In this modern era of information and communication, someone’s status in the world often depends on what that person knows. We, as humans, often think that what we believe is truth and stored in our brains as knowledge. I tell you however that just because you have a belief in something doesn’t always make is knowledge and definitely not truth. For example, I could believe that President Clinton will be assassinated before he leaves office later this year. That does not mean that I have knowledge of this event; it was just a lucky guess (if it came to be).
An ancient greek philosopher I am sure you are all familiar with, Socrates, once stated that true belief has to have “an account” or a justification for the belief in order for that “true” belief to become knowledge (or fact). This theory is the Justified-True-Belief theory of knowledge, let’s call it JTB for short. How about an example to explain this theory so that everyone is on the same page. Let’s say that my friend Joe has a dog and he believes that his dog is sitting on his mat.
For Joe’s belief to become knowledge, Joe has to believe that the dog is on the mat, he must have justification for his belief that the dog is on the mat, and finally, the dog has to be on the mat (the belief has to be true). In a nutshell this theory shows that for any proposition to be considered knowledge the proposition has to be true, the person has to believe it and has to have justification for the belief. This last aspect of the JTB theory of knowledge is where the conflicts occur. As in any theory in any subject there are things that fall outside the bounds of the theory where the theory does not apply.
The JTB theory does not apply to self-justified beliefs. These self-justified beliefs justify themselves by simply having the belief, like “I am in pain”. No one can say that you are not in pain, the belief of the pain is in the first person and not reliant of external data or justification. Anything that does not fall into this category is a belief justified by something outside the first person or yourself. Beliefs about the external world need justification. The easiest way to explain this theory is to put it in a dialogue or “dialectic” form.
Like a conversation between two people where one person proposes an idea or theory and the other person tries to reinforce or find fault in the other persons reasoning. For simplicity’s sake let’s say that I had the following dialogue with Joe, the guy with the dog on the mat. Joe: Hey Craig, my dog is on the mat. I see that my dog is lying on the mat. And sensing any physical object through one or more of my five senses has to guarantee that the object is in fact there in the real physical world. Craig: Wait a minute Joe, just because you are having sense data of the dog does not mean the dog exists in the real world.
Let me explain, what you are seeing is a mental (electrical) representation of a dog on a mat. In your dreams you see, touch, taste, smell, and hear things. Are they real? I don’t think so. I cannot doubt that you are having the sensory data, that is a self-justified belief. I can think of another possible scenario of you seeing the dog on the mat. You are actually dreaming, all this is empty space. Your belief cannot be justified because I have developed another scenario that could account for your sensory data.
Therefore, since sense data does not guarantee the conclusion of an external world knowledge of that external world is impossible. Joe: Fine, I can’t guarantee that there is an external world out there based on my senses. But I can say there there probably is an external world out there. I am currently sensing the dog on the mat, and most of the time when I have sensed something, it has really existed. I am usually not dreaming therefore, there is a dog on the mat. Craig: Once again Joe, I have to point out to you the error in your reasoning.
You said “probably”, that is where your error occurs. Let me ask you, what determines probability? Joe: I guess you need to have trials, and something to compare the trials with. Like a certain number of times you roll a five on a die. Craig: Right, you need a sample population. Now think about that in the context of your argument. To prove that there “probably” is an external world you need to have a sample population of times when you were right about the external world, and when you were incorrect about the external world. And what is this all presented to you by?
Your sense data (which is already proven unreliable). To prove this I would have to know the answer to the question I am asking. You see, you wanted to know if the external world really exists, and to prove this probably you have to know when you were correct and not correct about the existence of the external world. This is a fallacy, or error in reasoning, this particular fallacy is called “begging the question” fallacy. Which is basically a fallacy that tries to explain the question by relying on information that the original question is trying to ask.
For me to prove this “probable” external world. I would have to (for the lack of a better word) “crawl” outside of my subjective body and observe when I was wrong and/or right about my sense data inferences. This is completely inconceivable. This egocentric predicament is that we are “trapped” in our senses and totally rely on them, even if they are wrong. Therefore, sense data cannot even probably determine the existence of the external world, and the existence of Sport (the dog) on the mat over there. Joe: Alright, I get your point. So how about this. I am seeing Sport on the mat.
The best explanation for having these sense data is that there is in fact a dog on the mat. If you think about it and the other possibilities you have given me, the one that makes the most sense is the hypothesis that there really is a dog on the mat, and the external world exists. Craig: Good point, but what you are stating in philosophical terms is the Surprise Principle. This principle states that if there are multiple hypotheses then the one least surprising is the best hypothesis. But let me ask you this question: what is an explanation? Joe: Well, an explanatio tells how something happens
Craig: Right, but how does something “happen”? Joe: Something happens when another thing causes it. Craig: Right again, but let me put it into easier terms besides “things”. For example, you push someone in a crowded line, they fall over and hit the next person, then what happens? Joe: Every person causes someone else to fall over. Craig: Right, but you don’t actually see a cause do you? Of course you don’t. A cause is a comparison between what happens before, and what happens after. You would never say, “Oh there’s a cause,” you just assume that the person that was pushed cause everyone else to fall.
You are comparing what happened before to what happened after. For us to find the best cause or explanation for what we are sensing we have to compare, “before” and “after”. The point is that we don’t know what the before is, we just sense the after. We are the people falling over in line and since we cannot se the before, we would not know what knocked us over. Joe: What does that have to do with choosing a cause. Just because I can’t compare a before and after, why does that mean I cannot pick the hypothesis that makes the most sense? Craig: Good point.
Since you cannot determine what is the cause of our sense data, then any hypothesis is as good as the next. If I have no idea what caused me to fall over when I was in line, then I could say that space aliens flew down and pushed me over. Since you have lack of knowledge of the cause then you cannot specifically say that it was a certain fact. In our sense data of the dog on the mat I can think of a million causes why I am seeing him on the mat. I could be (and sometimes wish) apart of the Matrix, a conspiracy of robots who designed a computer simulation to keep me under control to harvest my body heat.
Sensational, but still an explanation. Or I could be dreaming right now. Since it could be anyone of these conclusions you cannot use your sense data to say that the best explanation for it is the existence of an external world. Therefore beliefs about the external world are not justified. Since they are not justified then you can conclude that there is no knowledge about the external world. Now for you reading this essay, you might ask “I don’t believe this psycho-babble, I know the world really exists and you can’t convince me otherwise.
For one thing, I am not trying to sway anyone, I am just stating some of the philosophical questions that philosophers have about the external world. And I hope that in reading this, you dig a little below the surface and realize that, you should always question whatever society gives and presents to you as “normal” or “standard belief”. Questioning these thing, can help you find what your beliefs are and not what everyone else believes. And this can define who you are as a human being. If you are really there.
