In Socrates’ opinion, there is a difference between knowledge and belief. While beliefs can be either true or false, there is no such thing such as true knowledge or false knowledge. Knowledge, by definition, is justified true belief while “false knowledge” is not knowledge but rather a mistaken belief. Knowledge is not mere opinion or probable assent. Truth and certitudes are conditions of knowledge. Belief refers to assent without certainty and usually indicates the attitude of the mind in regard to matters that are not governed by universal laws of the world. However, sometimes, belief may also denote certitude, but in belief, the evidence is more obscure and indistinct than it is in knowledge.
What we perceive is belief because at every moment, there is a different perception represented by a different perceptual object and a different perceiver. Hence, only knowledge can depict reality, inerrancy and infallibility. However, “knowledge” does not mean “absolute certainty”, because our justifications and truth tests are not perfect.
This distinction between knowledge and belief is very important. We may “know” many things which we do not “believe” in and we may believe in many things which are not classified as “knowledge”. We realize that in order for our belief to qualify as knowledge, it must be true, justified and must necessitate its truth.
For example, I know that the earth revolves around the sun along with other planets in the solar system. Previously, this would have been considered a falsehood as people “believed” that the sun revolved around the earth and considered it as knowledge. Now, there is enough evidence to support the proposition that the earth revolves around the sun. It is a justified and irrefutable claim. Thus, it is knowledge.
There is a problem with the psychological state of conviction as it relates to knowledge and belief. As knowledge is a primitive fact of consciousness, it cannot as such be defined. The mind also contributes its share to the knowing process. Therefore, knowledge undergoes great changes during a course of time in one’s mind. Different minds too take different views on the same object. Copernicus’ knowledge was not considered so because the people in that era considered their old beliefs to be absolute truths. It was difficult to persuade them that their conviction was wrong. Conviction based on knowledge too can be misleading if the knowledge is not substantial.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You (or Socrates) makes a distinction between 'false knowledge' and 'untrue belief'. Surely both these forms of words refer to the same situation, and the difference remains only in the words. Unless we have some sort of emotional commitment to the word 'knowledge' the distinction doesn't matter much, does it?
Wouldn't it be true to say that ONLY absolute certainty can reasonably count as knowledge? Since you have already admitted that all our truth tests are defective in one way or another nothing can be asserted to be absolutely certain. There is therefore no 'knowledge'. This is sounding suspiciously like Plato's idea that we are all like men in a cave who can only see shadows cast on the cave wall. I don't like this argument, because it puts me to the inconvenience of finding another term for those ideas and concepts which work for most people engaged in doing useful business in the real world. How abut 'betledge' for the things the professors, whatever they say, are too savvy to bet against?
How many theoreticians of knowledge can dance on the point of a needle?
Post a Comment