Skip to main content

Update: What is Knowledge

Back in 2008 I wrote a blog post where I discussed what I use as a working definition of knowledge.  I recently re-read it and realize that I now strongly disagree with that definition.

Here is what I wrote:

Knowledge, according to Dr. Bahnsen, requires three things.
  1. Belief. To know something, one must first believe it to be true. This should not really be surprising or debatable.
  2. Basis. To know something, one must have a reasonable justification for the belief. The belief you have must not be based on invalid data or invalid or arbitrary reasoning.
  3. Truth. To really know something, that thing that you know has to be true. The thing known must accurately represent the truth of the situation.

I got this during an apologetic course I took at Grace Baptist Church.  There are major flaws with this definition.  When applied it can claim as knowledge multiple mutually exclusive claims.  The biggest problem is #3 - truth.  This definition requires for something to be knowledge for it to be true.  But the whole reason we need a definition of knowledge is that we don't "know" what is true.  Knowledge is just how we describe a belief that we are very confident represents truth.  To know truth, you need omniscience.  We definitely aren't omniscient.  Proving omniscience requires knowledge, so knowledge can't be based on assumed omniscience.  The definition breaks down.

I now use the following:

To know p

  1. You must believe p
  2. You would believe p if it were true
  3. You would disbelieve p if it were false

Many will include that p must also be true.  I say that is unknowable, and irrelevant.  If 1, 2, and 3 are valid then the truth of p is a logical result.  Now obviously, 2 and 3 can never be completely sure.  Your confidence in 2 and 3 are directly linked with how sure you can be the belief is really knowledge.

Hopefully this definition better stands the test of time.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

39

Three decades I have walked the Earth.  Almost four.  I have known what it is to be loved by good parents, to be alienated and abused by classmates, to be a failure at scholastic pursuits, to be a success at scholastic pursuits, to find a family apart from heredity, to know love with the joys and pains that brings, to be a father of three wonderful children, and to be a master craftsman at my profession.  I have seen the glory of man, and the failure of man. When I was a young child, I gave my life to Christ.  I still remember the event, or at least I think I do.  Evergreen Baptist Church.  Vacation Bible School.  Altar call.  I was moved to move, to walk the path, to commit my life to Christ.  I have never had a burning passion for Christ, but I have held him in my heart.  In college I drifted away, as is the tendency.  When I became serious with my now wife, we agreed to walk the road of life together as a Christian family.  I have done this for the last 15 years. I believe
8 comments
Read more

Critique: The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 3, Ken Ham and Roger Patterson

In reference to:  The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 3 Several assertions are made that are false, and several questionable tactics are used. Abiogenesis and Evolution [Humanists] want a monopoly on the teaching of molecules-to-man evolution in the public school science classroom. ... evolutionism in the sense of the belief aspects of evolution [life arising by natural processes, etc.] ... Embedded in this assertion is that evolution includes the formation of life from non-life.  This is incorrect.   Evolution  is a biological theory that describes how species of life change into other species of life.   Abiogenesis  is the development from life from non-life.  It is fair to characterize abiogenesis in a pre-consensus state.  It is not fair to consider this a shortcoming of evolution as they are distinct. Advocating Evolution as Religious An effort is made to show that "belief" in evolution is religious, and as such, teaching evolution and not creationism repre
1 comment
Read more

Andy McIntosh - What About the Fossils - Part 11 (Ammonite and Wood)

This is part 11 of a series of commentaries on material presented by Andy McIntosh.  This material was presented at a church that I attend.  It has been presented other places as well. For reference, related arguments were presented by McIntosh in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPUU9Wb8yzQ C-14 Should be Missing McIntosh presents an argument that C-14 should not be found at all in a sample that is millions of years old, but that we do find that - which is a claimed problem with an old earth. Why should it be missing? A single piece of Nitrogen, an atom, has 7 protons, and usually 7 neutrons.  There is this thing that happens to nitrogen where it turns into carbon for a "short" while, then turns back into nitrogen. It starts when N gets hit with a neutron [N+n].  This causes a proton to get knocked out of the atom.  How an atom acts chemically is kind of based on how many protons it has, so this atom now starts acting like carbon [
2 comments
Read more