Matt Huss John Taber Epistemology Due: November 1, 2013

Fishing for the Truth Knowledge is an eel. Try to grasp it and it slips away like mercury. Squeeze too hard when you think you have it and you might get the shock of skepticism. This is primarily due to the unhinging of epistemological ideas from their real world counterparts. Clarification can be realized by reattaching justification, truth and belief to their respective physical, psychological and/or physiological systems in our distinct reality. These systems are variable based on the observer and her current situation so each must first be clarified and anchored. Knowledge is only slippery because the classical formulation of knowledge = justified, true belief has not been subjected to a detailed system-wide deconstruction and re-construction. Requisite interdependence defines the boundaries of the field of potential knowledge and perceptual/cognitive interpretation can conclusively brand knowledge within one of these closed systems which are multiplied by the rich array of distinct perceptual and cognitive systems as well as the range of opinions concerning how certain knowledge must be to be called knowledge. In short, knowledge is a semantic construct fashioned at the intersection of symbiotic human systems and truth. Truth is not yellow but knowledge might be. Naive realism would passionately reject the idea that knowledge is constructed in this way. why doesnt work

Since the relationship between knowledge and truth is at the core of epistemology, and since the communication of any system must begin by defining terms, we will start there.

Epistemology arguments seem to assume some definition of knowledge while arguing for or against the justified, true belief definition, in part or in whole. The difference between practical knowledge as used in the development and deployment of technology is generally isolated from pure knowledge generally taken to be correspondence with the truth. Knowledge, in general usage, is a spectrum of almost infinite points ranging from the absolutely definite correspondence with truth to a guess or an accident that happens to be true. As this is a first step, or prolegomena, to a more fully developed epistemological system, I will use the most basic and precise definition of knowledge as corresponding exactly to truth. This is not as obvious a definition as might be assumed since truth will need to be deconstructed as well. Truth has multiple facets including space, time, semantics, religious, moral and probably more. Any single facet or combination of which may be identified by different views as truth. Space-truth means the physical mind-independent, unmediated substance which is exactly the same for one observer as it is for another observer in exactly the same space and time. It may be made of particles, waves, forces or some other physicality that has yet to be detected. Physicists continue to argue, discover and interpret what space consists of so this truth will not be dissected further than to say there is something out there which will be called space-truth. It is some form of physicality. Extension in space is and was true long before any consciousness existed that could interpret and name it as such. Light exists and therefore darkness exists as the absence of light. Light bounces off an arced extension in space, and some movement in space occurs (particle, wave, field etc.) that reaches another extended object. Other messages of space-truth exists that can be potentially perceived as taste, hardness, smell, sound or some other perceptual device such as the technological instruments that detect changes in radiation, wind, sound and even

different levels of gravity right our own planet. That is all that space-truth accomplishes. A banana is an arc-shaped extension in space that reflects light and exudes other physical messages. Time-truth relates to a statement of knowledge that concerns an instance of truth that is correlated with something happening or existing in a particular time-slice. The temporal dimension of, My wife will make dinner tonight is an example of time-truth. Tonight is the salient time-truth element though there are other truth facets involved with the statement. The most basic definition will again be stipulated for the moment: nothing is true until it has happened. Truth can be identified in the past and present but the claim to know that my wife will make dinner for me tonight is not true until she actually does make dinner. Semantic-truth concerns language and the many games that can be played in the semantic sandbox. This is perhaps the most slippery of the facets of truth so far since the almost insufferable weight of language supports it like a fisherman on a lichen covered rock. Gettier problems play with semantics. Bill owns a Ford. Bill is someone in an office. Therefore someone in that office owns a Ford. But Bill sold the Ford to Gary who is also in that office. Someone in the office owns a Ford remains a true statement, but only by accident. Bill told me he sold it to Gary, so I told Hannah I had an accident with a Ford. Whos on first? These games can be extended but they will try to be avoided as much as possible by clearly defining terms. Religious and moral truth will not be addressed here either though the proposed system may have applications for them after further development and nuancing. Justification seems to be quite controversial as many of the epistemological arguments focus on it. One definition of justification will be defined as a first step, but that definition may be altered and the JTB closed-system will still work.

Every sentient being makes predictions of varying precision about truth based on consistent causal perceptions of past experiences as well as the capability of remembering those causal connections either consciously or not. A hungry lioness sees, hears and smells a group of objects that creates an urge to hunt them. They move, they stink and they have black and white stripes. Every time she ate one of these objects in the past her hunger was sated. Does she remember all those times? Does she remember being taught to do so? That is extremely doubtful and yet she is completely justified in hunting the zebra since her hunger is, once again, satisfied. Her physiological/psychological capabilities are the source of her justification. Perhaps it is instinct and not a reliable belief forming process that drives her to hunt. This does not in the least diminish her justification. A wildlife photographer does not have the same perceptual abilities or taste for raw zebra meat that the lioness has and yet she is also justified in tracking down these smelly black and white objects since every time she found them in the past and turned the cylinder and pressing the button on the small black box in her hand, her desire for a photograph of a zebra had been sated. The photographer may well remember her childhood to shoot wildlife, her first camera, the support from her family, her education and the many trips driving a jeep over rough terrain, spending hours waiting for the right moment. The justification for her knowledge that she will get a pic of zebras is no greater than the lioness justification for getting a lick of zebra. Belief is fairly uncontroversial, generally understood as a mental state concerning some level of certainty about truth. The introduction of belief, or mental state, indicates that There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy of pure spacetruth. There must be a self-conscious subject in relation to truth that is capable of forming a justified belief.

We now have clearly defined terms that can be brought into relationship. Space-truth entails an extended object that generally reflects light and might radiate various other physical signals. Sentient beings have perceptual capacities that can interpret these signals and are justified through habituation or instinct to recognize similar experiences and thus to act accordingly. A self-conscious being can reflect on these experiences and identify and generally articulate a belief about what is true. Justification, belief and truth create a boundary around which potential knowledge can be demarcated. Potential knowledge is the accumulation of all the justified truths that might be believed. Once a point of justified truth is believed, it becomes knowledge. Perceptual facility, cognitive potential and truth-type are variables that can be combined in myriad ways. For instance, a blind person will not have the same domain of potential knowledge that a sighted person does. Even a sighted person will be limited when compared to an artist that can detect slightest variation of shade in a color. The artist will not have the same domain as the theoretical physicist who can cognize mathematical abstractions that most of us have no access to. The person standing in Times Square has a greater domain of potential knowledge concerning the shirt on the person standing next to her than does her sister living in San Francisco. If they are on the phone and talking about the color of that persons shirt, then each sisters justification is different though their domains have been integrated. In fact, each persons domain of potential knowledge is different. Does this not lead to radical relativism? It does not lead to relativism due to the massive correspondence or trans-subjectivity of humanity. The vast majority of humans have extremely similar perceptual and cognitive abilities. Yellow is not truth and consequently a banana is not yellow. That is, until multiple perceptual experiences can be verified as similar across many perceivers and then certain groups of

conceivers agree to call that experience yellow. Truth must be interpreted to become knowledge. Interpretation is the final concept necessary to knowledge. Perceivers, via justification and conceivers via belief agree to call a banana yellow. Similar perceivers with a different social contract on language say bann je lut (Czech). Turks say bir muz sar. In Haitian Creole it si yon fig se jn. The system is separate and closed for each of these people. Any of them may, of course, gain access to the other systems by learning the language. The perception of yellow remarkably does not change when you learn a new language. It may change if you spend years studying color and achieve the capacity to perceive so many shades of yellow that dark yellow now looks like a completely different color than light yellow. Knowledge is not a word, an idea, a concept that is self-sufficient. It is completely dependent on clearly defined and chosen versions of justification, truth and belief. Any system of knowledge must first identify the spectrum of certainty by which knowledge is to be gauged. Next is to choose which facet of truth is to be examined. A definition of justification based on perceptual capabilities and recognition of cognitive/conceptual potential must be ascertained. Truth, justification and belief can now enclose a domain of potential knowledge into a closed system based on the chosen or discovered definitions of the three. It is closed because no other knowledge is possible unless one or more of the three variables that encompass knowledge is altered. This is completely permissible as long as the epistemologist clearly articulates the variation. The domain of potential knowledge is interpreted using the three variables and where they coincide we have the confident assertion of knowledge. This is not a new system of knowledge. It is the same old formula of truth + justification + belief = knowledge. All that has been done here is to clearly define the terms, recognize the dependence between them, demarcate the field of potential knowledge that is bounded by JTB

and the to stress the importance of interpreting all the variables before designating anything as knowledge. Handles have been attached to the eel so that it can be held, grasped, analyzed and provide a sense of closure.