No history yet

Defining Knowledge

What is Knowledge?

For centuries, philosophers have tried to pin down a precise definition of knowledge. What does it really mean to know something, as opposed to just believing it or guessing correctly? The most enduring answer comes from ancient Greece, often credited to Plato.

Knowledge is a justified, true belief.

This traditional definition has three key ingredients. Let's break them down.

  1. Belief: You must personally hold the proposition to be true. If you don't believe it's raining, you can't know it's raining.
  2. Truth: The proposition must actually be true, independent of your belief. It must correspond to reality. If it's sunny outside, you can't know it's raining, no matter how strongly you believe it.
  3. Justification: You need a good reason for your belief. Your belief can't be based on a whim or a lucky guess. If you believe it's raining because you saw a weather forecast, that's a justification.

When these three conditions are met, you have what philosophers call a "justified true belief," or JTB.

Imagine you're in a windowless room and want to know if it's raining. You believe it is because you hear a pitter-patter sound on the roof. You walk outside and see rain falling. In this case, your belief was true, and it was justified by the sound you heard. You had knowledge.

When Justification Isn't Enough

The justified true belief model seemed solid for over two thousand years. Then, in 1963, a philosopher named Edmund Gettier published a short paper that turned everything upside down. He argued that you can have a justified true belief that isn't actually knowledge. It's just a coincidence.

These situations are now called Gettier problems. They highlight cases where a belief is true and justified, but the justification is faulty and only connected to the truth by sheer luck.

Imagine you see a sheep in a field. You form the belief, "There is a sheep in that field." Your belief is justified because you're looking right at it. It also happens to be true: there is a sheep in the field. But here's the twist. What you're actually looking at is a big, fluffy dog that looks exactly like a sheep. The real sheep is hidden from your view, lying down behind a hill. Your justified belief turned out to be true by accident. Do you really know there's a sheep in the field?

Most people would say no. Your justification (seeing the dog) had nothing to do with the fact that made your belief true (the hidden sheep). The JTB model fails to account for this kind of luck.

Beyond Justified Belief

Gettier's paper sparked a wave of new theories trying to patch the JTB definition or replace it entirely. These contemporary theories add new conditions to rule out coincidences.

One popular alternative is Reliabilism. It suggests that a belief counts as knowledge only if it's formed by a reliable process. Seeing with your own eyes is usually a reliable process, but in the Gettier example, seeing a dog that looks like a sheep is not a reliable way to know about a different, hidden sheep.

Anot her approach is the Causal Theory. This theory requires a direct causal link between the fact and your belief in that fact. In the sheep example, the hidden sheep did not cause your belief. The dog did. Therefore, you don't have knowledge.

These are just a couple of the attempts to refine our understanding. The debate continues, showing that a concept as fundamental as knowledge is far more complex than it first appears. It's not just about what you believe, but why you believe it and how you came to that belief.