Knowledge is something that we must learn through life events. It gives individuals a sense of security and stability. True opinion is a strong belief that people make in order to represent knowledge that they do not have. According to Oxford English Dictionary, knowledge is facts, information and skills acquired by a person through experience or education. The testifies in a court case that give people a sense of true opinion is not the same as those who have knowledge to the case. Those with knowledge are more reliable than those of the jury creating true opinions based upon testimonies (Burnyeat and Barnes 178). Within a court of law knowledge and true opinion are seen as two different classifications, where knowledge provides people with
…show more content…
So the only possible way to have a true opinion in a court case would be to use your knowledge to guide oneself to find their own true opinion, proving how true opinion cannot be knowledge because you need knowledge to make a true opinion. In Frank A. Lewis’ book, “Knowledge and the Eyewitness: Plato "Theaetetus” he shows in detail how different true opinion and knowledge are within a court case. Lewis states, “He has been correctly persuaded, assuming that he has judged well. But if Knowledge and true opinion were the same, the very best juryman could not reach a correct judgment if he did not have knowledge. So the definition of knowledge as true opinion is refuted” (Lewis 186). Clearly when it comes to his example of a jury trial without the use of previous knowledge there is no possible way that a juror can come to a conclusion on the verdict. The only possible way to ever be able to obtain any form of true opinion would be to have a previous knowledge giving you an understanding of how to better create a true opinion (Lewis 187). This shows how necessary Knowledge is for
So the only possible way to have a true opinion in a court case would be to use your knowledge to guide oneself to find their own true opinion, proving how true opinion cannot be knowledge because you need knowledge to make a true opinion. In Frank A. Lewis’ book, “Knowledge and the Eyewitness: Plato "Theaetetus” he shows in detail how different true opinion and knowledge are within a court case. Lewis states, “He has been correctly persuaded, assuming that he has judged well. But if Knowledge and true opinion were the same, the very best juryman could not reach a correct judgment if he did not have knowledge. So the definition of knowledge as true opinion is refuted” (Lewis 186). Clearly when it comes to his example of a jury trial without the use of previous knowledge there is no possible way that a juror can come to a conclusion on the verdict. The only possible way to ever be able to obtain any form of true opinion would be to have a previous knowledge giving you an understanding of how to better create a true opinion (Lewis 187). This shows how necessary Knowledge is for