more on this theme | more from this thinker
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.
12898 | Justification is neither sufficient nor necessary for knowledge [Lewis] |
12895 | Knowing is context-sensitive because the domain of quantification varies [Lewis, by Cohen,S] |
19562 | We have knowledge if alternatives are eliminated, but appropriate alternatives depend on context [Lewis, by Cohen,S] |
12897 | To say S knows P, but cannot eliminate not-P, sounds like a contradiction [Lewis] |
12899 | The timid student has knowledge without belief, lacking confidence in their correct answer [Lewis] |