Ways of Knowing, Part 2

What is knowledge? The traditional analysis, dating back to Plato and commanding the adherence of many great minds over the years, has been that knowledge can be defined as justified true belief (henceforth JTB). In other words, if I believe something, that belief is true, and I have some justification for believing it, then I have knowledge. Stated symbolically:

S knows that p iff:

(i) S believes that p

(ii) P is true

(iii) S is justified in believing that P.

If any of these conditions were missing, it was thought that knowledge was missing as well. Then along came a little three page tornado by Edmund Gettier, entitled simply “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” In it he pointed out how you could have a justified true belief that did not entail knowledge. His examples entailed someone having good reasons for believing something, which then led them to a further implication of that belief, which turned out to be true while the initial justified belief turned out to be false. Yet at the end of it you had a justified true belief.

Gettier’s first example went something like this: Jones and Smith both apply for a job. Smith comes to the following beliefs:

1) Jones will get the job. (This is based off the fact that the president of the company has told Smith that Jones will get the job.)

2) Jones has ten coins in his/her pocket. (This is based off the fact that Smith saw Jones count the coins in his/her pocket and then put them back in.)

3) Therefore, a person with ten coins in their pocket will get the job.

Smith believes #3 via a logically valid argument, and based off of justified beliefs. Now as it turns out, the president of the company lied to Smith and instead gives Smith the job. Also, unbeknownst to Smith, he has ten coins in his pocket. Therefore, Smith believes #3, is justified in doing so, and his belief is true. Yet we would not wish to say that he had knowledge.

In the years since this paper, epistemologists (philosophers who study knowledge) have made many attempts to solve what is now called the “Gettier problem.” Many of these have involved trying to find a fourth condition, in addition to JTB, that would get us a proper analysis of what knowledge is. So far no one theory has gained the consensus.

While many theories focus on evidence and proof as a key component for knowledge (i.e. “justification”), another line of thought seeks to study the mechanisms that produce beliefs, and to determine what it would mean for them to be able to give us knowledge. On these views, our third condition or cluster of conditions for knowledge would not be justification, but rather something else. These naturalistic accounts, also know as externalisms, seem to me to hold a lot of promise, none more so that the theory advanced by Alvin Plantinga, know widely as the theory of Proper Function, which outlines the things which provide “warrant” for a belief. According to Plantinga, if a person has a true belief that has been produced by cognitive faculties that are functioning properly, according to a design plan aimed at producing true beliefs, in a cognitive environment suited to those faculties, then they have knowledge. For example, if you believe that when you approach your car you actually see it, this will be knowledge for you if:

(i) You believe that you see your car.

(ii) You actually are seeing your car, not a mirage or a hologram.

(iii) You belief is produced by your visual cognitive faculty, that faculty is functioning properly, is designed to produce true visual experience, and is being utilized on earth, with sufficient lighting conditions being present, not during a black, cloudy, moonless night or an alternate universe where there are no light waves to produce the sensation of sight.

Given these things, you have knowledge that you see your car.

While this sounds pretty common sensical (indeed, Plantinga traces his own theory’s development back to the common sense philosophy of Thomas Reid), there are some problems with it. My main concern deals with the way the major terms (proper function, a design plan aimed at producing true beliefs) in Plantinga’s theory are set up so as to presuppose theism. Of course Plantinga claims that either God or evolution could have produce these faculties, but then later spends the last several chapters of his work Warrant and Proper Function trying to demonstrate that proper function cannot be explained in purely naturalistic terms. You can’t have both.

What I propose is that, for our purposes, we replace the term proper function with sufficient function, a term that encompasses the actually reality faced by our cognitive faculties, as opposed to forcing us into either/or situations were faculties are either functioning properly or they are not, with no possibility of a gradient somewhere in between. Whereas proper function stipulates that our faculties must be working as designed, sufficient function claims they must be working well enough to do what we are asking of them. In addition to this redefinition, I would propose that instead of thinking of the design plan as having to be aimed at truth, we should think of it as regularly producing true beliefs. This takes us off theistic clouds, and back firmly on naturalistic ground. This does not mean we have to dismiss theism as a possibility, simply that we do not guarantee it by the way we define our terms.

Also, besides avoiding a guarantee of theism, the above way of defining our terms gives them a far broader range, allowing us to take into account that the cognitive faculties of certain beings might work better or worse than that of another being, or that specific faculties might be stronger or weaker between species, or even within individual members of a species. For example, if your eyesight is 20/20 and mine is say 20/70, we can both gain knowledge via our faculty of eyesight as long as my eyesight is sufficiently good enough to produce the true belief in question. In other words, 20/70 vision might not be considered proper function for a human being, or even typical/average function, but it can be considered sufficient function for the forming particular bits of knowledge, though it is perhaps not good enough for others. <>In the same vein, to say a faculty must be aimed at truth would preclude the possibility that a faculty could actually be favored by evolution for a completely different purpose. For example, it is possible that an elephant’s ears have mutated as they have due to the fact that they help in releasing heat, better allowing the largest land mammal to regulate its body temperature. A side effect may well be that elephants have even better hearing than they would have otherwise. However, their adaptation was not aimed at true auditory beliefs, but rather at better body regulation. On our new revision of Plantinga’s theory, however, it would be enough for the faculty in question to be able to regularly produce true beliefs, even if it was not entirely aiming for them.

Given these adjustments, I think we have the beginnings of a good working theory of what constitutes knowledge. We will need to examine how it incorporates our cognitive faculties, and how the way we form beliefs gives them varying degrees of warrant. Then we can begin to apply it to our many beliefs, and see which of them can be considered to be knowledge, and which cannot.

To restate the position, in conclusion: a person has knowledge if her belief is true and was generated by a suffiently functioning cognitive faculty(ies) having a design plan(s) that regularly produces true belief(s), and that generated that/those belief(s) in a receptive environment.

The NFL Picks: A Post-Christmas Tradition

It is nice to be back home after a good holiday season! Here are my NFL playoff picks for this year:

NFC Wild Card:
St. Louis Rams over Seattle Seahawks, 28-20
Green Bay Packers over Minnesota Vikings, 34-31
Neat stat for this game and the NFC game on Sunday: In a playoff rematch where one team has already posted two wins over the other, 10 out of 15 times the team who has won the first two also wins the third. After this weekend I like it to be 12 out of 17.

Also, Minnesota can definately beat Green Bay, despite their recent troubles. I just doubt it will happen.

AFC Wild Card:
New York Jets over San Diego Chargers, 20-17
Indianapolis Colts over Denver Broncos, 35-21
The Chargers are vastly overrated in my book, and a team that can control the line of scrimmage will be able to beat them. I love my Broncos, but they may have the least chance of winning out of all the teams in this first round. Plummer must have a mistake free game to win, and I doubt that will happen.

NFC Divisional:
Philadelphia Eagles over St. Louis Rams, 24-7
Green Bay Packers over Atlanta Falcons, 35-14
Green Bay will trounce Atlanta if they get that far, while Philly will have more than enough for the Rams.

AFC Divisional:
Pittsburg Steelers over New York Jets, 28-10
New England Patriots over Indianapolis Colts, 28-27
Pittsburg will smoke any team they play, while the Colts will never beat a good Patriots team when it counts, though they will get close.

NFC Championship:
Green Bay Packers over Philadelphia Eagles, 27-24
Remember the Buffalo Bills? Or Minnesota Vikings? Those were good teams who could never get over the hump, and the Eagles are out of the same mold. A great regular season team without the talent to get over the top (unless TO plays).

AFC Championship:
New England Patriots over Pittsburg Steelers, 17-14
I like Pittsburg a lot, and they seem to be the superior team, but then that was also the case three years ago, and they lost to the Pats. It will be close, and I'll be cheering for the men of Cower, but I think the Pats will win it.

SuperBowl:
Green Bay Packers over the New England Patriots, 34-31
Vinaterri will tie it, but Farve will drive the Pack down for the last second win, and then ride off into the sunset. I like the Packers to come out of the weak NFC, and since nobody thinks the AFC will lose the SuperBowl, they probably will.

Happy Holidays!

I wanted to post the first entry in Reimagining Genesis, but I haven't quite finished it off yet. I am leaving town for a little over a week, so I'll post it soon after the New Year begins. Have a great holiday season and thanks for reading!

Garbage Time: The Cruelty and Kindness of a Full House

I love poker, especially Texas Hold'em, because of its potential to curse you with a bad beat and then turn around and allow you to rake in a huge pot when the same beat hits your opponent. Last week I had two experiences with full house hands, one that knocked me out of the money during an online tourney, the other which doubled me up during a home cash game.

First the bad. I'm playing an online event at pokerroom.com, with about three hundred other people. After a few hours, about twenty-five of us remain, and I'm sitting about nineteenth with $4800 in chips. Out of the big blind I look at AKs (Ace-King suited), while the person to my left folds, and the next player, with about $7000 in chips, puts out a $1200 bet, exactly double my big blind. The table folds around to me, and I decide to just call, figuring my opponent to be on a mid-level pocket pair (9's or T's), and knowing I'll need to hit the flop.

The flop clobbers me over the head, 9-A-A. I have just hit trip Aces, and figure that a bet will scare my opponent off, so I check to him, hoping to re-raise him. He throws out $2000, and I re-raise all-in (I had about $3600 left), and he calls me, showing pocket jacks. I figure I am about to double up to $10k, which would place me in fifth and in great position to reach the final table and make a good payoff. Turn brings a 7. River -- J! He hits his full boat, knocking me out, only four spots off the money. Wow! I go from conservatively being able to gain five times my entry fee, to being out of luck.

Jump ahead to three days later, this past Saturday. I'm playing my weekly cash game with friends. I had been up and down all night, but then hit a streak of hot cards and sat about triple up for the night. A few hands earlier I had pulled off a beautiful bluff, pushing a conservative player off his pair of aces on the river, representing a flush while actually holding a 2-7off! (the worst hand possible in hold'em, for those who don't know). 2-7 had been hitting the flop all night, and we had all been joking with each other that we were going to push with it -- so I did!

After bluffing this player out I showed the table my cards which accomplished exactly what I wanted it to: the whole table thought I had been playing bad cards all night, and they were now determined to call my future bluffs! I could sit back, play great stuff, bet it up, and expect callers.

About an hour after this, I am dealt J6 out of the big blind, and check the bet when it reaches me. Flop comes 6-3-J. I've flopped two pair, and decide to slow play it, hoping a pocket AJ or KJ will bet out big so I can come over the top. A person opposite me, who had almost as many chips as I did, doubles my bet. The table folds out to me, and with a smile I double his bet. He re-doubles back, and I call, thinking I can push him further on the turn. The turn brings another 6, giving me a full house! Only pocket 6's or pocket J's could beat me, so I bet four times the big blind into my opponent, who doubles my bet. I then triple his raise, and he goes all-in. I call immediately, flip over my boat, and he screamed in frustration after showing his A6. A ten hit the river, and I finished my night on a high note, taking out my biggest challenger.

The full house giveth and taketh away... one of the reasons Texas Hold'em is such an amazing game!

THE NOTES to Re-Imagining the Creation Stories: Genesis 1-2

(These are my first glance notes comparing the two creation accounts in the book of Genesis. I thought I would post these, and the my commentary first glance notes before publishing my actual blog on this section Genesis, in order to give you a chance to see part of my study process and how the notes are applied to make an article.)

Staring Points:
Gen 1: An empty wasteland (tovu wobovu, better translated this way than “a formless void”) with darkness covering the deep, and a wind from God sweeping over the water.

Gen 2: A land with no agricultural crops, but with a stream rising up from the ground, but nobody to till the ground.

Common Ground: Both picture untilled, unorganized land in need of cultivation.

Differences: One pictures an entirely unorganized Cosmos, the other pictures a wild land that simply hadn’t been cultivated yet.

What Gets Created:
Gen 1: D1) Separate -Day and Night; D2) Separate the sea from the clouds - The Sky; D3) Separate Water from Land - Dry Land and Natural Plants; D4) Lights to separate the day and night – Sun, Moon, and Stars “set in the dome” “for signs and seasons”; D5) Sea Creatures and Birds – “blessed with the ability to multiply” “fertility”; D6) Land Animals, Humans “made in the image of God” “To have dominion” not “to rule over” as mentioned of the Sun, Moon, and stars. They are given “Plant yielding seed and tree with seed in it’s fruit”, but are not “given” the animals. The Totality of creation is “very good”, not just people specifically.

Gen 2: 1) Man formed from the dust of the ground, breathing the breath of the LORD God into him (see Gen 1:30), in order to till and keep the garden (v. 15); 2) The garden is planted in the east, in Eden (man placed there), and also trees bearing fruit, as well as the “tree of life” and the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”; 3) Partners for man formed – the animals! Man names the animals, but does not find a partner. 4) Woman made from man’s rib (not out of the ground like everything else).

Common Ground: Both emphasize that man is made to cultivate the land, both mention the creation of humans, animals, and plants. Both emphasize that living things are made from “the ground” and also have, “the breath of life.”

Differences: The first account obviously focus on a much larger scope, emphasizing the separation of the various elements of reality, and framing creation within an ordered week. The second seems to assume most of this, emphasizing the creation of the man, the woman, and the animals. The order of the creation of the various elements are mixed about in the two accounts, the first having humanity created at the very end, the other having the creation of man and woman bookend the creation of animals and the garden. Also the second account tries to lay out the geography of Eden by reference to four rivers, while no mention of Eden is made in the first account.

What Commands are Given:
Gen 1: 1) The “let there be” commands (vs. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14-15, 20, 24, 26); 2) “Let [the lights] be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years” (v. 14); 3) the blessings – “be fruitful…multiply…fill” (vs. 22, 28); 4) “Have dominion over…” (v. 28); 5) an implied “command” in 2:3 which refers to the Sabbath.

Gen 2: 1) “Eat freely of every tree…” except for “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” because it brings a death sentence. 2) IMPLIED: to till the garden of Eden (v.8); 3) IMPLIED: the naming of the animals (v.19); 4) IMPLIED: the union with the woman (v.22). All the IMPLIED commands seem to assume that the man just would do the things the LORD God wanted him to do – that it was in the nature of man to till the garden, to name the animals, and to unite with the woman. Therefore the LORD God did not need to expressly command the man to do those things. However he did see fit to tell him to keep his hands of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, almost as if there was an expectation that the man would want to go right after it!

Common Ground: The gift of fruit trees for food, as well as the need for humankind to take care of and cultivate the land and watch over the other living things.

Differences: Only the second account even mentions the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, much less the command to stay away from it. In the first story, creation is accomplished by commands of God; in the second the LORD God actually forms things from the ground or other existing material.

Who Does the Creating:
Gen 1: God (Elohim).

Gen 2: The LORD God (YHWH Elohim).

How it ends:
Gen 1: With God seeing that his creation is “very good” and then resting on the seventh day. (1:31-2:4a)

Gen 2: With God bringing the woman to the man. (2:22-23)