more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
I don't agree that the mark of knowledge is justification, first because justification isn't sufficient - your true opinion that you will lose the lottery isn't knowledge, whatever the odds; and also not necessary - for what supports perception or memory?
Gist of Idea
Justification is neither sufficient nor necessary for knowledge
Source
David Lewis (Elusive Knowledge [1996])
Book Ref
Lewis,David: 'Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology' [CUP 1999], p.421
A Reaction
I don't think I agree. The point about the lottery is that an overwhelming reason will never get you to knowing that you won't win. But good reasons are coherent, not statistical. If perceptions are dubious, justification must be available.
| 1923 | As a guide to action, true opinion is as good as knowledge [Plato] |
| 2140 | True belief without knowledge is like blind people on the right road [Plato] |
| 174 | True opinion without reason is midway between wisdom and ignorance [Plato] |
| 2089 | An inadequate rational account would still not justify knowledge [Plato] |
| 8331 | To know something we need understanding, which is grasp of the primary cause [Aristotle] |
| 22759 | Fools, infants and madmen may speak truly, but do not know [Sext.Empiricus] |
| 19517 | Believing without a reason may just be love of your own fantasies [Locke] |
| 12898 | Justification is neither sufficient nor necessary for knowledge [Lewis] |
| 8811 | What we want to know is - when is it all right to believe something? [Pollock] |
| 19734 | If value is practical, knowledge is no better than true opinion [Greco] |
| 6800 | Many philosophers rate justification as a more important concept than knowledge [Bird] |
| 19539 | If knowledge is unanalysable, that makes justification more important [Dougherty/Rysiew] |