(Circa 30 CE)
Arthur and a large group are following a man called Brian[1]: They believe that he is the messiah – and Brian is trying to dissuade them of their belief.
FOLLOWER#1: Give us a sign!
ARTHUR: He has given us a sign! He has brought us to this place!
BRIAN: I didn't bring you here! You just followed me!
FOLLOWER#1: Oh, it's still a good sign by any standard.
ARTHUR: Master! Your people have walked many miles to be with You! They are weary and have not eaten.
BRIAN: It's not my fault they haven't eaten!
ARTHUR: There is no food in this high mountain!
BRIAN: Well, what about the juniper bushes over there?
FOLLOWERS: Hhhh! A miracle! A miracle! Ohh!...
FOLLOWER#1: He has made the bush fruitful by His words.
FOLLOWER#2: They have brought forth juniper berries.
BRIAN: Of course they've brought forth juniper berries! They're juniper bushes! What do you expect?!
ARTHUR: It’s a miracle! In this high mountain with virtually no vegetation, you conjured up juniper bushes.
BRIAN: But you agree that juniper bushes can grow here – even if they are not numerous – right?
A: (Nods)
B: Well, wouldn’t a miracle be something a little more spectacular?
A: Like to raise someone from the dead?
B: But what makes that a miracle?
A: Because dead people, once dead, stay dead. That’s the law of nature.
B: But what if the dead person was my friend and accomplice? It is claimed he has died, but it ain’t so[2].
A: But you can’t fake death. If he’s not breathing, he’s dead[3].
B: He can hold his breath for a long time. He has been subsequently entombed for four days[4], cloistered away so no-one can confirm or disconfirm his deadness. When I roll back the stone from the front of the tomb, on my command, he walks out alive.
A: But that’s cheating!
B: It’s magic! You said earlier, I ‘conjured up juniper bushes.’ Perhaps I’m simply a master magician. If I am good at it, you might never know you have been duped.
A: What if I was to bring you someone I knew to be dead, someone you didn’t know.
B: Ah, so you would simply seek more evidence to support your supposition of a miracle. Not sure where this will end, but sure, let’s say you bring me someone newly dead.
A: Right.
Brian: What if I had some technique for resurrecting him. By striking a newly dead man in the chest, I am able to revive him.
A: That’s a miracle.
B: But what if any person could do it? Or even say a bolt of lightening could revive him. What then?
A: It would still be a miracle. Bringing someone back from the dead is a miracle under any circumstances.
B: But what if it is a technology that you simply don’t understand. Like magic[5]. For instance, do you think that turning water into acid counts as a miracle?
A: Don’t you mean water into wine?
B: What’s the difference? Aren’t they both against the law of nature?
A: I would be more impressed if you turned water into wine.
B: OK, so water into wine is a miracle, and water into acid is… something else!. Was the great flood not a miracle wrought by god? Not a lot of joy for those that missed the boat, ‘ark, ‘ark!.
A: God has his reasons which we cannot understand.
B: OK, but let’s return to who creates miracles later. For now, I want to nail down what type of event counts as a miracle. I’ll return to the stock standard of water into wine. If I added grape juice to the water, and turned it into wine, would that be a miracle?
A: No! We know that grape juice turns into wine anyway by law of nature.
B: Not always. Still, imagine the first person to discover wine. He foolishly left some grape juice in a vat for six months or so. Rather than throw it out, he tastes it and lo and behold, he tastes that it is good. How would he feel?
A: Pretty good!. However, it has been repeated so many times since, we now know that is an act of nature, it happens all the time.
B: Now. But not then! On the first occasion, it is a miracle, but with repetition it becomes a law of nature?
A: A miracle is an improbable, an infrequent event.
B: If time extends for not just millennia, but billions or trillions of years, something improbable becomes increasingly probable over time, so even that becomes a trivial way of defining miracles.
A: Look, people know a miracle when they see one.
B: Well, that’s not so clear to me. However, I’m not interested in quibbling about what constitutes a miracle. Does it not strike you as amazing that grape juice – water with some sugar in it – turns to wine? Imagine that is all happening through the operation of say a little animal that is invisible to our naked eye, it eats up the sugar and poops out alcohol. Is that not awe-inspiring?
A: Humph. Unlikely! Nevertheless, grape-juice to wine is indeed awe-inspiring.
B: OK. Is not life itself is a miracle. Life may be commonplace now, but it was not always so. The creation of life is a miracle. Even if only one life had been created, all subsequent generations from that one life would be amazing[6].
A: OK, yes, it is a miracle. You agreeing with me? Miracles prove that God exists?
B: Steady on. The existence of exceptional or extraordinary events may be labelled as miracles. However, I do not agree that miracles imply a sign of the hand of god. Why do you not simply doubt your understanding rather than attribute to it to be an act of god?[7]
A: But if the event were delivered in response to prayer, then wouldn’t that count as evidence of a miracle at the hands of God?[8]
B: OK. But whose god? The inhabitants of ancient Rome, Turkey, Thailand and China support their belief in their gods by pointing to miracles[9].
A: They are ignorant and barbarous peoples[10]. Their miracles are probably fabricated.
B: Which they would say about yours. Give me your reasons why you reject their evidence; they are the reasons I would use to reject your evidence!
A: Well, it is my god that performed their miracles.
B: As they would say about yours. Returning me to my key question. How can you ascribe a miracle – or anything else for that matter – to a god?
A: OK, maybe we can’t say which god, but it is a god, or even a collection of gods.
B: You might be encouraged by a fortuitous circumstance of an unusual event apparently coinciding with a request, but I do not think the evidence is compelling. Many prayers are unanswered, and I daresay many unusual events are unrequested! It is not clear that anyone ‘asked’ for creation or the great flood. In which case, we must conclude that some god decided to create these miracles of his own volition.
A: Well I already believe in God. So, I don’t need miracles to prove His existence. And given that I believe He exists, His existence gives me an explanation for miracles[11]. That’s one more explanation than you have!
B: So your belief in the existence of god has been established independently of miracles?
A: Yeah. And the existence of miracles simply serves to strengthen my belief in God.
B: Why do you need the arguments strengthened? Why would you or god bother to strengthen the argument if his existence is already established? We seem to agree that miracles can’t prove his existence. Just for interest, how is god’s existence established to your satisfaction.
A: Well, you said it yourself. The miracle of creation that gave rise to nature. Who could have created this complex world if not God? There must be a designer!
B: God is certainly one possible explanation, but not the only one. It could be that nature has provided us with an unlikely event. It maybe that Life, the universe and everything was created by some other entity[12]. Or perhaps it sprung into existence spontaneously. It seems no more unlikely to me than that god created it.
A: Is not God a simpler explanation[13]? God is the prime mover, the first cause, the creator all of nature – and the miracles that violate nature.
B: Your argument reduces to a singularity. God creates everything - nature, and all events violating nature. Is there some alternative against which we can test this idea? Besides, using god as an explanation still leaves us with the problem of explaining how god came to exist.
A: Nothing that I can imagine. Is that not as it should be? God is the ultimate beginning.
B: We are returning to what I would call magic. A miracle is an event for which we do not have an explanation. Neither miracle nor creation - nor nature by the same reasoning - proves the existence of god.
A: At some point, one must simply rely on faith. To do otherwise tempts eternal damnation[14].
B: That may well explain why so many are willing to believe in a god, but it does not prove that there is one entity – or more – who created everything.
A: Some things cannot be understood with reason. ‘I have neither hope nor expectation of convincing a skeptic simply by miracles’[15].
B: Ha! You would have me dismiss reason in this instance. Would not any man losing a debate seek to have their opponent abandon reason – especially if the opponent’s reasons do not fit the defender’s beliefs?
A: But aren’t miracles and everything prove there is a god.
B: I have an alternative theory… it proves you’re an ignorant and barbarous fool!
A: Ah, but didn’t that fellow Anselm say that ‘the fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’. Does that not make you the fool?
B: Perhaps I am because Anselm said that a fool, with some understanding of God, would be forced to admit that he could not conceive that God does not exist.
A: Huh?
B: Yeah, that’s kind of how I feel too.
A: God you’re a pain to talk to.
B: They said the same about Socrates! Let’s call it quits. I agree there are miracles: (sings)
“Believe in miracles cause I’m one
I have been blessed with the power to survive
After all these years I’m still alive[16]”.
[1] The section in italics is extracted from the script of The Life of Brian by Monty Python, 1979. The remainder of the script has been created to illustrate a variety of arguments for and against the existence of god based on miracles.
[2] Hume, ‘Of Miracles,’ R+W, p.498
[3] In 30CE, death would presumably have been established by breathing, the knowledge of heart and its measurement through pulse not having been understood then.
[4] John 11 recounts Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany who has been four days dead.
[5] C.f., Arthur C. Clarke’s observation that “Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
[6] Given that no other life has been yet found in the universe, the existence of life must count as an extreme, even singular example of an exceptional event, ‘E’ as defined by Swinburne in his paper, ‘Miracles’, R+W, p.500. As an interesting aside, the film The Life of Brian featured a bizarre scene where Brian was saved miraculously from a premature death, quite coincidentally, by a passing alien spaceship.
[7] Hume, ‘Of Miracles,’ R+W, p.495
[8] Swinburne, ‘Miracles,’ R+W, p.505
[9] c.f., Hume, ‘Of Miracles’ R+W, p.496
[10] c.f., Hume, ‘On Miracles,’ R+W, p.496
[11] Swinburne, ‘Miracles,’ R=W, p.505, from his argument that if god exists, then an explanation that an exceptional event “E is due to activity of a god is more adequately substantiated, and the occurrence of E gives further support to the evidence for the existence of a god.”
[12] Not to be confused with Douglas Adams, the author who did create a book entitled LIfe, the Universe and Everything
[13] Swinburne, ‘Miracles,’ R+W, p.506 invokes Occam’s razor to justify god as the simplest explanation.
[14] Pascal’s Wager
[15] Kathryn Kuhlman, I believe in miracles, Gainesville, FL : Bridge-Logos Publishers, 1990, p.1
[16] “I believe in miracles” by The Ramones, 1986, later re-recorded by Pearl Jam, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwFydcnAVQ The Ramones
I think that the notion of karma, and the related notion of rebirth are bunk! So, if I don’t believe in karma, why would I do good? I believe that I do – but why? In this essay, I explore karma and the reason why people are good.
Karma is defined as being about cause and effect. In Buddhism, karma is more correctly identified as ‘cause[1],’ it is the action that will eventually result in an effect.
Karma is likened to a seed that will ultimately bear a fruit (vipaka):
"According to the seed that’s sown,
So is the fruit you reap therefrom,
Doer of good will gather good,
Doer of evil, evil reaps,
Down is the seed and thou shalt taste the fruit thereof[2]."
This passage is strikingly similar to a section of Paul’s letter to the Galatians[3], the first verse being: “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
Finally, it is important to note that while karma is referred to as an action, karma is more about the intention underlying the action. However, it is acknowledged that actions originating from a deluded mind, even if well-intended, can sow a negative karmic seed[4].
So (the fruit of) karma provides a strong motivation to exercise good intentions and actions. But how is karma distinguished from an alternative motivation such as the Abrahamic god?
Karma says that good actions will attract positive outcomes later in this life or another. However, the Abrahamic god provides a similar reward-structure. Abrahamic scriptures say that a person’s actions will be rewarded or punished as appropriate in the afterlife, e.g., “As for the righteous, they shall surely triumph. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high-bosomed maidens: a truly overflowing cup[5]”
Which reward structure is true? It seems impossible to know, at least here and now, although both Abrahamic apologists and Buddhists tell me that I will become aware of the truth of their position with the passage of time – although presumably only one can be correct. In this moment then, the choice appears to be a matter of personal preference.
I have a preference for karma as it encourages the individual to take responsibility for his/her actions. The Abrahamic view sometimes casts humans as helpless pawns at the mercy of God’s power (e.g., Job).
But what if one does not believe in karma or rebirth (or an afterlife)?
While the Buddha exhorts his followers to believe in karma and rebirth, he acknowledges that there are few who can have direct knowledge or ‘experience’ of these two principles. Therefore, Buddhists must largely accept these ‘truths’ as acts of faith[6]. That is, they choose to believe; however, they do not know.
The skeptic is characterized as someone who falls short of believing. S/he is an ‘infidel,’ literally faithless, a non-believer[7]. There are however, a range of choices between believing and disbelieving. In the middle is doubt. The skeptic can range from doubt to strong disbelief. And strong disbelief, agnosticism as it was originally defined[8], is really an opposite belief. Agnostics believe (even ‘know’) that the knowledge is unobtainable.
The Buddha sees skepticism as “eel-wriggling”[9] However, the Buddha also encourages critical thinking about the claims of spiritual teachers[10]. So Buddha encourages skepticism of ‘authority’ on one hand, and encourages belief in principles without personal experience and on his authority on the other. Sounds like two eels intertwined to me!
Ultimately, the unknown is a matter of belief. It seems difficult to judge one belief as superior to another if the truth is unknown.
More pragmatically, the Buddha argues “that to believe in (the principles of karma and rebirth), and so live a moral life will lead to a good rebirth if rebirths exist. If rebirths do not exist, nothing will have been lost, and the person will in any case have been praised by wise people[11].”
Interestingly, this statement hints at why someone would be good – regardless of their belief or doubt in the concept of karma.
The problem of good can be stated as follows: if one does not believe in karma, what is the motivation to be good?
One obvious reason is the ‘rewards’ and ‘punishments’ in this life. A person may be complimented (“praised by wise people” as in the quote above), liked or receive other rewards for good deeds, and may be criticized, judged or punished for bad deeds. From this point of view, it is sensible for a person to be good – even without believing in karma.
Another reason is intrinsic motivation and that being good has its own rewards. Following the ‘right’ way feels good, deviating feels bad. The Epicurean philosophy of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain reflects a simple version of this notion[12]. More subtly, most ethical systems, religious or secular, encourage a person to strive for right conduct and a life worth living[13].
The notion of intrinsic rewards is well captured in the notion of “pay it forward” where the recipient of a good deed is invited to do a good deed for another. The original do-gooder does not get any direct reward; their only possible reward is the hope that someone else – and maybe many eventually – will benefit.
This idea does not invoke karma or any rewards after this life. While popularized by a 2000 film called Pay it forward, the practice is traced back to 1784[14] when Benjamin Franklin extended a loan to Benjamin Webb.
Therefore, karma motivates good actions, but good actions may have other motivations. There are many who are good even if they do not believe in the Buddhist form of karma.
So, karma is not needed to explain why people are good. How does it go in explaining bad actions and bad events?
Buddhists argue that karma is a satisfactory explanation for the suffering (dukkha) of people “who have done nothing to deserve it in this life[16].” That is, their past actions in this or another birth account for what they are experiencing today. Buddhists further argue that the karmic balance sheet is inaccessible (“unthinkable”) to anyone but a Buddha[17].
The argument is similar to the Abrahamic argument asking believers to accept that god is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. God’s actions cannot be understood by mortals, followers must trust that God treats people as they deserve and has (good) reasons for his actions[18].
Interestingly, Buddhism uses what is typically known as the ‘problem of evil’ to dismiss the notion of an Abrahamic God (identified as Brahma). Epicurus is often credited with being the first to describe this rebuttal for the existence of God:
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;
or he can, but does not want to.
If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.
If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.
If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"[19]
However, the argument from dukkha (suffering) is laid out by Buddha (who predated Epicurus) in the Bhûridatta Jataka which is in turn a story about one of the Buddha’s previous lives (therefore long predating Epicurus!):
He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
Why does not Brahma set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limits can restrain,
Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness? [20]
Dukkha appears to serve a more fundamental role in Buddhism – it is the first Holy Truth. So, is dukkha inevitable, or is it a consequence of karma?
The first Truth states that there is dukkha. The second that dukkha comes from cravings. However, karma states that dukkha comes from past actions. The second Truth and karma are not inconsistent – the second Truth focuses on proximal causes, karma on distal causes – but they do give cause to pause on the issue of cause.
I accept the first Truth, but I do not believe karma. I have experienced dukkha but not karma. My lack of belief about karma does nothing to discredit the validity of the Four Truths. I acknowledge that I create dukkha through my cravings (second Truth). Of course, I seek to end dukkha (third Truth), and I believe that the Eightfold Path is an appropriate approach (fourth Truth).
Interestingly, given that I do not believe in rebirth, I have at least relinquished my craving for existence beyond this life, and presumably, I have made at least some tentative steps towards the Buddhist ideal of ‘not-self.’
Overall, I find Buddhist (and Abrahamic) cosmological views challenging as they are supported with little to no evidence. They are therefore, a matter for personal belief.
Moreover, I see such beliefs as irrelevant. It is as in the Buddha’s Parable of the Arrow where a man wounded by an arrow asks the name of the archer[21]. Such knowledge is irrelevant. So it is with karma. I am concerned about finding the right path in this life. To know the truth of karma is for me, irrelevant.
[1]
[2] Samyutta Nikaya, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samyutta_Nikaya, accessed 9oct08
[3] Galatians, 6.7-10
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma, accessed9oct08
[5] The Koran, 78th surah entitled “The Tidings” (or Al-Naba’), Dawood, N.A. (trans.), p. 417. It is interesting to note that Islam like Buddhism appears to favour
[6]
[7] http://www.answers.com/topic/infidel, accessed 10oct08
[8] Thomas Huxley created the term ‘agnostic’ and defined the ‘strong’ position : “They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.” Huxley, Thomas. Collected Essays, 237-239
[9]
[10] Anguttara Nitaya, I.189, cited by
[11]
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus, accessed 10oct08
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics, accessed 11oct08
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_it_forward, accessed 9oct08
[15] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Franklin_to_Benjamin_Webb, accessed 9oct08
[16]
[17] Anguttara Nikaya, IV.77, cited by
[18] e.g., see Job, 34.10-13
[19] Haught, James A., 2000 Years of Disbelief: Famous People With the Courage to Doubt, 1996
[20] Bhuridatta Jataka, VIII, http://www.borobudur.tv/avadana_03.htm, accessed 8oct08
[21] Majjhima Nikaya 1.426, cited by Nelson, Peter, “The Buddha: Our Spiritual ‘Contemporary’”, originally published Westender Vol. 5(3), April, 2002, http://www.buddhanet.net/spiritual-contemporary.htm, accessed 26sep08
Donald Rumsfeld
Introduction
Enormous amounts of human endeavour are aimed at the getting of knowledge. Academics, scientists, educationalists and students are all interested in knowledge for its own sake. Businesses and governments are interested in knowledge for what it might do for them or allow them to do. Everyday people in their everyday lives want knowledge – be it expertise, sporting facts or gossip – both for its own sake and for what it can do for them.
But what constitutes knowledge? Many people may claim to have knowledge, but the claim (belief) alone is insufficient to constitute knowledge. For instance, many people claim to have knowledge about what influences their behaviour. Many would be willing to claim that advertising has no effect on their purchasing patterns. Many people (even the same ones!) would be willing to claim that subliminal advertisements in cinemas (presentations of ads so brief that they are not perceived consciously) can affect purchasing patterns – perhaps not their own so that they are consistent with their first belief!
I doubt that people have very complete knowledge about what influences their behaviour. And I doubt that the provision of ‘justification’ separates knowledge from non-knowledge. A woman says that she generally has no awareness of an ad when making a purchase, and justifies her claim by saying that if an ad has come to mind at the time of purchase, she explicitly refuses to buy the advertised brand. She also believes that subliminal ads have an influence on people, and as justification, points to a newspaper article from the late 1950s reporting that subliminal ads affected purchasing patterns.
My view is that the woman’s justifications add nothing to establishing whether she has knowledge or not. I believe that this woman is affected by advertising – without her awareness. I also believe that people are little affected by subliminally-presented stimuli. Determining whether she or I have knowledge can only be established if we ‘know’ the truth. The provision of justification does nothing to change the truth value of the claim. Plato’s definition that knowledge is ‘justified true belief’ is widely held today. I however, wonder whether the proposition that the true belief be justified is justified.
How does justification support true belief ?
Justification is, in my view, an attempt to show that truth and belief are aligned by simultaneously ‘proving’ the truth and bolstering the belief.
Justification serves first as a bootstrapping argument in support of the truth of a proposition. Whether a proposition such as ‘advertising has no effect on me’ is true is difficult to establish independently. We become more confident about the truth only through the passage of time and more specifically, through accumulated evidence. The evidence gathered increases our confidence of the claim of the truth value of the proposition, but does not prove it. The problem is that of induction where a number of instances may increase our confidence that some proposition is true, but they cannot prove irrefutably the truth of the proposition.
As a corollary to the role of justification as a proxy for truth, justification serves as a means of emphasizing our belief. A justification is however, just another belief, a belief about a belief. A justification, like the belief in a proposition, is a value-judgment, it is subjective and personal. Adding a belief about what justifies the first belief leads us to an infinite regress. Better to simply accept that the first belief is a direct personal experience, and cannot be questioned.
The insufficiency of justification
The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy states that: “Not all true beliefs constitute knowledge; only true beliefs arrived at in the right way constitute knowledge.”[1] The assertion begs the question as to what is the ‘right way’? Arguing that only certain methods (as argued in reliabilism[2]) give us knowledge has a long history – with repeated failures. For instance, Galileo’s effort to show heliocentrism was denied as the telescope was dismissed as an unacceptable method of demonstrating his claims. However, as Arthur C. Clarke said, “Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
Introspection is a method that is generally dismissed in psychology today – even while William James’ highly regarded contributions to the field were typically based on this approach. In the study of customer psychology today, there are two approaches to generating knowledge known as quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative research typically relies on complex statistical analyses about which many will argue or even reject as akin to “lies.” Qualitative research is rejected by many as lacking in rigour, validity and reliability.
If someone states their belief and justifies it based on voices or a vision, many would be prone to dismiss any claim for that proposition being knowledge. People arguing on the basis of a hunch or intuition might be similarly dismissed. However, there are parts of accepted knowledge today which appear to have come from essentially these types of sources. The chemist Kekulé claims that he realized that the benzene molecule was a closed-ring structure after seeing a snake swallowing its own tail during a daydream[3].
The field of psychology suggests that the explanations that people give for their behaviour are often constructed after the fact and only on questioning[4]. That is, justification follows belief, and is constructed in the way of backward reasoning[5] and / or self interest[6]. We humans dedicate a lot of energy to explaining tragedies such as air disasters (e.g., Challenger), mass murderers (e.g., the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007), and terrorism (e.g., 9-11). While post-event justifications may comfort humans, the ability of these justifications to establish knowledge appears to be dubious.
Another example of backward reasoning is argument by vindication. People may argue from subsequent evidence that their belief served them appropriately, and is therefore vindicated. However, if a person carries an umbrella every day, one day they will be vindicated for doing so. This reasoning puts me in mind of the bumper sticker, “Just ‘cos you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that people aren’t out to get you.”
Justification in rhetoric
While the justification does not add to knowledge, it certainly helps in the communication of knowledge. For example, essays with strong reasons are far more compelling than those with poor reasons. However, powerful rhetoric does not constitute truth. Marketing communications and advertising are designed to persuade people, and provide justification for people to do so. The question of whether the belief is correctly aligned with truth is not important to rhetoric – something useful for the gullible to bear in mind.
Justification and meta-knowledge
If knowledge is based on only two conditions, truth and belief, can we know anything or are we left with the morass suggested by Donald Rumsfeld’s quote at the beginning of this essay? Justification appears to help resolve the problem of meta-knowledge. Justification increases our confidence that our belief is aligned with the truth by providing justification. It does not give us knowledge as noted earlier; but it makes us feel more comfortable that we know what we think we know.
Like truth on which it depends, knowledge is unknowable in an absolute sense. However, we are generally confident that we have ‘knowledge’, and accept that knowledge will be revised from time to time. Happily and encouragingly, the knowledge we operate on appears to work for us most of the time, much like the problem of induction is not a major concern for the pragmatist.
How do we live with the idea that knowledge is unknowable? In much the same way that we are unable to comprehend infinity.
My views are to some extent in accord with those of Feyeraband[7]. In a sense, I see that the development of knowledge is an ongoing movement of belief towards truth – whether the justifications are good or not. People once justified the existence of the earth and life on one or more gods; some still do. Others (e.g., Richard Dawkins, Douglas Adams (of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy fame, etc.) prefer to rely on a theory derived from the notion of evolution. Given the objective of philosophy is often to elevate ‘reason’ to a supreme place, it is not surprising perhaps that justification should count as important in the definition of knowledge. However, as stated by Feyerabrand in the last chapter of Against Method (1975), “Praise of argument takes it for granted that the artifices of Reason give better results than the unchecked play of our emotions.”
In practical terms, I believe that we must accept the ‘truth’ of some proposition on a perpetual conditional basis. That is, we accept the truth for the moment, but we may have to revise this in light of disconfirming evidence (as proposed by Popper). Therefore, while we can talk of the ‘truth’ of a proposition, it would appear to me that the truth of any proposition is unknowable and cannot be independently established. Nevertheless, it does seem appropriate to me that knowledge is defined as those beliefs which are true – regardless of the justification given.
[2] Prof. Alvin Goldman, See Alvin Goldman "justification, epistemic" The Oxford Companion to Philosophy.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t116.e1304
[3] http://www.chemsoc.org/timeline/pages/1864_benzene.html & http://www.brilliantdreams.com/product/famous-dreams.htm
[4] For example, there is an extensive and sometimes horrifying literature on the construction of memories - see
[5] A recent article in the NY Times suggests that Kekulé’s account of developing the benzene ring through a dream is a fiction created by Kekulé and others. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DF113BF935A2575BC0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
[6] Clifford, William K., The Ethics of Belief, originally published in Contemporary Review, 1877, now available on the internet : http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html
[7] http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/ph29a/feyerabe.htm,
