I would like to present some thought experiments on knowledge. If you'd like to participate, then please read each scenario carefully and answer the question(s) at the end of each scenario. Each case deals with knowledge, so when giving your answer please explain your reasoning.
Case A) Jim is panning for gold as he is very fond of doing. While panning, he sifts through and finds a nice size nugget of what appears to be gold. What Jim doesn't realize is that this area where he's panning has a certain kind of rock that looks and feels exactly like gold - it is fairly indistinguishable. Now, Jim believes that he has a piece of gold and in this case he happens to be right. So, does he know that he has a piece of gold? Why or why not?
Case B) You have just bought a lottery ticket. The odds of winning the lottery are very low (like 1 : 1 billion). Do you know that your lottery ticket will lose? Why or why not?
Case C) You park your car outside and go in to work (or to the mall or whatever). After a few hours inside, you are ready to leave. Do you know where your car is? Also, do you know that it hasn't been stolen? If you don't know that it's been stolen, can you know that your car is still there?
The gold thing seems to keep tripping people up. Jim believes he has a piece of gold and his belief is correct - but he didn't test the rock and he doesn't know about the fake gold in the area.
So I am correct when I say he does know that he has a real gold nugget becuase he has no idea that there are fake nuggets in that area, which means he is completely under the belief that it is real gold, AND IT ACTUALLY IS realy gold. If he knew there was fake gold in that area, he would not KNOW for certain, even if it really was real gold.
Hmm, it's either that, or THERE IS NO ANSWER. The reason I say that there may be no answer is because a thought came to my head for a split split split-second, and it ran off before my nerves could transfer all the information.
I know you're not going to tell me if I'm right or wrong because that would ruin it for all the others, but... eh, nevermind :\\
Case A is certainly a Gettier case in the sense that it is aimed towards assessing justified true belief, but the path for justification does not follow your classic Gettier cases. Cases B and C are cases that are lovingly referred to as "lottery cases." And Skyla, there actually is no "right" answer to these questions (or maybe there is). Well, either way no one knows or can prove the rights answers to these questions. The purpose of this thread is completely selfish; I am simply trying to work on my wording of these situations so as to create as little confusion as possible while maintaining the thrust of the scenarios.
nd Skyla, there actually is no "right" answer to these questions (or maybe there is).
If there is no answer, there is no logical question. So this whole thing is quite disillusion as it asks for the non-existent.
The purpose of this thread is completely selfish; I am simply trying to work on my wording of these situations so as to create as little confusion as possible while maintaining the thrust of the scenarios.
I suppose I'd make a good psychologist since I found that obvious
If there is no answer, there is no logical question. So this whole thing is quite disillusion as it asks for the non-existent.
That second sentence doesn't make any sense.
Anyway, here's a somewhat skeptic response. I've stopped short of being hardline because know is a commonly used word, so I have to make some allowances, and that's precisely where the fun of this thread is for me. I guess you could say that supposing I accept JTB, I would have a stringent standard on what justified really is. Because I happen to know what Strat and Moe are talking about, I'll add that I think I'd stop short of externalism, and I'd definitely not tread down the path of reliabilism. Pragmatism sounds up my alley but I'd have trouble putting it to practical use within the context of an analytical phil conversation, haha. Still, one can't help but wonder what arguing about what knowledge is facilitates, so...
A) I'm going to say no, regardless of whether it is real gold or not, you don't know whether that rock that seems to be gold is actually gold until you've done the appropriate analysis that confirms that it is gold. I don't know what the reliability of the tests for that is, though, so that's as far as I can comment. Reason I use this method of justification is because in the absence of real certainty, best measure for me is gold-standard (lol pun intended) tests until otherwise demonstrated. The central question to me is what are the minimum sufficient characteristics of gold, that are observable? If these are satisfied then sure, we can say "I know this is gold."
Also Moe, how does this differ from, say, the cow in the field example?
B) You never know you've lost until the news comes out and the numbers don't add up. Again. Keeps them suckers coming!
C) Personally I don't assume if it's my car until I find it, unlock it, get in the seat and figure nothing has really changed drastically. Knowing would require checking non-transferrable details e.g. rego but in this case I shouldn't be too paranoid because let's face it, what's the chance somebody has magically switched components of my car around in a way I cannot observe while still letting me get in and drive it? Once again this calls up the question of what I can consider "my car". And I've heard some nasty stories of how people discover their car is not really theirs in a legal sense because it's been rebirthed and needs to be impounded for a criminal investigation...
Yes. Because he has verified it with another source and there is no inconsistency in declaring that he knows that 16/64 = 1/4. That his methods would give him incorrect answers for other fractions does not pertain to this single example.
This is because the route to (my version of) justified true belief has been altered in the case of 16/64 when he checked with the calculator and found it to be true: he knows that 16/64 = 1/4 and nothing more. However he does not have a justified true belief that 13/37 = 1/7 etc. etc. because those cases are false :P
C)you don't know whether your car has been stolen or not until you see it where you parked it, or don't see it. so the entire time you are in the mall or whatever, you don't know. therefore, your car is both still there and stolen. this is just like Schrödinger's Cat.
look it up if you've never heard of it. it's very interesting and relates the Heisenberg uncertainty principle used in chemistry and quantum mechanics
Kareybh: I don't know just how transitive discussion of the state of the spin of quantum particles would be to discussion of a real-world situation. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle really deals with our definitional inability to measure stuff- because measurement requires feedback which requires a change of state (hence any single precise state is unmeasurable), but this doesn't appear to be the case for a parked car.
