I've explained wny the JTB theory of knowledge is wrong. But any theory that takes knowledge to be an abstract thing of some kind is already furkling down the metaphysical rabbit hole.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 5:34 amHow come you are so ignorant that justification is merely an explanation?Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 12:05 pm1 A justification is merely - and is nothing more than - an explanation. And your own claim that even natural science conclusions are no more than polished conjectures makes your magical belief in 'justified true belief' rather quaint.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:57 am
I understand JTB is not absolute and is limited.
Show me where JTB [references] is totally and absolutely useless?
Note Science is Justified True Beliefs [hypothesis] as the standard bearer of truths and knowledge.
Do you even take note of the term 'justified' within JTB?
If justified knowledge [JTB] is incorrect, then what knowledge is correct?
It is common knowledge, philosophizing currently is 90% parroting [on giant shoulders and others] and 10% by one's own argument.
Have you done a thesis before or are you familiar with how the PhDs of philosophy produced their thesis paper?
Scientific knowledge [JTB] is justified upon all the requirements of the scientific framework and system, which include the scientific method, peer reviews and consensus, etc.
Yes, scientific conclusions are merely 'polished conjectures' but they are highly polished and justified with a high degree of confidence level, they are true where what is credible is such conclusion can be repeated by any one who carry out the same justifications [testing, etc.]
We can state justified true moral beliefs as moral knowledge are also mere 'polished conjectures' within a moral FSK which is similar to the scientific FSK, thus generate a high level of confidence level of its veracity, where anyone can test to get the same conclusions.
Note anyone can have a belief of a scientific related claim.2 The only features of reality that can have truth-value (being, classically, true or false) are factual assertions - linguistic expressions: 'X is the case'. So the expression 'true belief' in the JTB is a confusing misattribution.
Belief is merely the acceptance that something is the case, just as disbelief is the withholding of acceptance. And neither acceptance nor rejection have truth-value - they're just states of mind.
Such a claim can be verified to be true or false.
Linguistic expressions are merely words and meanings, albeit useful to aid communication of ideas and truths. But they do not justify the truth of reality.
This is why you have the confirmation bias and dogmatism where truth and falsehood is only limited to language. This stance exposed your very low philosophy rating.3 The JTB truth-condition is that S knows that p iff p is true - which conflates a feature of reality with a description of that feature of reality. So it's a complete conceptual mess. Knowing that something is the case has nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do with truth or falsehood, which are exclusively linguistic properties.
Note my reference to scientific knowledge as JTB.
Knowledge is literally justified true beliefs, what is wrong with that?4 So much for the parroting of philosophical orthodoxies, such as that knowledge is justified true belief. Look where that gets us.
You are the dumb one who forced JTBs within the limited linguistic perspective which was never Plato's intention.
Note the critical 3rd part, i.e. 'justified.'SEP wrote:There are three components to the traditional (“tripartite”) analysis of knowledge. According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge.
The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p iff
The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often abbreviated as the “JTB” analysis, for “justified true belief”.
- p is true;
S believes that p;
S is justified in believing that p.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/know ... stTrueBeli
In justification we are not seeking perfect truth [impossible anyway], thus we seek the most reasonable and reliable truth.
- justify = show or prove to be right or reasonable.
There are approaches which avoid the Russell and Gettier counter examples, as in the following paper.
In this paper we analyze the foundations of epistemology from a constructive Brouwerian position. In particular, we consider the famous tripartite account of knowledge as justified true belief, JTB, traditionally attributed to Plato as well as counter-examples by Russell and Gettier. We show that from an intuitionistic perspective, when the constructive character of truth is taken into account, both Russell and Gettier
examples no longer refute the principle that JTB yields knowledge. Moreover, we argue that JTB yields knowledge could be accepted given some natural constructivity assumptions.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7717301155Have done that a '1000' times. You are too blinded by your confirmation bias, dogmatism and bigotry to understand my argument.5 You say that the belief that there are moral facts is a justified true belief, empirically verifiable. And yet you have produced not even one example of a moral fact. Every one turns out to be a moral judgement, belief or opinion. Nul point.
It is not my responsible to convince you or my points, thus I'll leave you to wallow in your sewage pool of confirmation bias, dogmatism and bigotry.
Sadly, I understand your argument onlly too well. And it's crap. And, sadly, you've produced evidence for the existence of not even one moral fact. Your best shot - humans ought not to kill humans - is patently not a fact, but merely a moral assertion.