In this blog post, we will take an easy and interesting look at how belief must be justified to become knowledge from a philosophical perspective.
In Western philosophy, knowledge is understood as “justified true belief.” The reason why having a true belief is not enough to say that one has knowledge is because we may happen to have a true belief. For example, if you happen to believe something that turns out to be true, this cannot be considered knowledge.
This discussion shows that a belief is cognitively justified only when there are sufficient reasons or grounds for believing that it is true. In traditional epistemology, proposition P is true, subject S believes P, and S has valid reasons or grounds for believing P, then S can be said to know P.
In other words, if three elements—justification, truth, and belief—are satisfied, we can say that we have knowledge. This view has long shaped our understanding of knowledge, and philosophers have used it to explore the nature and conditions of knowledge.
It was Getier who raised the issue that the three elements of knowledge widely accepted in traditional Western epistemology cannot be considered necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge. Through several thought experiments, Getier argued that these three elements are not sufficient to explain knowledge. Let’s look at one of his most famous examples to understand his counterargument. A soccer match between South Korea and Japan is being broadcast in a cafe. I infer that there are many Koreans in the cafe, and hearing the cheers from inside, I believe that Korea has just scored a goal, and indeed, Korea has scored a goal, and the score is now 1-0. At this point, my belief that Korea has just scored a goal is justified and true. However, the cheers I actually heard came from an office upstairs in the cafe, where a promotion celebration was being held at the very moment Korea scored the goal. Therefore, my justified true belief does not become knowledge. Ultimately, Getier’s counterargument is that there is justified true belief, not knowledge. After Getier, epistemologists sought to establish criteria for justification to resolve this issue. In the process, the question arose as to whether the factors that determine the criteria for justification are inherent in the subject of cognition or external to it.
The basic position of internalism is that the justification of beliefs lies in the relationship between beliefs. For example, when I believe that “the earth is round,” in order for this belief to be justified, my belief in scientific facts and my belief in photographs of the earth taken from space are the reasons for my belief that the earth is round. Therefore, internalism sees the other beliefs of the subject of cognition as the factors that determine the justification of beliefs. In this case, in order for the beliefs of the subject of cognition to be justified, he must be able to think about the factors of justification.
On the other hand, the basic position of externalism is that the justification of beliefs lies in objective grounds, that is, in objective grounds that have undergone a credible cognitive process. For example, suppose I am standing in front of a book and believe the proposition “There is a book in front of me.” Externalists believe that my belief is justified by objective evidence obtained through a credible cognitive process, namely, my direct observation of the book in front of me. Therefore, some externalists believe that the justification of belief is determined by the causal relationship between facts and beliefs.
In addition, the issue of the reliability of beliefs emerges as an important issue in epistemological discussions. According to reliability theory, beliefs can be justified when they are formed through reliable cognitive processes. This is a concept closely related to externalism, which states that the justification of a belief is determined by the reliability of the process by which it was formed. This approach is particularly important in relation to the justification of scientific knowledge. Since scientific methodology forms knowledge through reliable procedures and repeatable experiments, reliability theory plays an important role in scientific epistemology.
Intrinsicism and extrinsicism are still debating the correct epistemological perspective because each can present the concept of knowledge from its own standpoint. This debate provides important insights into the nature of knowledge and the conditions under which beliefs can be justified. Furthermore, these discussions go beyond philosophical inquiry and influence the practical acquisition and application of knowledge. For example, standards of justification play an important role in various fields, such as methods of knowledge transmission in education, the evaluation of legal evidence, and issues of reliability in everyday decision-making processes.
