Knowledge versus belief
Sep. 11th, 2008 09:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sawylKnowledge and belief have long been subject to confusion, primarily because they mean similar things when used colloquially but different things when used technical. Thus, a particularly geeky epistemologist might find themselves struggling to answer the question, "Do you believe evolution is true?", on the grounds that to ask if one believes in evolution involves a category error; whereas a suave biologist might cheerful answer, "Yes, I believe evolution is true." But what, it seems to me, the biologist should say is, "Yes, I know evolution is true."
Think about it. Belief is a necessary precondition to knowledge, so the biologist who knows evolution to be true has a belief that it is so, which is what allows them to give the above affirmation. But this belief is not a sufficient condition for knowledge, for the belief must also be true and, if you refuse to accept Gettier, you must also have justified grounds for your believe. Since the biologist can legitimately claim to have fulfilled each of these criteria, they have grounds for using "know" in place of "believe".
Having established that the biologist is entitled to make a claim to knowledge, I think that it is important for them to do so, because it restores the semantic balance in the argument over evolution. If opponents of evolution are willing to equivocate, changing the meaning of the word "theory" from its strong epistemological sense, as used by scientists and philosophers, for the weak quotidian form used in everyday speech to mean an idea, notion, guess, whatever. So reclaiming the word "know" in its technical sense should be seen as switching the focus of the argument away from questions of belief and back to questions of truth and justification. For these last two are what differentiate evolution from intelligent design.
Think about it. Belief is a necessary precondition to knowledge, so the biologist who knows evolution to be true has a belief that it is so, which is what allows them to give the above affirmation. But this belief is not a sufficient condition for knowledge, for the belief must also be true and, if you refuse to accept Gettier, you must also have justified grounds for your believe. Since the biologist can legitimately claim to have fulfilled each of these criteria, they have grounds for using "know" in place of "believe".
Having established that the biologist is entitled to make a claim to knowledge, I think that it is important for them to do so, because it restores the semantic balance in the argument over evolution. If opponents of evolution are willing to equivocate, changing the meaning of the word "theory" from its strong epistemological sense, as used by scientists and philosophers, for the weak quotidian form used in everyday speech to mean an idea, notion, guess, whatever. So reclaiming the word "know" in its technical sense should be seen as switching the focus of the argument away from questions of belief and back to questions of truth and justification. For these last two are what differentiate evolution from intelligent design.
