed with 'you', "bahman". These times are just NOT ALWAYS acknowledged.

[PeteOlcott]

No, justification is something that makes a belief true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
Yes. When knowledge is defined as a justified true belief such that the justification
necessitates the truth of the believe then the Gettier problem is eliminated.
Copyright 2020 PL Olcott

Finally, a person in this forum agrees with me!

Yeah !!! that gets rid of the Gettier problem.

[PeteOlcott]

For the entire body of analytical knowledge there is complete justification.
I believe that cats are a type of animal.
I know that this belief is true because cats are animals is an axiom of natural language.
In those cases where the justification does not necessitate the truth of the belief we do not have knowledge.
Knowledge only includes beliefs that are impossibly false.

So, you restrict your knowledge to analytic truths and don't consider synthetic truths knowledge.
This would keep most scientis out of being considered knowledge, since one of the fundamental ideas is that science is open to revision, and further it is empirical and mainly synthetic.

It would also mean that you trust 100%, that you will never have thought you were correctly deducing something from categories or definitions.

And also that nothing you consider knowledge can possibly ever turn out to be false.

That's a very rare position, considering only analytical knowledge as knowledge. But it's certainly much more consistant given what you are saying about justification.

There are issues with empirical knowledge:
(a) Brain in a bottle thought experiment
(b) Five minute ago hypothesis
(c) The problem of induction.
One could say that when sensory stimulus correctly mathematically maps
to models of the world that the elements that they map to are true.
I see a TV set in my living room right now.

[popeye1945]

The taste of the pie.

[Iwannaplato]

For the entire body of analytical knowledge there is complete justification.
I believe that cats are a type of animal.
I know that this belief is true because cats are animals is an axiom of natural language.
In those cases where the justification does not necessitate the truth of the belief we do not have knowledge.
Knowledge only includes beliefs that are impossibly false.

So, you restrict your knowledge to analytic truths and don't consider synthetic truths knowledge.
This would keep most scientis out of being considered knowledge, since one of the fundamental ideas is that science is open to revision, and further it is empirical and mainly synthetic.

It would also mean that you trust 100%, that you will never have thought you were correctly deducing something from categories or definitions.

And also that nothing you consider knowledge can possibly ever turn out to be false.

That's a very rare position, considering only analytical knowledge as knowledge. But it's certainly much more consistant given what you are saying about justification.

There are issues with empirical knowledge:
(a) Brain in a bottle thought experiment
(b) Five minute ago hypothesis
(c) The problem of induction.
One could say that when sensory stimulus correctly mathematically maps
to models of the world that the elements that they map to are true.
I see a TV set in my living room right now.

Yes, there are issues with empirical conclusions. And I can see someone deciding that empirical conclusions are not knowledge. And if one is saying that knowledge comes from analytic conclusions only, then scientific conclusions, for example, cannot be considered knowledge. I don't see that as a problem, but it needs to acknowledged, that's all.

I do think that brain in a vat scenarios can be used to call into question analytical conclusions also. IOW the brain in the vat could be being triggered by those running the lab to think that conclusion X is true. Even if it is an analytical conclusion. The five seconds ago hypothesis could also create problems for certainty around analytical conclusions: the quale that your first semantic sense of the sentence might have been created, along with the universe, just seconds ago. It seems obviously true, but that seeming was just created.

[PeteOlcott]

Yes, there are issues with empirical conclusions. And I can see someone deciding that empirical conclusions are not knowledge. And if one is saying that knowledge comes from analytic conclusions only, then scientific conclusions, for example, cannot be considered knowledge. I don't see that as a problem, but it needs to acknowledged, that's all.

I do think that brain in a vat scenarios can be used to call into question analytical conclusions also. IOW the brain in the vat could be being triggered by those running the lab to think that conclusion X is true. Even if it is an analytical conclusion. The five seconds ago hypothesis could also create problems for certainty around analytical conclusions: the quale that your first semantic sense of the sentence might have been created, along with the universe, just seconds ago. It seems obviously true, but that seeming was just created.

I count analytic knowledge as infallible because you can know it right now.
I count empirical knowledge as reliable as it seems to continue to prove itself to be.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, there are issues with empirical conclusions. And I can see someone deciding that empirical conclusions are not knowledge. And if one is saying that knowledge comes from analytic conclusions only, then scientific conclusions, for example, cannot be considered knowledge. I don't see that as a problem, but it needs to acknowledged, that's all.

I do think that brain in a vat scenarios can be used to call into question analytical conclusions also. IOW the brain in the vat could be being triggered by those running the lab to think that conclusion X is true. Even if it is an analytical conclusion. The five seconds ago hypothesis could also create problems for certainty around analytical conclusions: the quale that your first semantic sense of the sentence might have been created, along with the universe, just seconds ago. It seems obviously true, but that seeming was just created.

I count analytic knowledge as infallible because you can know it right now.
I count empirical knowledge as reliable as it seems to continue to prove itself to be.

So, is the latter knowledge? If yes, well unfortunately it can turn out later to be false. This is an aspect of science, that knowledge can be revised when more information comes in.

As far as analytic knowledge being infallible, our interpretations are never infallible. You might think your sense of the semantics of a term are corrent but be incorrent. Someone could make a mistake related to what a bachelor means in that classic example of an analytic conclusion.

And any process of drawing a conclusion takes time.