Where does the justification of our knowledge come from?

Question

Do we justify our knowledge based on others? For example, we gain knowledge from learning information perceived to be "fact". For example, we have learned that grass is green. (for arguement's sake, just agree the grass is green). This would be taken as "fact". However, it had to have been based on someone else's opinion based on observation and perception of what to call the color "green", and that grass possesses this trait. However, we accept this as "fact", because someone else would have had to also agree that grass is "green" for it to be accepted by still OTHER people. For example, I could say the sky is "purple polka dotted" but I would only be justified of my knowledge if someone else agreed with me, and once I got that justification, then I would "know".
However, if we only know what we know based on perception, and perception is limited to the senses. Can't we all perceive things differently? Also, perception is not 100% reliable. (for example.... (con't)

so if perception is not 100% reliable, then could it also be said that if we only gain knowledge through perception and perception is unique to the individual (we all perceive things differently) that knowledge really comes from within ourselves? But, without justification of this, have we achieved knowledge? Which is right? An internal or an external view of the justification of knowledge?

Answer 1

uhhhh.....my head hurts......

Answer 2

An external view of the justification of knowledge is bound to fall down before the point that all external interaction is done through an individuals highly varied perceptions, thoroughly distorting what truly exists (if we wish to assume that anything does exist beyond our mere perceptions). Thus any number of people agreeing that grass is green does not justify that it truly is so, it may simply mean that all of the observers have been misled by their senses into believing the grass to be green.

While not perfect, I believe that an internal justification of knowledge is slightly more perfect than an external. Hearkening back to the Platonic theory of the Forms, knowledge based solely on rational thought rather than perceptions is closer to truth. For example, one can come to the conclusion that 2+2=4. This conclusion was not made using outside perceptions, nor must it be reinforced by seeking the opinions of others. It holds truth in and of itself.

Answer 3

Good question.
Indeed requires deep thinking to understand and reply for someone who does not want to go by what other philosophers have already theorised.

I think we can look at it as a two way process to firm up an information as knowledge. Perception gives us an information. This information is compared with other similar ones in our memory. Similarities found turn into knowledge or confirmed information. Dissimilarities found are stored in the memory for further confirmation.

Our knowledge is based on perception plus logic. Information becomes knowledge through repetitive occurrence - that is, results from both perception and logic remain unchanged a number of times. All the knowledge we have is based on our perception and logic with an underlying assumption of certainty - that is to say that there is a one-to-one relationship between cause and effect.

Perception includes what we read in books or hear others say etc., and such second hand perception is the greater source of our knowledge and affords possibility to accumulate over time much more than what is naturally stored and conveyed through genes.

Well, therefore, I would say knowledge is justified internally and not externally - anything coming from any external source is only information which we convert into knowledge through internal justification. This internal justification is through repetitive occurrence of the same set of cause and effect - based on the assumption of certainty meaning that cause and effect have a fixed one-to-one relationship.

Answer 4

we all base our judgements on our experience (which is ultimately our perceptions) and those experiences are defined by our senses, yes.

social definitions of any given thing are 'fact' only when, according to scientific methodology, we all agree on a given defining factor -- regardless of whether or not that factor (or the perception thereof) can have evidence that it is subjective.

on the surface, we can all 'agree' that love is good and hate is bad.... based on common, majoral experiences (perceptions) that have been grouped together in agreement. however, the deeper we delve, 'love' and 'hate' become different when defined under different (perhaps more individual) circumstances.

you make the following statement:

[ I would only be justified of my knowledge if someone else agreed with me, and once I got that justification, then I would "know". ]

... which is something i disagree with.

you 'know' fire is hot and will cause you great pain if you touch it... but not because another entity agrees with you. there are certain personal assumptions (perceptions) you can gather that are 'knowledge' without having it validated through another's agreement.

as far as i'm concerned, 'knowledge' is merely 'experience' that you can gather information from... be it personal or as a collective.

Answer 5

We are all homo-sapiens we are all the same race and from the same ancestor Adam ,, we are programmed to perceive the world the same way the same as our DNA has the coded information which cant be changed , that is why we perceive things according to the same criteria even though slightly different, it is then impossible to find a green grass purple just because of a different opinion ..

Answer 6

basically, if you justify it with something that's already been justified, then the knowledge is justified.

but then you ask if an internal or external view is better...

to which i respond, internal.

if i was perfectly fine, and group A said i was condition X, but my friend B says i'm not, then your theory of external justification would say that i am indeed in condition X.

if external justification is true, then that means that whatever society labels me would be true.

lets say society labels me as a nerd.

but i get Cs.

external justification does not work.

internal justification doesn't fly too well either, but it's the better of the two.

Answer 7

I can't believe i'm answering this question. I think you should have put more thought into your question. Knowledge does not need justification.
the most basic element on the planet has a type of knowledge if it didn't it would not be able to do what it supposed to do. So it seems to me that justification more or less is something that needs to be proven. Which further tells me that knowledge is just a term used to prove that, which has learned. And stop analyzing the Matrix, they put less thought into their analytical mindbenders than you put into your question. I apologize if this sounds insulting.

Answer 8

You sound a bit like Descartes, who thought the only thing absolutely certain was that he existed , since he couldnt doubt that he doubted he existed, for he'd still be thinking doubting

But i think your question goes beyond this. You're asking - in essence- "What are the conditions for the possibility for Knowing/Episteme/Science?"
I would reply...The principle of identity, non contradiction, and causality, coupled with the subject object relationship....
For me to "know" anything, let us say a cup, I must first remove the cup from my "world" -my open relational context of meaning - of using the cup as a mere tool, something i drink out of; The cup then becomes an object (something placed over and against ) for me who then becomes an observable subject. The subject object relationship is then born, which can follow from it the laws of identity, causality etc.. e.g. The law of identity states that something is the same with itself, i.e. self-same. Something however can only be self-same if it is removed out of its context of meaning , its lived world, then , and only then can it be studied scientifically and "known" in the sense you mean.
I think your question goes a bit beyond this too in that your addressing the question of language and reference...i.e. Does what I refer to (call) grass really refer to what my neighbor refers to when he says "grass." I think the answer has to be yes, otherwise no one can communicate with anyone, greanted there are subjective differences of pereception and interpretation of how a grass functinos in your own life (lol). BUT nevertheless there is SOME identity between what you call grass and what I call grass. Again we are back to identity or the self-sameness of somethign with itself.

Answer 9

That is the problem with humanity, I believe. We try to find justification for so many things within ourselves, that we forget that there could possibly be an external source of knowledge. For example, I believe one is the Bible (inspired by God, that trascends human beings).

Another example of absolute truth: everything that is, "is" (the principle of identity). Try to deny it, and you will helplessly fall on nihilism (ie: nothing really exists).

Finally, I conclude that it all depends on the presumption you have when thinking about the problem. Mine: the Bible is the Word of God. Yours: "we know what we know based on our perception".

Answer 10

ego

Answer 11

through
living