7-Mar-12 Knowledge - True belief plus evidence?

This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we are going to discuss what knowledge is.

How do we come to the conclusion that we "know" something? 

The following quote from Bertrand Russell's "Theory of Knowledge" illustrates the difficulty in defining knowledge. "The question how knowledge should be defined is perhaps the most important and difficult of the three with which we shall deal. This may seem surprising: at first sight it might be thought that knowledge might be defined as belief which is in agreement with the facts. The trouble is that no one knows what a belief is, no one knows what a fact is, and no one knows what sort of agreement between them would make a belief true." 

When does a thought become a belief?

What is a fact?

How would we know that they agree?

If and when we do prove that there is agreement between the belief and the fact, what are the assumptions under which this agreement is valid?

Will this agreement continue to be valid the future? How do we "know" that without having the ability to foretell the future?

If we are not sure that this agreement will be true in the future, what is the point?  What good is knowledge that may not be true tomorrow?  After all, the real reason we want knowledge is so that we can put it to good use in the future, so is it not pointless if we are not sure it will apply after today?

Will we ever be able to know all there is to know about anything?  Since the answer is likely no, then how will we ever be able to tell that what we "know" today will not be proven invalid tomorrow?

I am reminded of the turkey story.  To the turkey in a turkey farm,  the turkey farmer is the turkey's best friend.  Everyday the farmer comes to feed the turkey and clean the barn to make life comfortable for the turkey.  The turkey has every fact to confirm its belief that the farmer is its best friend and benefactor.   Then two weeks before Thanksgiving, the farmer comes and wring the turkey's neck.

Are we still sure that what seems good to us so far is not going to turn on us in the future?

What about facts?

We can perform repeatable experiments to show a certain scientific rule or principle. Ever since Archimedes jumped out of his bath to run down the streets yelling "Eureka!" we believe that we know why things float. Seems pretty certain and elemental.

Even ship disappearance in the Bermuda triangle are explained by Archimedes principle on the basis of bubbling gases that sank the ships.  But how do we know that it is not that the principle is flawed and we are just hanging on to our trusted belief?  How do we know that there is not going to be a future Einstein that will show us under what conditions Archimedes principles may not hold?

If black and white scientific principles can leave room for doubt, then everything else that have fuzzy boundaries and interpretations will be that much more uncertain.

How do we draw the line to say that we are confident enough that we can say we know and file the information away as knowledge?

When should we have enough doubt to bring it back out to reexamine that particular belief against more "facts"?

""Theory-induced blindness" is a term used to describe the tendency that once you have accepted a theory and used it as a tool in your thinking, it is extraordinarily difficult to notice its flaws.  If you come upon an observation that does not seem to fit the model, you assume that there must be a perfectly good explanation that you are somehow missing.  You give the theory the benefit of the doubt, trusting the community of experts who have accepted it."  (from Thinking Fast and Slow,  Daniel Kahneman)

I am sure the philosophers among us will enlighten us on the rich history of philosophical discussions on knowledge.  Please also bring your own experiences and anecdotes to share about when the light bulb turned on for you and you "know" something.

Looking forward to your ideas this Wednesday.