In Core Questions in Philosophy, Sober describes both the Justified True Belief of Knowledge and the Reliability Theory of Knowledge. In this paper, I will examine and compare both theories while each one has differences and similarities, both display the understanding of a fact equally. The Justified True Belief of Knowledge states that for any fact, it must be true or false. Whereas, the Reliability Theory of Knowledge states that the fact cannot be proven to be true or false. Combined, both theories exhibit fewer similarities than differences but the belief that both theories are of equal meaning remains intact. One major difference which occurs between the two theories is when the Reliability Theory of Knowledge states that if S knows
…show more content…
A statement can only be classified as a belief is has not been proven and only exists within the person. An example of an internal thought or memory could potentially be Bob thinks that Charlie will forgive him. In this internal thought, the narrator does not describe a truth or invalid statement but provides an thought which can be constructed to be valid or invalid. An example of an fact could be Steve Jobs is a male. In this statement, there is enough evidence lurking around on the intranet to solidify that Steve Jobs is indeed a male. An counter-example to the Justified True Belief of Knowledge would be the thought that Lions are animals. If this thought exists to a baby; the baby would not know if the statement is true or false but in, reality the statement is true. This statement can be described both as a belief and a knowledgeable truth. An counter-example to the Reliability Theory of Knowledge would be The Geocentric Model of the universe. Before Galileo’s time, the fact that the everything revolved around the earth was a truth. With Galileo’s evidence, the truth was proven to falsify the Geocentric Model. Evidently, this portrays that a knowledgeable fact can also be a belief. Overall, knowing the difference between belief and knowledge is eminent as …show more content…
Both the theories exhibit the proposition with knowing that an object exists by believing or making propositions on it. To solidify our understanding, we can consider the example of saying Bob is a 12-year-old boy. If Bob is an acquaintance of someone, that someone can verify this fact and this can be considered a valid and true piece of knowledge. Whereas, if someone who does not know Bob considers this statement, it can be a belief. To that one person, the existence of Bob is still not intact and there isn’t enough evidence to support the claim that Bob is a 12-year-old boy. There exists no counter-example to propositions as it there can be both a belief and a knowledgeable fact to all truths and thoughts which have existed. To conclude, this proposition statement is not of excellent caliber as it can be argued for every fact there exists in the time of humans. Something which can be argued for all cases does not provide a better understanding of that
A statement can only be classified as a belief is has not been proven and only exists within the person. An example of an internal thought or memory could potentially be Bob thinks that Charlie will forgive him. In this internal thought, the narrator does not describe a truth or invalid statement but provides an thought which can be constructed to be valid or invalid. An example of an fact could be Steve Jobs is a male. In this statement, there is enough evidence lurking around on the intranet to solidify that Steve Jobs is indeed a male. An counter-example to the Justified True Belief of Knowledge would be the thought that Lions are animals. If this thought exists to a baby; the baby would not know if the statement is true or false but in, reality the statement is true. This statement can be described both as a belief and a knowledgeable truth. An counter-example to the Reliability Theory of Knowledge would be The Geocentric Model of the universe. Before Galileo’s time, the fact that the everything revolved around the earth was a truth. With Galileo’s evidence, the truth was proven to falsify the Geocentric Model. Evidently, this portrays that a knowledgeable fact can also be a belief. Overall, knowing the difference between belief and knowledge is eminent as …show more content…
Both the theories exhibit the proposition with knowing that an object exists by believing or making propositions on it. To solidify our understanding, we can consider the example of saying Bob is a 12-year-old boy. If Bob is an acquaintance of someone, that someone can verify this fact and this can be considered a valid and true piece of knowledge. Whereas, if someone who does not know Bob considers this statement, it can be a belief. To that one person, the existence of Bob is still not intact and there isn’t enough evidence to support the claim that Bob is a 12-year-old boy. There exists no counter-example to propositions as it there can be both a belief and a knowledgeable fact to all truths and thoughts which have existed. To conclude, this proposition statement is not of excellent caliber as it can be argued for every fact there exists in the time of humans. Something which can be argued for all cases does not provide a better understanding of that