Does knowledge require the impossibility of doubt?

Question

According to the tri-partite definition of knowledge, it is comprised of justified, true belief. But can you believe something whilst still doubting it? Philosophers don't believe that the table they are leaning on is there... but they continue to lean on it nonetheless...

Answer 1

If I did not have doubt about any given subject I would not examine it. If nobody ever examined it, we would never learn about it. The impossibility of doubt would in my mind preclude the possibility of knowledge. For knowledge does not come by osmosis.

Answer 2

You can still have doubt and still learn.

To learn something you usually have to change something that you already 'know' to be true but which might be wrong. It would of course be absolutely normal to doubt yourself if you read an article on a topic and yet you already has a pre-conceived thesis about that topic. Doubt is just a good way to help you find what the truth really is. Without it, you would most likely just believe anything and everything that you saw/heard.

As for knowing a certain fact and still doubting it, sure you can. How else would the sciences change? People believe in a proof or a theory but then they begin to doubt and look into it more. Because of that doubt they probably learn more about that topic and they might even prove it to be false. So if anything, doubt helps us to find knowledge; but still "Everything in moderation"...too much doubt and you probably won't get anywhere.

Well I hope that helps.

Answer 3

As an example, you believe that the table is there as far as when you lean on it, it will support you. However, this knowledge is based on holding things to be true, such as a solid cannot pass though a solid, the definition of a solid, and reality on the whole. It is possible to doubt reality but still believe based on empirical observation that the table will hold you up. And now I've gone cross-eyed.

Answer 4

There is a difference between knowing something to be true and believing somthing to be true. Philosophers know the table is there and so lean on it. They argue about their beliefs because it justifies their opinions as philosophers.

Answer 5

Doubt is the starting point of understanding any thing,when we come to a state that the co-relation of thing is in agreement with our experience then doubt is cleared until some fresh information arrives then the thinking process re starts and try to resolve the doubt all over again, this process goes on till there is no further information on that topic.

Answer 6

surely true knowledge is knowing that you don't actually know anything, therefore the basis of knowledge IS doubt and without doubt we would not think and learn anything. Doubt creates curiosity and questions thus increasing knowledge whilst at the same time doubting that very knowledge you have just learnt.

Answer 7

Star question!!

Doubt is 'to question' and question lays the foundation of knowledge. But then no knowledge is permanent.... in course of time every knowledge gets further refined or qualified or sometimes even nullified. Knowledge therefore is relative to time. On this basis, I would say that knowledge at a point in time is that which is beyond all reasonable doubts at that point in time... the only doubt which would still be there would be based on the generality of uncertainty and inconsistency that defines time.

Answer 8

Yes it does.

So we really can't know anything, or totally believe in anything 100%. But we can suspect things, and act on our suspicions. Why should we act on suspicions? Strictly speaking we will never *know* if acting on them had any desirable result. Perhaps choosing to act vs choosing not ever to act is a totally arbitrary decision, since we can never know which choice truly yields better results, or even what sort of result would be a good one, for that matter.

On the other hand, even if our perceptions are wrong and/or improvable, it still can be desirable to perceive a certain thing whether we doubt its veracity or not. In other words, I don't know if the candy in my hand is there, but when I put it in my mouth it tastes sweet, so I choose to put it in my mouth, and so what if it's an illusion? Illusory sweetness is still desirable.

Lest we be reduced to hedonism, don't forget that intellectual perceptions can be even more satisfying and desirable than sensory perceptions, though their satisfaction is less direct. Unlike sensory perceptions, the possible illusory nature of intellectual perceptions can decrease the satisfaction they bring. But since they are generally neither provable nor disprovable, the possible reality of them can counter that.

Answer 9

Even if one does not acknowledge the philosophical truth of the physical world one may still interact with it on a purely physical level. If I did not believe in my own body that would not stop me moving.
I mean you don't believe in Godzilla do you? But if a giant lizard foot came through the roof of your house you probably would run away from Godzilla even though you don't believe in him.
Basically we have a dichotomy between mind and body and we can logically not believe in something but still interact with it in the physical world even if we refuse to acknowledge that it exists.

Answer 10

I think you can have knowledge and believe in something that you doubt. For Example, I know when my train is due to arrive, I believe that my train will arrive on time, but i also doubt it.