On Belief, Knowledge, and Justification

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Just to make sure we are on the same page - as I understand it, you consider "justified" = "true"? You seem to consider that some statements can be more "justified" than others, depending upon the accumulation of evidence either way?

In your philosophy, is there anything which we may accept as "givens" or "material reality" versus a "belief" which may or may not be true?

For example, would you consider the equation

force = mass x acceleration

a "belief" or a "true" statement useful for describing the behavior of objects under the laws of classical physics?

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

Just to make sure we are on the same page - as I understand it, you consider "justified" = "true"? You seem to consider that some statements can be more "justified" than others, depending upon the accumulation of evidence either way?

No, I'm not trying to say anything like justified = truth. I'm trying to make a distinction between justification for belief and the fact of the matter, and to say that we can understand them as different evaluative schemes.

This might seem petty, but the reason why I want to make this distinction is so that we can put together a list of things that count toward justification for a belief, about either physical or metaphysical things.

In your philosophy, is there anything which we may accept as "givens" or "material reality" versus a "belief" which may or may not be true?

For example, would you consider the equation

force = mass x acceleration

a "belief" or a "true" statement useful for describing the behavior of objects under the laws of classical physics?

I'm actually going to go a different direction with this than skepticism vs. realism. My answer is going to be skepticism -or- realism. I think the way this fleshes out is this - whether you are a radical skeptic, and say that nothing is verifiable, or you are a realist, and say that our perceptions are trustworthy and that some things can be verifiable, that you have to carry that same perspective through both the physical and the metaphysical.

I'm not trying to dodge the question, and I will take it up later, but for now, I'm more interested in knowing if you thing anything is verifiable, and if so, then what counts toward verification? If nothing is verifiable, then what counts toward justification? In a personal sense, what evidences cause you to say "I know this" or "I believe this to be true"?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

No, I'm not trying to say anything like justified = truth. I'm trying to make a distinction between justification for belief and the fact of the matter, and to say that we can understand them as different evaluative schemes.

This might seem petty, but the reason why I want to make this distinction is so that we can put together a list of things that count toward justification for a belief, about either physical or metaphysical things.

OK, I think I know where you're going with this. See, one problem I have with discussing metaphysics with most people is that they often seem to treat physics (or science) and metaphysics (or religion/faith)as two intersecting sets. Faith needs to stick with the question of god, and science needs to stick to questions which can be answered through application of the scientific method.

Contemporary society runs into more problems when some ill-informed group tries to either prove or disprove god through science or, conversely, tries to use god to disprove science.

I feel equally annoyed when a fundamentalist makes some statement like "God created the fossils" or an atheist says science has shown that the universe has an infinite existance, therefore, god does not exist. You simply can't use two such different modes of understanding to explain each other.

Do you share this premise of mine?

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

I'm actually going to go a different direction with this than skepticism vs. realism. My answer is going to be skepticism -or- realism. I think the way this fleshes out is this - whether you are a radical skeptic, and say that nothing is verifiable, or you are a realist, and say that our perceptions are trustworthy and that some things can be verifiable, that you have to carry that same perspective through both the physical and the metaphysical.

I'm not trying to dodge the question, and I will take it up later, but for now, I'm more interested in knowing if you thing anything is verifiable, and if so, then what counts toward verification? If nothing is verifiable, then what counts toward justification? In a personal sense, what evidences cause you to say "I know this" or "I believe this to be true"?

Yes, I know that certain things are verifiable. We can get into the whole question of well, maybe I'm a certified schizophrenic; or maybe you are; or maybe you and I are the only ones who can trust our senses, and everyone ELSE is a certified schizophrenic. This reasoning has its adherants, but, personally, I find it to be a tiresome argument where little of substance ever seems to derive from discussions which have this premise.

My 5 basic animal senses of touch, hearing, sight, etc. usually serve me well enough to verify the reality of things that I encounter in my daily life.

If my senses cannot detect the thing itself, the senses are often able to detect phenomena which arise as a result of that thing's existance. For example, up here in north Idaho, we can't see the air, but we can feel it when the wind blows. I understand that people in LA, however, can actually see the "air" on a smoggy day.

If I can't personally sense a thing either directly or indirectly, I am willing to accept that thing's validity from the reports of other people - depending. If 20 members from the cult outside of town all drop acid together and show up on my doorstep proclaiming that they have seen god or seen a pink elephant with purple stripes, I am unlikely to accept their statement as valid.

If my best friend who has never told a lie in his life or ever touched a mind altering substance, tells me about the pink elephant, I will feel concerned for his mental well-being. If, in addition, to my best friend's report, the head of the biology department also claims the animal to be in existance, I'll check my calendar to see if its April Fool's. If the pink elephant reports continue to come in over time and from a variety of sources, I'll begin to think that perhaps such an animal does indeed exist.

As for the existance of Undertoad, for all I know, you made him up, along with also making up people who claim to have actually seen him. I think it rather unlikely that you would go to such an elaborate ploy, but I suppose it's possible.