PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: The Value of Knowledge [HD]

More on Jeremy Fantl:

----

Wi-Phi @ YouTube:

Wi-Phi @ Khan Academy:

Twitter:

Facebook:

Instagram:
@wiphiofficial

----

Help us caption & translate this video!

[andre.queiroz]

knowledge gives security about the future and mantains trust in whoever has knowledge. We humans like to be secure and trustworthy.

[dlon]

If you are invisible and inaudible to others, being called a liar is high praise
-- W R

[tetraedri_]

One can't have knowledge without evidence. This in mind I find it pretty clear why knowledge is better than true belief: first of all you can convince people more easily by showing the evidence and the conclusion. Even if it is as simple evidence as "I've seen it before, " it's easier to believe than "I believe this is true."

Second, in some cases you have the ability to use the evidence (and your knowledge) to deductively form new, seemingly unrelated truths, which become new knowledge. This can't be achieved by true belief. And this happens all the time for example in mathematics and natural sciences. I take mathematics as a general example.

Most if not all of the mathematical facts have first been observations or educated guesses, which in this form are just a beliefs. Then mathematician tries to find evidence for the hypothesis and in his way often needs to prove some other facts which are sufficient for the hypothesis to be right and which by their own wouldn't catch mathematicians attention. In most extreme cases mathematician comes up with entirely new mathematical theory to prove the statement. When the proof is ready, he knows all the necessary steps to make hypothesis knowledge, and every step in the proof is also a bit of knowledge mathematician can (and often does) use to find new truths.

[arnaldo]

knowledge isnt more valuable than being confident in the truth, but it is far more valiable than being confident in the wrong. the point is, unless you have knowledge, you dont know if what you have is confidence in the truth or in the wrong. thats why you should value knowledge more than confident belief

[everblu]

The consistency of being successful. That is the difference in my opinion.

[Yellowfruit]

I haven't even watched the vid but he was the prof of my first phil course and I loved him so much!!!

I think the Meno problem can be solved by appealing to ethics and responsibility.

If I have a supremely confident belief, then, being right is a matter of luck, for which I'm not responsible.
If I have knowledge, then, being right is a matter of my own capacity to reason and gather evidence, for which I am responsible.

There is value in being responsible for ourselves.
Ergo, knowledge is more valuable than beliefs.

My view also have the interesting feature of highlighting that someone who behaves according to confident beliefs that are not knowledge is acting irresponsibly.

[redsparks]

Knowledge can be transferred to anyone. Confidence in a belief can only be transferred to one that is prepared to take that same risk in that belief or can be convinced to take that same risk in that belief. Knowledge speaks for itself. But a strong belief has to have someone constantly speaking out for it.

[CalendulaF]

If I haven't got this wrong, I think that's an easy one: Knowledge is as much about justification as it is about truth. A belief is more or less a stepped down knowledge in both (1) truth (>> converted into probability) and (2) justification (>> converted into some disparate reasons that make for a greater or lesser likelihood). Therefore, I think the value of knowledge is mostly about (the value of) justification resp. the value of being able to rationalize and to explain ones belief. And that in turn has a number of advantages over (true) beliefs: It can be generalized; it can explain other facts and explanations; it can reveal connections and structure and so on and so forth. No?

Which brings me somewhat deeper into the value of knowlegde: I would go so far as to claim, that knowledge IS a value in itself. Regardless of it being true or successfull or usefull in any way. The value of knowledge is something of an axiom, it can not be grounded on a deeper value of something. Being knowledgeable is good in itself, even if there is no application for this knowledge at all. Knowledge (to put it the other way around) is an example for the very construction of value. One could ask: What is value? And one possible answer is: Knowlegde. And some explanations one might offer are: Striving for knowledge is a valid aim in life. Or: Striving for knowledge is a fundamental givenness of human beings. You get the drift. Comparing it to (true) belief is somewhat lame. Anybody can believe anything (and doesn't even require a reason). But knowledge requires reasoning; it requires learning and logical thinking as well as number of other activities. Has to do quite a lot with life itself.

[tuskinekinase]

Discussing a singular case in which the firm belief just happens to be right is futile. Knowledge (or 100% reliable belief)>somewhat reliable belief>completely baseless belief in their likelihood to yield consistent results, thus their values.

[Overonator]

Because knowledge has a higher probability of successful goal attainment in comparison to true beliefs.

[sagigila]

Surely the reason why it's better to know rather than guess and be right is that you can reproduce your answer with variance in a higher likelihood of sucess, while guessing is purely luck based which is more probable to fail than succeed the more you try to reproduce it.

[AAAA-udpu]

With belief but no knowledge there is a greater chance of being wrong. With knowledge there is a greater chance of being right.

[thatchinaboi]

The Meno Problem can easily be solved by pointing out how true knowledge differs from true beliefs in the sense that knowledge implies some sort of understanding as to why it is indeed true. True knowledge appeals to reason and is bolstered by the rigor of logic. True beliefs, on the otherhand appeals to the authority of others, which is a far less involved use of logic.

Having said this, knowledge itself requires a degree of belief at some level. Similarly, belief requires a degree of knowledge at some level as well. So the distinction between knowledge and belief may mislead some people into thinking the two are necessarily mutually exclusive when referring to the same thing.

If I believe in something, I have confidence in it's veracity. I may know what I believe is true, or I may think I know what I believe is true. How I achieve such a confidence doesn't change the fact that what I know or what I think I know is a belief.

Knowledge entails belief, but belief does not necessarily entail knowledge.

[thomase]

but what is knowledge and how do I distinguish it from confidence?

[logictruth]

Answering the last question: There wouldn't be any difference if your belief is strong enough for you to register it as truth because in both cases you believe in what you supposedly know and come to the conclusion that your claims have been confirmed. Belief and knowledge part when knowledge gains more depth to the topic or when belief can be suspended even for an instant.

[GuerillaBunny]

I don't think that knowledge itself has anything that sets it above a belif, but I think that's a backwards way of looking at it. Knowledge and beliefs are results of reasoning, good or not necessarily as good, respectively. And it's the reasoning that has value, in that good reasoning produces reliable results, while bad one doesn't.

[GaudioWind]

This video shows that, one way or the other, knowledge is always realated some kind of verifiable future prediction. If you can't make any prediction with your belief than it's not knowledge.

[deltamico]

Since every knowledge has to have an evidence, you can prove it to others so everyone can benefit from it and build anoter knowledge from there without wasting time testing if its true, because it's based on something they already believe in.

[k_tell]

Isn't the answer in probability and repeatably? If there are 20 junctions on the road to Larissa and you have to pick right or left correctly every time then it does not matter how confident you are of your random choices, you have less than one chance in a million of arriving at your destination, whereas if their is a friend in the car with you who has been before and has perfect recall you have effectively a 100% chance of getting there if you take his advice.