The Value of Knowledge - Epistemology Video 3

[@台男波哥]

0:10 difference between true belief and knowledge 0:50 e.g. rainy outside 1:40 two attempts to explain the difference: justified, reliable method 3:20 why should we care about knowledge 4:20 Linda zabski: knowledge as a cup of espresso coffee 9:05 the so-called value problem for knowledge 10:10 Plato's analogy: true belief is like a statue that isn't chained down 12:45 more stable 13:45 Charles Saunders, whales can fly, tenacious believer, possible to get stability without having good argument. 17:30 we should take a step backwards, what is primarily valuable here 18:05 earnestly strive for 20:45 social project, shared project 21:15 there are many other positions

[@speusippus]

I first discovered your videos with the ones on the Tractatus. Now I am exploring these and they are a fantastically clear and balanced exposition. You know, I actually came up with the idea you expouse here years and years ago when I said to someone that I didn't care which of us was right about what we were debating (something to do with international finance) or even necessarily what the correct answer was--but I was very interested in how we got there, because a good method is itself valuable. Now I see that I needed to go a step further and understand that the project, as you say, of searching for knowledge is really what is intrinsically valuable. Thank you!

[@Wagon_Lord]

Throughout the video I was thinking: "well how can we be certain that a belief is true without the knowledge it's true?" (also: "well is it even possible to be 100% certain of something's truth? If we can be 100% certain, to what extent is that truth relevant to our lives?") Let's say someone believed the first thing they thought, but the first thing they thought happened to be true. Let's say this was the case for everything they believed; a human truth-detector. The biggest problem they might face is trying to convince others that what they believe is true, because they have no arguments, only a magic power to instantly detect the truth. Would we recognise this person's power and just accept everything they say, or would we avoid this because of the dangers of credulous trust in a single person? What about a similar problem: someone creates an argument so complex that no one can understand it? (This problem is inspired by Shinichi Mochizuki's 'proof' of the ABC conjecture, which was so difficult to understand that many mathematicians did not readily accept it at the time it was released, and even now it is believed that there are some holes in the argument and so it's not widely believed by number theorists). What is the difference between accepting a reliable argument you don't understand and accepting a belief based on no arguments at all? Is knowledge thus partially a social phenomenon? That is, is knowledge valuable, to some extent, in the way that it has the power to move a 'reasonable' person to believe something? Not expecting answers, just thinking 'out loud'. Thanks for making this lecture series!

[@darrellee8194]

How about this: Belief is personal and knowledge is social. 2:01

[@paulhegarty8380]

Could have done with this 2 weeks ago for my uni assignment

[@hendrikstrauss3717]

Am here to say thank you. Not more, not less. Have a good one :D

[@darrellee8194]

5:47 Reliabism doesn't add value to any particular belief, but add value to the set of beliefs produced by the method. Suppose your unreliable espresso machine frequently produces a black liquid that looked and tasted like expresso but also gave you diarrhea? That makes the coffee produce by the reliable machine more valuable by comparison. Value is relative not absolute.

[@APaleDot]

I don't think "stability" can be dismissed so easily. There seems to me a perfectly natural analysis that accounts for the fact that having stable false beliefs is actually worse than having unstable false beliefs. Stability is simply an intensifier. It makes good things better and bad things worse. That's why it makes true belief better. If you have a reliable method for finding true beliefs, then you will find them more often and hold on to them longer. Stability in and if itself is not good or bad, but it does add value to a true belief.

[@johanneskoch4525]

"If you have a reliable method for finding true beliefs, then you will find them more often and hold on to them longer." That sounds as if a reliable method is merely instrumentally valuable, because it generates more true beliefs than using an unreliable method. But that's not what the dispute is about, if I got the content of the video right. The question seems to be, why knowledge should have more instrinsic value than merely true beliefs. Your next sentence sounds as if this was perfectly clear to you: "Stability in and if itself is not good or bad, but it does add value to a true belief." But what is actually added by stability is just more true beliefs (or having a true belief for a longer period of time). But then, the thesis that is argued for in the video, namely that knowledge has more intrinsic value than merely true beliefs, is not defended by reference to stability - or so I think.

[@APaleDot]

@@johanneskoch4525 Why can't knowledge be more valuable _because_ it's more likely to stick around than a true belief that you have on a whim? Holding on to a true belief for longer is more valuable, and knowledge is more likely to be held onto longer, hence knowledge is more valuable. Why does there have to be something more?

[@johanneskoch4525]

@@APaleDot Thanks for your answer! Well lets assume that having a certain true belief for a longer period of time has more intrinsic value than having this true belief for a shorter while. But my point remains. Lets assume, as you do, that knowledge makes it more likely to hold on to a true belief longer. This does not show that knowledge is intrinsically valuable. This shows that knowledge is a good instrument to gain more of something that is intrinsically valuable. In your argument: "Holding on to a true belief for longer is more valuable, and knowledge is more likely to be held onto longer, hence knowledge is more valuable.", the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value is swallowed. It should say: "Holding on to a true belief for longer has more intrinsic value, and knowledge makes it more likely to hold on to a true belief longer, hence knowledge has instrumental value." I still don't see how one might arrive at the conclusion that knowledge has more instrinsic value than merely true beliefs by that line of thought.

[@jamesb46]

I’m not really sure what all the fuss is about when it comes to having true beliefs versus having knowledge. There is nothing valuable besides the true beliefs. With that said, there is no way for any human to generate a preponderance of true beliefs without having reliable faculties, so the reliable faculties are instrumentally valuable. In that sense, knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief, but that is only because we as knowers are inherently limited and must rely upon strata of functioning faculties to get knowledge. If we were truly assured that we could get knowledge by simply looking into a crystal ball, that would be just as good as getting our beliefs in the manner in which we typically do. Because there are no crystals balls, we must rely upon our faculties, and thus the instrumental value of knowledge.

[@MadmaxHere]

I guess it’s like yeah I could make some money buying stocks just because some youtube stock guru recommended. But I might get dependent on it or get overconfident on my own competence and lose a lot more in the long run. Unlike the coffee, you can tell if that cup of espresso is good or bad almost instantly, the truth of knowledge or my investment decisions might take months if not years to verify and the cost can be dearly. Therefore I think the coffee machine analogy might be a less good one.