(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1})[5th April 1987]

[Redbook3:118-131][19870405:1057](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1})[5th April 1987]

19870405.1057

(Sunday)

Ref. T[imes] L[iterary] S[upplement] 20/3/87 p294 'Usually reliable sources', reviewing Alvin I. Goldman, 'Epistemology & Cognition'. I am not a philosopher: most of the articles on *philosophy are too difficult for me, possibly because I understand too few of the technical terms to be able to make sense of it fast enough to understand the whole as I go along – in a practical World. But the title page reference – “Belief or Knowledge? – Telling the difference” – required me to pay attention. I think the key (which clearly lies in the meaning of the words, which is why it interests me from a 'religious' point of view) is in the second paragraph – 'According to traditional epistemology, a true belief qualifies as knowledge if the believer is justified in believing it.'**

As I see it, this does not go far enough towards subjectivity, in that it introduces the third person or “objective” standard by which the justification for the belief is to be tested for validity as knowledge. The trouble is that the test itself can only really be made on the basis of knowledge – not necessarily the same knowledge (or knowledge verifying the knowledge) as is being tested (as a belief), but at least the sort of general and background knowledge which makes such assessments and tests of evidence possible. It must be very unusual for such an assessment to be able to be based on pure logic – which of course is also a form of knowledge***.

“The point is” that all knowledge is, and must be, open to challenge, or the basis of our knowledge is not fully open to development. Science shows this point particularly well: at any stage the entire basis of our World view, or any part of it, must be open to re-interpretation. ****History shows the same characteristics in a slightly different way: views are continually changing and we know#* that between#**[SEE FOOTNOTE] a certain level of detail and a certain level of breadth we can never be even reasonably sure of historical truth: and we can in theory never be absolutely sure of anything.

*(modern, Western)

(I see the reviewer says that [= what?] approach is not part of philosophy anyway(?))

**Does this really imply that his belief is factually correct? <930418>

***{but a type of 'Quality'?}

****[Presumably, the study of history.]

#*(!)

#**{Is this a valid “parameter”?}

I should have thought that 'beyond' [as originally written] may [make] more sense than 'between'. <930418>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger11022016]