CORRECTION: We talk about the work of Edmund Gettier in this video and the photo we use is not of Edmund Gettier! Somehow, the internet used a wrong picture once and now everywhere you look, the same picture of this false Edmund Gettier appears. You can see his real face here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Gettier
This can't be said enough, but what you guys are doing is absolutely amazing. You guys have a fantastic cast and I feel privileged that you all make these videos for us. :)
The most ironic but truly philosophical aspect of this series is coming into each episode with questions and leaving with twice as many different questions
+Tara Mohammed Most human beings do not enjoy pondering the thought that everything they know could be wrong, down to even basic perception. Most human beings find it terrifying when they realize we can't even quantify what knowing stuff is. This kind of thinking makes people start questioning all their belief in what is real, kind of like descartes did, thus resulting in an existential crisis.
I am really liking this educational series. Hank is one of my favorite TH-cam hosts, I enjoy and learn from any video I watch with him in it. this series is no exception, full of information that is enjoyable to learn from.
I think the definition of knowledge as true, justified belief holds up even with Gettier cases. Gettier cases are just examples of situations where one thinks a belief is justified but it isn't. If the "justification" is fallacious, that fallacious argument doesn't actually support the conclusion and it is therefore not actually "justified".
Here's a case: A boy, who grew up in france, had been given a piece of plum pudding once by an older gentleman. Later as a young adult, he had a second piece of plum pudding at a party, and the same older gentleman came in at the same exact moment, having followed a wrong address to the same party by chance. Much later in his life, and far from home, he saw plum pudding on the menu at a restaurant, and ordered a piece, telling his friends that all that was missing was the older gentlemen he had always eaten the dish with before. But he had no plum pudding that day. Because the now quite elderly man was in the same restaurant and had only just ordered the last piece. Jung called this simultaneity: beliefs we hold, which are justified by evidence, and by strange coincidence or cosmic conspiracy turn out to be true, but where there is no logical, causal connection between our justified beliefs and the true reality. But I believe he would still have considered this a form of knowledge, a knowledge beyond knowing. He explained the power of many religions and superstitions with this concept.
Zaziuma (Patrick Jensen) I don't know why, I'm just asserting that we can't know whether those cats were the same or not. For all we know, they kept their promise.
I used to have a teacher in high school who would say "oops I lied" when he has misspoken and produced false information. It used to really bother me because how could he lie without knowledge. This episode kind of reminds me of it, and also I think does relate to that issue.
Bachelor's Degree in Art Humanities: "Do you want abstract fries with that?" Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy: "Why do you want fries with that?" Bachelor's Degree in Political Science: "Would you like your fries on the left or right?"
My philosophy 101 students have an essay on gettier cases due tomorrow. This is super great and informative, and I would have loved to have used it to start our discussion, if only it had been published two weeks earlier! fun fact, Bertrand Russel actually came up with gettier cases before gettier, but his paper on the topic went mostly unnoticed.
You are phenomenally intelligent, and I absolutely adore and appreciate this philosophy series!! I'm 14, but hey, never too old or young to learn, right? ;) Most of the philosophical "questions and answers" mentioned in these videos so far are ones that I have already at some point attempted to subjectively analyze, and it is completely fascinating to see this done objectively as well. I cannot express to you the extent of my gratitude for your passion of sharing knowledge and wisdom! Well done, and thank you! :)
I learn more from this channel (regarding the topics at hand) than I have ever in all my time in school (I'm already an incoming 3rd year college student) and in FRACTIONS of the time (10 mins on CC > 1 entire sem--21+ hours of Philosophy 101 and many other courses). Furthermore, I am getting one free, and I am paying fortunes for the other... The big difference is a piece of paper I get at the end of 4 years or more of (mostly needless) grinding. I love this channel so much. I extend a personal thank you to the awesome team/s over at Crash Course.Kudos!
Hank Green is a genius who helped me out a lot in expanding my mind and improved my grades in school on this channel. John Green wrote some books I couldn't stop hearing about for weeks at school. However, I still read The Fault In Our Stars for a book report. Funny how that turns out. Also, amazing episode as always. Can't wait for next one.
I had no interest in philosophy until I started watching these videos! So cool how one guy could disrupt the workings of so many philosophers before him.
assertion: Has truth value (Truth, false, indeterminate) proposition: Underlying meaning under assertion propositional attitude of belief : eg You are saying what you believe Types of justification Testimony: taking someone's word First person observation
heavyweaponsgaming yes it was so many wholes in his counter I sense agenda in supporting it...For the justified truth to hold true for so long and a flimsy counter like this not to have been demolished..I would counter that the overall ability for humans to be able to reason has now devolved and the purpose of all humans is too support agendas....
Something cannot be "properly justified" and "not match the truth" at the same time. It can have "a justification" but when that justification doesn't match "the truth" it is simply a self-reliant justification, therefore a belief that thinks of itself as justified from itself. The justification part requires that it holds true in the context in which the belief is made, you can't have a justified belief(even if it happens to be true) if you change the context and do not reevaluate the justification from that new context. That's basically the difference between Newton's F=MA vs Enstein's relativity. We like things to be simple so we tend to see things in a Newtonian perspective, but when you look at more extreme cases you realize it only holds true in a specific context.
The problem that I see with this theory is the whole human assertive bias, where people unconsciously assign more credibility to someone or something that supports their own, already existing ideas or beliefs. This definition of a true belief, something that not only is believed by the person, but also has justification behind it, gets very complicated when one adds in what is happening today, known as the “era of misinformation”. The lack of fact-checking, along with the failings of scientific and academic integrity, has resulted in a confusing world where, by this definition of a truth, two conflicting truths could both be considered “true”. Look at, for instance, the anti-vaccine movement, something that is largely regarded as false and disproven, however the fact that there is one scientific paper that exists that supports it provides justification. Sure, there might be hundreds of studies arguing against it, but because of that self-confirmation bias, many anti-vaccine advocates place more credibility in a single, very flawed, thoroughly disproven study, instead of multiple, independent, rigorous and scientific studies. It really is worrying that if that is how the human mind decides truths and beliefs, how will the spread of so called “fake news” and misinformation affect humanity? A democracy relies on having a well-informed, fact-based population, and we can see the beginnings of what happened when that population is not well-informed. Even binary yes or no questions are considered “up for debate” by most of the populace. Many politicians are benefitting from this as well, using arguments that “there isn’t enough evidence” or “the research isn’t in” to justify inaction, even using the fact that most of science doesn’t deal in absolutes, it deals in 99.9% likelyhoods. Scientists can no longer “if X happens, there is a absolute certainty that Y will happen.” If you get shot in the head, there is a very high likelyhood you will die, but there is a slim chance you might live. Scientists say “almost certainly” because that is the nature of science. Take climate change for example. While scientists widely agree that yes, this is something that is happening, they say this scientifically, not generalizing things. They describe it as “almost certainly happening” or “there is overwhelming evidence supporting it”, but climate change deniers interpret that to mean that “we aren’t sure if it’s happening or not”. The world is complicated, it’s not written in certainties. If you flick a light switch, a light will probably come on, 99.99% of the time. But, every once in a while, the light might burn out, of the wire might be broken, or the power might be out. Therefor someone has to explain that the light will most likely come on. That doesn’t mean that it’s 50/50, they are saying that it is almost certainly going to come on, unless something completely unanticipated and unlikely happens. Asking scientists to speak in absolute yes or no answers is impossible to do truthfully, because next to nothing is certain 100% of the time. Asking of them to provide absolute certain agreements is an impossible statement, and next time you see someone using this argument that “the science isn’t all the way in”, apply the same standard to them. Claim that, say, they are an alien. Yes, they are almost certainly not, but it is not absolutely impossible, there is an incredibly small chance, so if they are going to use that incredibly small chance to try and discredit overwhelming evidence, you should be able to do the same to them. Yes, there might be a 0.000001% chance that climate change is not caused by humans/is not happening, but a 99.99999% chance that it is definitely should hold more weight. If you had a 99.9% chance of winning a million dollar lottery, you would enter that lottery! You wouldn’t not enter it because there is a 0.1% chance of losing it.
Matthew Smith those seek knowledge free themselves from all bias, so just like many go to church but are not truly Christians, many people learn things with bias attached but the truly rare and extreme seeker of accurate knowledge will evolve beyond the bias of the human experience.0
Alexander the Great used knowledge to achieve so much enabling to him to do what people thought was impossible. - We did a video on the same point you made
How about Crash Course Music?From the history to the mathematics, forms (what a Symphony is or a sonata), about the artists, how music evolved and so onjust an idea
This was cool. I have just two problems: (1) Your assertion that claims about the future have indeterminate truth values is controversial (for example, it presupposes that Eternalism is false). And (2) your assertion that justification is basically just evidence is a very internalist view of justification - we externalists about justification think that justification can float free of the evidence the agent is aware of (for example, see Goldman's Reliablism).
Many people say Crash Course Philosophy causes existential crisis where nothing you can be confident about. But people of all smartness agree that this channel is complete,with 'a cat' and of that we are confidential.
Could we then say that the vast majority of us do not have real knowledge in most aspects of life, particularly with regard to science? For example, most of us can identify the force of gravity in our lives but we do not have a deeper understanding of physics, and so, perhaps we do not have proper justification. In this case, is our "knowledge" of natural laws merely a belief?
Not necessarily. Contextualism posits that "knowledge" in its use is contextual...that is, if I say I know that 2+2=4, then, if I am not in the proof-appropriate context, I don't need to justify my belief that 2+2=4 by doing the mathematical proof. Same kind of concept can, kind of, apply to the natural sciences
I hate knowing something complicated but ended up studying Social Science/Studies Course in College and these things help me fuel my mind everytime , The urge to earn and learn more . Thanks a lot for this useful and remarkable videos
Whenever I seek for knowledge in a field now, I type in "crash course + [field name]" into TH-cam. Never learned so many things in such an appealing way. Thank you, crash course!
Hank, I just feel like I must say, I did NOT take my teacher's word for much. They kept saying you shouldn't believe everything on the internet or on television, but they were blind enough to forget that they too were just people who could make mistakes, an attitude that too many teachers have, especially towards their pupils.
nobody gonna attempt to rescue JTB? it was obvious that the 2 gettier cases presented in the video were merely cases of mis-applied "justification", i.e. justifications that were not truly "justificatory". smith's justification to believe jones was flawed in two ways: 1. the boss was a lying bastard, and 2. the person with 10 coins is not exclusive to jones (whom he had specifically believed to be the job-winner). in such a case, any "loosely defined" statement could equally lead to a false JTB. in short, the statement itself contained a lack of justification specific to the belief. this is similar for the sheep&dog in the field, but is more simple to disprove. clearly, the man in the field is thinking "that sheep-looking thing is the sheep which i believe is in the field" but he mistakenly over-stated the boundaries of the field to extend over the area obscured by the hill. if he had more precisely stated that "i believe there is a sheep within that stretch of field within my field of vision" then his justified belief would be false since that animal is actually a sheep-like dog. okay, just wanted to start a discussion but i ended up wordy af.
+Gregory Samuel Teo (alveolate) the real can of worms here is the word "justified". "true" and "belief" are easy enough, but how we know things is a whole realm of philosophy. maybe your JTB justifacation needs to be it's own JTB? for example, the justifaction for the 10 coins scenario was a boss who said that Jones would get the job. however, that means that smith had a belief that "the boss is a completely trustworthy scorce". this is of course false, no human is perfect, making this an unjustified false belief. this means that there was no justifacation for the "10 coins" assertion, making it an unjustified true belief, and therefore not knowledge
+the ocarina bard This is exactly what I'm thinking. There are no real "Gettier cases", just cases presented as JTB's that actually aren't either justified or true. I personally still hold on to JTB being the definition of knowledge, and the "Gettier cases" haven't disproven it, really. All they did in my eyes is call into question the definitions of "justified" and "true", without actually calling the definition of knowledge into question.
+TheMightyDozen (Does the following fit with your notions?) There is simply a difference between the appearance of X versus something actually being X. So, it is easy to make the mistake of claiming something as X when there are things Y that look like X. The mistake occurs when one claims that whatever is X when one only has sufficient knowledge to claim that it LOOKED like X.
+MyContext To be fair, I had to replace X and Y with more corporeal things, but yes, that does fit with my notions. Also, just so you know, I went with 'X' for "Mouse" and 'Y' for "Rat".
I guess this kind of just re-enforces the fact that we can't really "know" anything in the JTB sense. after all, you can only follow your justifacations so far back until you can't really justify them anymore. however, we can assess how solid we are in what we think we "know", by seeing how far back we can justify it. for example, someone who thinks an item is blue in a dark room is less solid in their knowledge than someone who sees the same object in bright light. someone who mesures the wavelength of the light coming off of the object to see if it is in the spectrum of "blue" is even more solid
6:20 Pretty often, actually, in any area that involves decision making under uncertainty. How many times my mom was certain a prediction was true even though it was unpredictable (like: it's gonna rain tomorow night) and when right she says "seeee!!!" But when wrong, she brushes to the side. This happens all the times with sports predictions.
Hey Apoorva! Are you from India? Are you doing some degree in Philosophy? I am new to Philosophy and have much interest in it. I am also liking this crash course so far. Can you suggest more content to understand the philosophical aspects. Books, Series, or anything? Would be of much help. Thanks!
Even if your justification was flawed, in a single case situation you're still correct - ie. you still knew the truth given the justification. It became knowledge when it became true no matter how flawed the justification.
I love studying philosophy on my own. I hate it when teachers tell me to go write a paper on a specific philosophical topic, I suddenly lose all interest in the subject because I'm no longer going at my own pace instead I have to try and cram a lot of new ideas just to get a good grade. I end up learning very little and I lose interest :/
I'm a BIG fan of Crash Course! I'm especially loving this series on Philosophy and really enjoying studying/taking notes. Will there ever be any accompanying worksheets to go with this fantastic material?
Fun Fact: If you click the first link (cant be in a bracket or footnote) of any wikipedia page, then the first link of that page and so on, you will ALWAYS end up on the wikipedia page on philosophy.
I feel like the problem with the "Justified True Belief =/= Knowledge" thing is that you can make language vague enough for it to seem like something was a Justified True Belief, but it actually isn't. For instance, the phrase "the person who gets a promotion has 10 coins in his pocket" is both incredibly specific, but also extremely vague. The thing to ask is "Who did he think was getting the promotion, and why?" If he was he using the 10 coins as an indicator that a specific person would get the promotion, then his assertion wasn't a Justified True Belief because he got the promotion instead. Similarly, the phrase "There is a sheep in this field" is easily dismantled by asking the follow up, "where?" if he points out the dog, then that's not a True Belief because it's a dog, not a sheep. If he says "Oh, somewhere, I guess" it's not Justified because he can't point to evidence to back it up.
+Alan Gebhardt What you're saying here seems to be right. However, I think those analogies are only examples being used to demonstrate a point. You're just elaborating the analogies more to explore another point.
+Alan Gebhardt In any case, in agreement with you, this is why I frequently emphasise the importance of specifics in order to accurately communicate what one means. I usually go the extra mile to maintain it, much to the bother of some people some times I'm afraid. [Nonetheless, I also frequently use ambiguity and specifics as a very deliberate tool during discussion. Well everyone does. It's all a part of the art of conversing.]
"The fun of arguing is showing off what you know to other people." Not for me. I have much more fun when I view an argument as a mutual quest for truth.
It seems like we could solve the Gettier problems easily by redefining knowledge as truly justified true belief. I'll take that Nobel prize now, thank you.
This is the second time Hank Green used an actual cat as an example. Last time he used a cat was in Biology, Aw So Cute! I want to pet the cat. So cuddly and fluffy. meow
Three questions: 1) If we apply a healthy dose of skepticism and consider Berkeley's idealism, how do we define a value proposition if there isn't an external reality, just perception? 2) The idea that there is an external reality (outside perception/consciousness) is a belief (we could not know if there is an outside world, because everything we perceive is WITHIN our field of awareness). If this belief is taken for granted (like we do when we assume there are objective truth values), isn't that making ALL truth values to be syllogisms? 3) If Knowledge is justified true belief and we do not KNOW if there is a reality out there (just assume it is), this means we have no knowledge of an external reality. How can we then assume objective truth values to propositions we do now know (yet)?
This is really interesting because recently I have been philosophizing about the meanings of belief and knowledge and justification, but rather "feeling" not justification. My teacher said that she was going to get in some philosophy and I was really excited. Even through i'm only twelve God has gifted me with an amazing mind that has been philosophizing since an extremely young age before I even understood, se- no that's just a bias on which people who do understand taunt others who do not know what it is because it is the most martial want of a human of the appropriate age. But when they shared their definition of knowledge I accepted it, but it was not my own my definition, mine is that knowledge is; A commonly believed thing. or; something that you can argue through reasoning (preferably deductive) and cause belief of one such thing. And my definition of belief is; a certain thought which causes yourself to be able to think something without something giving less reasoning to disturb that thought so that you think against it. And my definition of know is; have strong reason to believe. And my definition of think is; Reason to believe. Comments appreciated I like myself a healthy argument. ;)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 80 | คู่เอก "รักษ์ vs ยอดนำชัย"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ckLMRorsMeY/mqdefault.jpg)
CORRECTION: We talk about the work of Edmund Gettier in this video and the photo we use is not of Edmund Gettier! Somehow, the internet used a wrong picture once and now everywhere you look, the same picture of this false Edmund Gettier appears. You can see his real face here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Gettier
really digging this philosophy stuff
same
+Haja Dumbuya same
+Jabbawokeez4 - Philosophy is pretty interesting stuff.
I recommend School of Life if you don't already know them :)
School of Life is awesome as well :)
Before this video, I thought "this guy's show can't get any better." Then, you introduced a cat. My assertion was false.
This can't be said enough, but what you guys are doing is absolutely amazing. You guys have a fantastic cast and I feel privileged that you all make these videos for us. :)
+Bhargav Chakraborty I first read it as "You guys have a fantastic cat". The cat was cute and all, but it wasn't fantastic.
The most ironic but truly philosophical aspect of this series is coming into each episode with questions and leaving with twice as many different questions
I think this channel is underrated
hell ye
hell ye
are u serious crash course gets a lot of attention have u seen their subcount
7.9 million isn't underrated
+
Is that a sheep on this field?
“Well no, but actually yes”
How did 'The Cat' not make it into the credits?
the description box
Oh thanks. Index the cat.
You could say they indexed Index.
TheFireflyGrave Because it was schrodinger's cat and it died in the reality
this entire crash course is a giant exestentional crisis
why?
+Mimo katze *existential
+reNNDinclusus EGGistential
+Tara Mohammed Exactly.
+Tara Mohammed Most human beings do not enjoy pondering the thought that everything they know could be wrong, down to even basic perception. Most human beings find it terrifying when they realize we can't even quantify what knowing stuff is. This kind of thinking makes people start questioning all their belief in what is real, kind of like descartes did, thus resulting in an existential crisis.
I am really liking this educational series. Hank is one of my favorite TH-cam hosts, I enjoy and learn from any video I watch with him in it. this series is no exception, full of information that is enjoyable to learn from.
I think the definition of knowledge as true, justified belief holds up even with Gettier cases. Gettier cases are just examples of situations where one thinks a belief is justified but it isn't. If the "justification" is fallacious, that fallacious argument doesn't actually support the conclusion and it is therefore not actually "justified".
Exactly my thought! Hasnt anyone noticed that among the philosophers?
Here's a case: A boy, who grew up in france, had been given a piece of plum pudding once by an older gentleman. Later as a young adult, he had a second piece of plum pudding at a party, and the same older gentleman came in at the same exact moment, having followed a wrong address to the same party by chance. Much later in his life, and far from home, he saw plum pudding on the menu at a restaurant, and ordered a piece, telling his friends that all that was missing was the older gentlemen he had always eaten the dish with before. But he had no plum pudding that day. Because the now quite elderly man was in the same restaurant and had only just ordered the last piece.
Jung called this simultaneity: beliefs we hold, which are justified by evidence, and by strange coincidence or cosmic conspiracy turn out to be true, but where there is no logical, causal connection between our justified beliefs and the true reality. But I believe he would still have considered this a form of knowledge, a knowledge beyond knowing. He explained the power of many religions and superstitions with this concept.
KNAAAAWLEDGE
MY TED-X TALK! I READ A BOOK A DAY
Here in my room. Just watched this new Crash Course video. Had to install two book shelves for all their merchandise I bought.
+Balaji Krishnan *knoweledge 4:25
+Balaji Krishnan 47 lamborghinis in my lamborghini account
+Balaji Krishnan HERE IN MY GARAGE!
Excuse me, but I was promised cats, not cat singular.
5:40
anushka kale
Not real cat, is disappoint.
+Zaziuma (Patrick Jensen) How do you know they weren't different cats?
Juan Pablo Mina
The cat looks the exact same, and why they would use multiple cats for the shoot doesn't make much sense.
Zaziuma (Patrick Jensen) I don't know why, I'm just asserting that we can't know whether those cats were the same or not. For all we know, they kept their promise.
Michael's face when holding that cat is amazing
I used to have a teacher in high school who would say "oops I lied" when he has misspoken and produced false information. It used to really bother me because how could he lie without knowledge. This episode kind of reminds me of it, and also I think does relate to that issue.
Also: If there's an afterlife, I hope it is set inside a Thoughtbubble animation
educational programming and chill?
Fernando Frutos YAS
Now you’re talking
I am currently binging these and loving it. If you ever need someone to fill in as on-camera talent, this is exactly the kind of script I could nail.
It's professor Hans Von Puppet!
+ProfessorPuppet dont bing it.... use google like everyone else ;)
You know what I like more than my Lamborghini?
Crash Course Philosophy.
I get the reference bro. Nice!!👍🏻
i like the cat
NAAAAAAAHLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDGE!!!
Ya know what I like more than epistemology? Knowwwledge
Wooowww lmaoio
KNOWELEDGE
KNAWLEDGE*
+Alec Joseph
GNAWLEDGE
+Alec Joseph
GNAWLEDGE
Someone please help me. Is this spelled wrong? Or have I literally gone 30 years not knowing how to spell this word...
It either is spelled wrong or I have the same problem here (I don't)
I absolutely love these subjects xD
same
+Haja Dumbuya same
Bachelor's Degree in Art Humanities: "Do you want abstract fries with that?"
Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy: "Why do you want fries with that?"
Bachelor's Degree in Political Science: "Would you like your fries on the left or right?"
Captain Obvious LOL
This guy is helping me pass my philosophy exam tomorrow...binge watching his videos
My philosophy 101 students have an essay on gettier cases due tomorrow. This is super great and informative, and I would have loved to have used it to start our discussion, if only it had been published two weeks earlier!
fun fact, Bertrand Russel actually came up with gettier cases before gettier, but his paper on the topic went mostly unnoticed.
Two minutes in and the cat is distracting me I wanna pet it
Angela Buo huiiu
Yes
I love these videos. They're interesting, engaging, and ultimately, ruining my sleep schedule.
You are phenomenally intelligent, and I absolutely adore and appreciate this philosophy series!! I'm 14, but hey, never too old or young to learn, right? ;) Most of the philosophical "questions and answers" mentioned in these videos so far are ones that I have already at some point attempted to subjectively analyze, and it is completely fascinating to see this done objectively as well. I cannot express to you the extent of my gratitude for your passion of sharing knowledge and wisdom! Well done, and thank you! :)
Every time you bring the cat into the frame my brain melts in a puddle of pure happiness and I can't focus on what Hank is saying D:
This video opened my eyes. Thank you, everyone involved in its production.
Hank's expression when the cat was put in front of him was priceless
I learn more from this channel (regarding the topics at hand) than I have ever in all my time in school (I'm already an incoming 3rd year college student) and in FRACTIONS of the time (10 mins on CC > 1 entire sem--21+ hours of Philosophy 101 and many other courses). Furthermore, I am getting one free, and I am paying fortunes for the other... The big difference is a piece of paper I get at the end of 4 years or more of (mostly needless) grinding.
I love this channel so much. I extend a personal thank you to the awesome team/s over at Crash Course.Kudos!
I'm spending today writing an essay about this exact topic for my degree. Gettier is awesome 👌
You are reading this comment right now.
This the best crash course series ever. If only my high school philosophy teacher was as capable when I was in school.
Hank Green is a genius who helped me out a lot in expanding my mind and improved my grades in school on this channel.
John Green wrote some books I couldn't stop hearing about for weeks at school. However, I still read The Fault In Our Stars for a book report.
Funny how that turns out.
Also, amazing episode as always. Can't wait for next one.
I had no interest in philosophy until I started watching these videos! So cool how one guy could disrupt the workings of so many philosophers before him.
assertion: Has truth value (Truth, false, indeterminate)
proposition: Underlying meaning under assertion
propositional attitude of belief : eg You are saying what you believe
Types of justification
Testimony: taking someone's word
First person observation
I like to think of Gettier's idea like this: the belief is properly justified, and it is true, but the justification does not match the truth.
heavyweaponsgaming yes it was so many wholes in his counter I sense agenda in supporting it...For the justified truth to hold true for so long and a flimsy counter like this not to have been demolished..I would counter that the overall ability for humans to be able to reason has now devolved and the purpose of all humans is too support agendas....
Something cannot be "properly justified" and "not match the truth" at the same time. It can have "a justification" but when that justification doesn't match "the truth" it is simply a self-reliant justification, therefore a belief that thinks of itself as justified from itself. The justification part requires that it holds true in the context in which the belief is made, you can't have a justified belief(even if it happens to be true) if you change the context and do not reevaluate the justification from that new context. That's basically the difference between Newton's F=MA vs Enstein's relativity. We like things to be simple so we tend to see things in a Newtonian perspective, but when you look at more extreme cases you realize it only holds true in a specific context.
The problem that I see with this theory is the whole human assertive bias, where people unconsciously assign more credibility to someone or something that supports their own, already existing ideas or beliefs. This definition of a true belief, something that not only is believed by the person, but also has justification behind it, gets very complicated when one adds in what is happening today, known as the “era of misinformation”. The lack of fact-checking, along with the failings of scientific and academic integrity, has resulted in a confusing world where, by this definition of a truth, two conflicting truths could both be considered “true”. Look at, for instance, the anti-vaccine movement, something that is largely regarded as false and disproven, however the fact that there is one scientific paper that exists that supports it provides justification. Sure, there might be hundreds of studies arguing against it, but because of that self-confirmation bias, many anti-vaccine advocates place more credibility in a single, very flawed, thoroughly disproven study, instead of multiple, independent, rigorous and scientific studies. It really is worrying that if that is how the human mind decides truths and beliefs, how will the spread of so called “fake news” and misinformation affect humanity? A democracy relies on having a well-informed, fact-based population, and we can see the beginnings of what happened when that population is not well-informed. Even binary yes or no questions are considered “up for debate” by most of the populace. Many politicians are benefitting from this as well, using arguments that “there isn’t enough evidence” or “the research isn’t in” to justify inaction, even using the fact that most of science doesn’t deal in absolutes, it deals in 99.9% likelyhoods. Scientists can no longer “if X happens, there is a absolute certainty that Y will happen.” If you get shot in the head, there is a very high likelyhood you will die, but there is a slim chance you might live. Scientists say “almost certainly” because that is the nature of science. Take climate change for example. While scientists widely agree that yes, this is something that is happening, they say this scientifically, not generalizing things. They describe it as “almost certainly happening” or “there is overwhelming evidence supporting it”, but climate change deniers interpret that to mean that “we aren’t sure if it’s happening or not”. The world is complicated, it’s not written in certainties. If you flick a light switch, a light will probably come on, 99.99% of the time. But, every once in a while, the light might burn out, of the wire might be broken, or the power might be out. Therefor someone has to explain that the light will most likely come on. That doesn’t mean that it’s 50/50, they are saying that it is almost certainly going to come on, unless something completely unanticipated and unlikely happens. Asking scientists to speak in absolute yes or no answers is impossible to do truthfully, because next to nothing is certain 100% of the time. Asking of them to provide absolute certain agreements is an impossible statement, and next time you see someone using this argument that “the science isn’t all the way in”, apply the same standard to them. Claim that, say, they are an alien. Yes, they are almost certainly not, but it is not absolutely impossible, there is an incredibly small chance, so if they are going to use that incredibly small chance to try and discredit overwhelming evidence, you should be able to do the same to them. Yes, there might be a 0.000001% chance that climate change is not caused by humans/is not happening, but a 99.99999% chance that it is definitely should hold more weight. If you had a 99.9% chance of winning a million dollar lottery, you would enter that lottery! You wouldn’t not enter it because there is a 0.1% chance of losing it.
Matthew Smith those seek knowledge free themselves from all bias, so just like many go to church but are not truly Christians, many people learn things with bias attached but the truly rare and extreme seeker of accurate knowledge will evolve beyond the bias of the human experience.0
Alexander the Great used knowledge to achieve so much enabling to him to do what people thought was impossible. - We did a video on the same point you made
How about Crash Course Music?From the history to the mathematics, forms (what a Symphony is or a sonata), about the artists, how music evolved and so onjust an idea
+Max Littera That's a great idea!
yes. yes yes yes YES
Yaaaaaaassss
Si
Da!
no
Adarsh Singh hey. HEY! Take that back! Don't make me get the hose!
your graphics design team is awesome.
This is high quality production, good job CC.
Alkis05 frlziozt la zg ô j
وه
ط ديس
ط
ط.م من
For the first time ever looking at a cat on TH-cam was educational and productive use of my time
This was cool. I have just two problems: (1) Your assertion that claims about the future have indeterminate truth values is controversial (for example, it presupposes that Eternalism is false). And (2) your assertion that justification is basically just evidence is a very internalist view of justification - we externalists about justification think that justification can float free of the evidence the agent is aware of (for example, see Goldman's Reliablism).
Many people say Crash Course Philosophy causes existential crisis where nothing you can be confident about.
But people of all smartness agree that this channel is complete,with 'a cat' and of that we are confidential.
is there wa way to get crashcourse intro theme song for ringtone?
way*
i want i want
Could we then say that the vast majority of us do not have real knowledge in most aspects of life, particularly with regard to science? For example, most of us can identify the force of gravity in our lives but we do not have a deeper understanding of physics, and so, perhaps we do not have proper justification. In this case, is our "knowledge" of natural laws merely a belief?
We stumbled onto the part of the truth, it's classic Gettier case... at least I think :)
Not necessarily. Contextualism posits that "knowledge" in its use is contextual...that is, if I say I know that 2+2=4, then, if I am not in the proof-appropriate context, I don't need to justify my belief that 2+2=4 by doing the mathematical proof. Same kind of concept can, kind of, apply to the natural sciences
And here I was hoping for an illustration of "Schrodinger's Cat".
+Karl Karlos Crash Course Physics!
Clarence Lam
Yeah I know. But line between theoretical, modern physic and philosophy is quite thin.
There was a reference to it with a drawing of a cat with half of it's skeleton showing
I hate knowing something complicated but ended up studying Social Science/Studies Course in College and these things help me fuel my mind everytime , The urge to earn and learn more . Thanks a lot for this useful and remarkable videos
One of the few times that I'm glad Hank was wrong. Thanks for letting us borrow your cat, Michael!
Whenever I seek for knowledge in a field now, I type in "crash course + [field name]" into TH-cam. Never learned so many things in such an appealing way. Thank you, crash course!
Cat: why am I philosophical props
Hank, I just feel like I must say, I did NOT take my teacher's word for much.
They kept saying you shouldn't believe everything on the internet or on television, but they were blind enough to forget that they too were just people who could make mistakes, an attitude that too many teachers have, especially towards their pupils.
Same here
420 Geese? That is a very particular number!
I think perhaps we just learned something about Hank... and you... and me? Crap.
One of the things I love about philosophy is when you argue it's more so a discussion instead of just angry yelling
nobody gonna attempt to rescue JTB? it was obvious that the 2 gettier cases presented in the video were merely cases of mis-applied "justification", i.e. justifications that were not truly "justificatory".
smith's justification to believe jones was flawed in two ways: 1. the boss was a lying bastard, and 2. the person with 10 coins is not exclusive to jones (whom he had specifically believed to be the job-winner). in such a case, any "loosely defined" statement could equally lead to a false JTB. in short, the statement itself contained a lack of justification specific to the belief.
this is similar for the sheep&dog in the field, but is more simple to disprove. clearly, the man in the field is thinking "that sheep-looking thing is the sheep which i believe is in the field" but he mistakenly over-stated the boundaries of the field to extend over the area obscured by the hill. if he had more precisely stated that "i believe there is a sheep within that stretch of field within my field of vision" then his justified belief would be false since that animal is actually a sheep-like dog.
okay, just wanted to start a discussion but i ended up wordy af.
+Gregory Samuel Teo (alveolate)
the real can of worms here is the word "justified". "true" and "belief" are easy enough, but how we know things is a whole realm of philosophy. maybe your JTB justifacation needs to be it's own JTB?
for example, the justifaction for the 10 coins scenario was a boss who said that Jones would get the job. however, that means that smith had a belief that "the boss is a completely trustworthy scorce". this is of course false, no human is perfect, making this an unjustified false belief. this means that there was no justifacation for the "10 coins" assertion, making it an unjustified true belief, and therefore not knowledge
+the ocarina bard
This is exactly what I'm thinking. There are no real "Gettier cases", just cases presented as JTB's that actually aren't either justified or true. I personally still hold on to JTB being the definition of knowledge, and the "Gettier cases" haven't disproven it, really. All they did in my eyes is call into question the definitions of "justified" and "true", without actually calling the definition of knowledge into question.
+TheMightyDozen (Does the following fit with your notions?)
There is simply a difference between the appearance of X versus something actually being X. So, it is easy to make the mistake of claiming something as X when there are things Y that look like X. The mistake occurs when one claims that whatever is X when one only has sufficient knowledge to claim that it LOOKED like X.
+MyContext
To be fair, I had to replace X and Y with more corporeal things, but yes, that does fit with my notions. Also, just so you know, I went with 'X' for "Mouse" and 'Y' for "Rat".
I guess this kind of just re-enforces the fact that we can't really "know" anything in the JTB sense. after all, you can only follow your justifacations so far back until you can't really justify them anymore. however, we can assess how solid we are in what we think we "know", by seeing how far back we can justify it.
for example, someone who thinks an item is blue in a dark room is less solid in their knowledge than someone who sees the same object in bright light. someone who mesures the wavelength of the light coming off of the object to see if it is in the spectrum of "blue" is even more solid
The fact that this has more than a million view makes me SO HAPPY
Knowledge is the absolute knowing
6:20 Pretty often, actually, in any area that involves decision making under uncertainty. How many times my mom was certain a prediction was true even though it was unpredictable (like: it's gonna rain tomorow night) and when right she says "seeee!!!" But when wrong, she brushes to the side.
This happens all the times with sports predictions.
Just sitting here with my Lamborghini in the Hollywood hills, but do you know what I like more than material things? KNOWLEDGE.
I love how CC sets up the scene like this is MY desk in MY office.
Hugh Everett asserts that in a parallel universe, the cat was on the desk and peed.
Absolutely love Hank's unbridled love of cats.
This is the exact kind of video that I want to fuck my mind up.
this is, perhaps, the best educational channel
You know what i like more than materialistic things, knowledge!
You wanna know what I'm more proud of? Is the 7 new bookshelves I had to install to hold 2,000 new books...
Why and how exactly can these videos be so brilliant. Complex concepts well explained succinctly and simply! In love with this
Hey Apoorva!
Are you from India? Are you doing some degree in Philosophy?
I am new to Philosophy and have much interest in it. I am also liking this crash course so far.
Can you suggest more content to understand the philosophical aspects. Books, Series, or anything? Would be of much help.
Thanks!
4:24 KNOWELEDGE
Hank gets to play with a cat on set. This must be his favorite episode of crash course ever.
You know what I like more than my Lamborghini?
KNAWLEDGE!
Even if your justification was flawed, in a single case situation you're still correct - ie. you still knew the truth given the justification. It became knowledge when it became true no matter how flawed the justification.
I love studying philosophy on my own. I hate it when teachers tell me to go write a paper on a specific philosophical topic, I suddenly lose all interest in the subject because I'm no longer going at my own pace instead I have to try and cram a lot of new ideas just to get a good grade. I end up learning very little and I lose interest :/
I'm a BIG fan of Crash Course! I'm especially loving this series on Philosophy and really enjoying studying/taking notes. Will there ever be any accompanying worksheets to go with this fantastic material?
Fun Fact: If you click the first link (cant be in a bracket or footnote) of any wikipedia page, then the first link of that page and so on, you will ALWAYS end up on the wikipedia page on philosophy.
+Kumail N No I tried it and it only went to psychology not philosophy
+Kumail N Good show! From "Glossary of Buddhism" (random bookmarked page in my browser) to "Philosophy" in 12 clicks.
+James Irwin you must've clicked something in brackets or the second link maybe.
+Kumail N I got stuck in several repeating loops trying this.
All right, I give up. I accept your statement as true until proven otherwise.
These are all fantastic when listened to at 50% speed.
I feel like the problem with the "Justified True Belief =/= Knowledge" thing is that you can make language vague enough for it to seem like something was a Justified True Belief, but it actually isn't. For instance, the phrase "the person who gets a promotion has 10 coins in his pocket" is both incredibly specific, but also extremely vague. The thing to ask is "Who did he think was getting the promotion, and why?" If he was he using the 10 coins as an indicator that a specific person would get the promotion, then his assertion wasn't a Justified True Belief because he got the promotion instead.
Similarly, the phrase "There is a sheep in this field" is easily dismantled by asking the follow up, "where?" if he points out the dog, then that's not a True Belief because it's a dog, not a sheep. If he says "Oh, somewhere, I guess" it's not Justified because he can't point to evidence to back it up.
+Alan Gebhardt I feel like if he had started this episode with Kant, we'd all be considerably more prepared for understanding this specific concept.
+Alan Gebhardt
What you're saying here seems to be right. However, I think those analogies are only examples being used to demonstrate a point. You're just elaborating the analogies more to explore another point.
+Alan Gebhardt
In any case, in agreement with you, this is why I frequently emphasise the importance of specifics in order to accurately communicate what one means. I usually go the extra mile to maintain it, much to the bother of some people some times I'm afraid. [Nonetheless, I also frequently use ambiguity and specifics as a very deliberate tool during discussion. Well everyone does. It's all a part of the art of conversing.]
You are one of my favorite people airing this Channel.... 😀
You must be one superb wonderful woman! :)
"The fun of arguing is showing off what you know to other people."
Not for me. I have much more fun when I view an argument as a mutual quest for truth.
Sylvia Odhner you lie
Justify your assertions.
It seems like we could solve the Gettier problems easily by redefining knowledge as truly justified true belief. I'll take that Nobel prize now, thank you.
Known unknowns and unknown unknowns, oh my!
+Sloth7d The known the unknown and underknown
I love how the intro is the perfect length
"420 geese" I see ya, crash course
Thank you!!!
This is the second time Hank Green used an actual cat as an example. Last time he used a cat was in Biology, Aw So Cute! I want to pet the cat. So cuddly and fluffy. meow
But what does it mean for something to be "true" at all? What makes something true if nothing is real?
Thank you for helping me with the midterm that I have no justified true belief
I like this nerdy dude
Three questions:
1) If we apply a healthy dose of skepticism and consider Berkeley's idealism, how do we define a value proposition if there isn't an external reality, just perception?
2) The idea that there is an external reality (outside perception/consciousness) is a belief (we could not know if there is an outside world, because everything we perceive is WITHIN our field of awareness). If this belief is taken for granted (like we do when we assume there are objective truth values), isn't that making ALL truth values to be syllogisms?
3) If Knowledge is justified true belief and we do not KNOW if there is a reality out there (just assume it is), this means we have no knowledge of an external reality. How can we then assume objective truth values to propositions we do now know (yet)?
"There are 420 geese flying over Wisconsin at this very moment"
Gettier explosion was great creative cg and hilarious 😂
I only know that I know nothing... am I doing it right? )|:
nope.
+Adrian Fahrenheit It doesn't matter, life is meaningless and reality is an illusion.
Zarko Cekovski your mom is an illusion
Adrian Fahrenheit Perhaps
+Zarko Cekovski Yet you look both way before crossing a street, yes?
believe, truth ,and undeniable prove
Shit man. I have a headache. But great video! Please keep it up 😀
This is the best episode in the series yet strictly because of the cat
420 geese it
Thank you so much for rectifying the egregious lack of cat in the Schrodinger's cat episode. Cute kitty!
Wow Michael
Just wow!?
I know so hot right
This video has helped me a lot. It made the meaning of words more simple than they do in a dictionary!
you know what I love more than money?
knawledge
One of the most ironic TH-cam comments ever.
This is really interesting because recently I have been philosophizing about the meanings of belief and knowledge and justification, but rather "feeling" not justification. My teacher said that she was going to get in some philosophy and I was really excited. Even through i'm only twelve God has gifted me with an amazing mind that has been philosophizing since an extremely young age before I even understood, se- no that's just a bias on which people who do understand taunt others who do not know what it is because it is the most martial want of a human of the appropriate age. But when they shared their definition of knowledge I accepted it, but it was not my own my definition, mine is that knowledge is; A commonly believed thing. or; something that you can argue through reasoning (preferably deductive) and cause belief of one such thing. And my definition of belief is; a certain thought which causes yourself to be able to think something without something giving less reasoning to disturb that thought so that you think against it. And my definition of know is; have strong reason to believe. And my definition of think is; Reason to believe. Comments appreciated I like myself a healthy argument. ;)