Re: Russell diagnosis.

Chris Menzel <cmen...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx> said:

Kid: I know what's wrong: the warning light doesn't work.

Cute. And that's *very* close to the sig-line I had from "Dr
Strangelove"
"The auto-destruct mechanism blew itself up!"

Thus, he truly believed
there was something wrong with the car and was justified in so
believing, since, other things being equal, warning lights are usually
reliable indicators of trouble. So the traditional definition of
knowledge -- justified true belief -- seems to be satisfied.

I don't think the "traditional" definition is too troubled by this.
Again, "levels" of satifaction are involved.

On one level, what you say about the reliability of
indicator lights is correct, and so he is "justified".

But on another level, he didn't know this particular
light was on the blink (HAH!), so was unjustified.
There will be debate about which takes precedence in
the traditional definition, but your comment that...

intuitively, he didn't really *know*

....suggests that you take the latter case to be more appropriate.
I imagine that would also be the more popular view.

So the traditional definition of knowledge appears to be flawed.

I hold that it IS flawed, but not for your example's reason.
In fact, IMHO, it is "not even wrong". That traditional definition
is a bad category mistake, (or as I prefer to name it, context error).

There is, IMHO, almost no connection between knowledge and belief.
One is in Popper's 3rd world, and the other in his 2nd.

However, to elaborate on this fully, would need a whole paper,
or perhaps even a conference!

-- Beliefless Bill
.