Philosophy of Knowledge

When we think about knowledge, we tend to refer to something that

we know in our ordinary life, or something that is so secured and solid
theres nothing else to deny it. However, sometime we tend to have very
vague distinction between knowledge and belief because when we have
belief that is true, we can be thinking that we know it but also doubting it
because its either not rationally justified or not reliable. The two theories of
knowledge covering these problems are the justified true belief and reliability
theory which are similar and different in term defining knowledge, but do
they help to prove that we have knowledge so that skepticism claim is
wrong?
What is JTB theory? Suppose we have three kinds of knowledge:
propositional, objective, and know-how. Propositional knowledge is not
sufficient for knowing an object and not necessary for knowing how to do
something, for example, compare that I know Jack is 6 feet tall to knowing
Jack and knowing gravity to knowing how to drop the apple. Focus on the
first one, if one person knows that premise P, then he or she must believe in
that P and P must be true. Belief and truth are the necessary elements for
knowledge, our desire of the world that we wish to be and belief that
configures our world causes the action we performed, action is rational if our
belief can generates our desirable state, facts have subjective and objective
sides, assuming the bell strikes at 3:00, its objective because the facts are
never dependent on what people think of it, the bell still strike at that time
even if that person belief it strikes at 2:55, and subjective because a person
can rely on other if they know what the facts is, so that person can rely it if
someone knows bell strikes at 3:00, but this is not enough. Suppose what
people believe to be true happens to be true by accident, like the example of
Groundhog Day, but how are the true beliefs are related to the true facts?
Then justification is needed to explain it. To justify the true belief, we have to
come up with evidences (referring to Pascals Wager) for our belief, Sober
has pointed out that just like we need to morally justify our actions so that
we dont violates any of our duties we have, we need to form our true belief
without violating our duties meaning are we making belief based on
particular evidences alone, such as knowing I am dead because I am
unconscious. If any one of the premises above is, then that person dont
know that proposition according to JTB theory.
What is reliability theory of knowledge then? To answer that, think of
any devices we use for measurement, such as thermometer for temperature.
Why do we often trust the reading given by this devices? Although sometime
it will be inaccurate as our beliefs do under some conditions, reliable devices
exist if they are in the right environment and the setups is unbroken and

unchanged, it will always display the corresponding measurements to the

surrounding environment like the temperature outside is 17 degree Celsius if
the thermometer says 17 degree Celsius, unreliable device shows the same
temperature whether the outside temperature is the same or not. Like the
example of thermometer, knowledge is also applied in the same way, if one
knows that proposition, he/she must believe that proposition which is true
and for some circumstances in which the person occupies, if he or she
believes the propositions presented, then it must be true. Suppose that I
believe that there is a tree in front of me in the given circumstances like I am
conscious and no evil demon is with me to make me to believe the opposite,
then a cause which its the real tree presents in front of me must exists in
order for me to believe that the tree is in front of me, my belief would turns
out false if I doubt there is tree in front of me, under the condition I was
hallucinated or the evil demon caught up with me, but that doesnt mean
that I am an unreliable to what going on around me. Impossibility concept is
used for reliability theory as well, which involves circumstantial necessity
that is ambiguous, when we talk about reliable device, it often relates to its
environment in a special way. If I still dont believe that the tree is in front of
me even though Im conscious and there is no evil demon, then that
impossibility would turn false, therefore I cant be mistaken that the tree is in
front of me. In reliability theory, the person has doubt to believe a
proposition that is true under given circumstances and that person would
definitely know it.
Comparing these two theories together, they all requires belief and
truth so that if the person believes a proposition, then that proposition must
true or else that person wouldnt believe that proposition for he or she to
know it, they are different in term of refuting skepticism argument. The
biggest difference between these knowledge theories is that in reliability
theories you dont to be able to construct an argument to refute skepticism
because the person dont required to know that a premise is true, if you are
reliable, then the true conclusion will formulate true proposition, sometime
the person knows it but doesnt believe since the person could be mistaken
about the proposition. JTB theory, however, requires that knowledge must be
impossible to be mistaken, although we can basically form our belief from
what we senses. The problem is that we might be misled because what we
believe are at most case high probability meaning we have chance of been
wrong, therefore we dont have any knowledge on that, as we might be
malfunction, unconscious, or hallucinated when we considering posteriori
knowledge obtained from sense experience, so in order for that person to
know a proposition, that person must be impossible to mistaken in believing
his/her belief. To refute against skepticism, then it contradicts the fact that

our common sense forms the knowledge about the world by relating to
whats around us. What is the better method to refute skepticism then?
Lets look at the counterexamples, Gettier came up with the example
where people can be justified about their belief even though they have no
knowledge. Suppose I will get elected as the team captain because Im nice,
then that person who is nice will get elected, this is non-deductive and highly
reliable proposition but not infallible, usually you could be wrong about me
been elected since is not always happens that way, JTB theory requires
perfectly infallible evidence for justification but we can be rationally justified
without evidence being infallible, thus justified true belief is not sufficient for
knowledge. Back to the reliability theory, we know that circumstantial
necessity is relevant, now you believe in one proposition and you assert it is
true, there would be more than one cause for you to believe there is a tree in
front of you, maybe theres a mirage created by the sunlight that makes you
believe in that, therefore you still dont have any knowledge, this is called
the fools barn as Sober calls it. In my opinion, both theory do not well refute
the skepticism argument to prove that we have knowledge.