Quote:
|
I'm more interested in the state of my belief prior to verification. True, I could get on a plane, come visit you, get my bad self all sloppy up with cheesesteak, but prior to me actually doing that, I still have a justified true belief that you live in Philly. The point where we might disagree is that I think I'm able to call this belief "knowledge" in the normal sense. I have enough justification for my true belief that I can say "I *know* that UT lives in Philly.
|
My belief in the existence of UT can never be fully justified. There will always be some room for error, no matter how negligible. I can phly to philly, walk up the steps and ring the bell, and when UT answers, still not have "proof" that UT lives in Philly. Maybe this is someone pretending to be UT. Maybe I'm at the wrong house. Maybe he's just visiting. And what exactly is the definition of Undertoad? What is his core essence - not a physical body, which can conceivably be simulated, but the undeniable Undertoadness of Undertoad. How can I see it, verify its truth, and place it in Philly (if such a place even exists) to the point that absolutely NO unanswered questions remain? I can choose disbelief forever, based on the fact that not all factors can be simultaneously proven true.
So whether belief is justified is based entirely on personal interpretation. Your model accounts for absolute truth and falsity, but doesn't define what "good reason" is. Most importantly, it doesn't have a variable for "the price of tea in China", which is presumably the reason we're trying so hard to find this UT person.