According to Socrates knowledge differs from belief in that belief can be true or false, while knowledge cannot ever be false, it must always be true. Do you agree with this, or can a person know something that is or turns out to be false? Explain your answer.
Socrates believed that people made immoral choices because they did not have knowledge. Socrates therefore posits that knowledge cannot ever be false. I neither agree nor disagree but what I can say is that what Socrates says it is debatable.
In the theory of knowledge, the term knowledge is defined as a “justified true belief.” This means that as long as someone is able to provide logical reason and justification for their knowledge, it can be considered as truth. Although there is no concrete definition for the term “truth,” I think it refers to the “quality or state of something being true.” I think that the claim that one is reasoning about can be either true or false and not both.
According to some people, knowledge cannot be false and all knowledge is true but on the other hand, there are those who believe that knowledge can be false especiallyif something is not justifiable. My opinion is that knowledge can be false because if someone is unable to provide a logical reason or justification for the knowledge claim, it cannot then be considered as truth. Knowledge can also be replaced with new information hence causing the previous knowledge regarding the subject to become false. At one time people believed that the world was flat. This was completely reasonable and there were justifications to support this knowledge claim, which caused it to be “true.” However, over time, this knowledge was replaced with new information, which further provided that the world is spherical hence the old knowledge became “false” knowledge. When a person purposely lies, knowing that they are not tellling the truth, it can be considered as “false” knowledge.
In science, the extend to which something is true or false in the sciences is a big part. In science, for something to be considered as truth, it would have to be tested numerous times, and many people would have to come to an agreement. If something has not been tested sufficiently, and there is almost nothing to validate the theory, it cannot be considered as truth and would rather be considered to be false knowledge.
Many of Socrates’ arguments rely on the assumption that there is a difference between having “true judgment” (p. 126) (i.e. true belief) and having knowledge. Is this correct? Why do you think philosophers insist that true belief must be supplemented with an “account” in order to have knowledge? Explain your answer.
Is there a difference between having “ true judgement” and having knowledge?
Knowledge and belief are not only distinct attitudesbut they also have a distinct and proprietary objectives. Whereas belief can be true of false, knowledge is neither. Butbelief is a necessary condition for knowledge. Knowledge is acquired by deriving beliefs from other beliefs.
For the “account” to be strong enough qualify the true belief as knowledge, the “account” must itself already be knowledge, producing a circular definition. There is no modern account of “justified true belief” is immune to this problem.
True belief must not necessarily be supplementted with an “account.” There have been attempts to provide sufficient conditions for someone knowing that a proposition is true but it is possible to be justified in believing a proposition, even if that proposition is in fact false. Sometimes we can get exellent evidencefor some proposition (we can even think that the evidence makes the truth of the proposition obvious), and then come to find that, all of the exellent evidence notwithstanding, the proposition is not true. At times therefore, truth can be justified but , true belief, but the justification can seem to be entirely unrelated to to the facts of the case that render the proposition true.
What error is committed by the theory that says giving an “account” involves showing how a true judgment (or true belief) may be analyzed into its simple elements or components? Explain your answer. (126-7)
There have been attemptss to provide sufficient accounts/ conditions for someone knowing that an account is true, for example that a proposition is true if a persson believes it to be true and there is justification for the same. Such theories may seem plausible but are infact false. There are cases where the conditionn listed above is satisfied but the subject in question cannot rightly be said to have knowledge.
Knowledge has been defined as perception. A “justified true belief.” Knowledge is “true opinion combined with definition or rational explanation.” Knowledge could be perception or sensation, true belief and true belief mega logou.
There are three minimum conditions for knowledge. They are; True (it must be true), Believe (we must actually believe it. Belief must be consiously held), Justification is present (there must be sufficient evidence for it).
With the above conditions therefore, what is known has to be factand thus come from the regard of the person acknowledging it as truth. The purpose of belief is to represent the world accurately. Belief serves its role only if the the formation, retention and revision of belief are sensitive to what one takes to be one’s evidence.
Knowledge is valuable, it is important for vitality of belief. It enables us to rely on our beliefs and the beliefs of others. Beliefs aim at greater truth, and are succesful when they achieve it. Knowledge talks about the truth. The one who knows is the one who reaches the target of truth dependably. The impact of knowledge, belief and truth, shape us and our ideas of mind, which reflects our worldly life.