The Parts of Knowledge

     Today we discussed knowledge in class. When we approached that the definition of knowledge, we found it to be Justified True Belief (JTB). I tried to see any flaw with it but the more I tore it apart I found it to be an accurate argument. First we see what each part means. For something to be Justified it has to have evidence to support it. True says that the knowledge is correct or not false. Belief means that the person who has the knowledge holds it to be true. But why would does knowledge require all three of these things?

     Let's first get rid of Justification. What would a True Belief be? A True Belief is something that an individual holds is true and also happens to be true but the guesser has no evidence that his belief is true. An example used in class would if a magician held a card backwards and asked another what it is. The card could be any of 52 different cards but this time it happens to be the Ace of Spades. The guesser has no idea what the card is but because it is the first thought that came into his mind he truly believes the card is the Ace of Spades. The guesser had no evidence that it is his card but he is right and he believes it. So does he have special knowledge? I would say no because he cannot say with certainty what it is believes is true. When the magician asks him how he knew it was the Ace of Spades the guesser would say “I don't know.” Thus he cannot have knowledge because he did not know for certain. True Belief is no more than a correct guess. Some would argue that True Belief is a type of “hidden knowledge” that people such as psychics have, but that is another argument all together.

     Next we shall try to get rid of True. So we ask what would a Justified Belief be? Before the heliocentric model for the solar system was proven, the majority of people truly believed the sun revolved around the Earth. This is justified because when they looked at the sun it appeared to move across the sun, thus it most revolve around it, a totally justifiable, though simplistic, view. However, as Galileo Galilei proved, the Earth actually revolves around the sun. However, they could not be knowledgeable because the people and scientists of the day were wrong. They made a false assumption and thus they did not know what they were talking about. If they were not right they are not knowledgeable. When someone approaches you and holds disproved but warranted facts we do not call that person knowledgeable.

     But what about Justified Truth? Justified Truth would probably be the closest to knowledge. It would be if someone understood the evidence behind some form of information that also happened to be true, but they don't believe it themselves. An example would a highly fundamentalist christian who has studied and understands the arguments behind evolution, however, he believes that evolution is false because his religion holds that God made man separate from animals or maybe the world was made in seven days. He understands evolution, which is fact, but does not share the belief. He thus shows Justified Truth. However, he does not have knowledge. He does not know it to be true, though it is true and justifiable. However, this instance is the closest to knowledge because he has the truth (which is different from knowledge) but he does not know it is the truth. All it would take is for him to start believing in it, may it be a change in faith, a new fact, or a way in which the two beliefs could coexist, then he would have knowledge.