The basis of belief

Kamakshi Balasubramanian

As teachers, we are better prepared to approach our classroom work when we have a foundation in Theory of Knowledge. A sound understanding of what constitutes knowledge helps us find techniques to break down the delivery of content as knowledge. Our presentation in the classroom always consists of presenting an idea, offering justifications in the form of explanations, asserting the reliability of the evidence that goes into the justification as truth, and, finally, establishing the validity and usefulness of the content with personal conviction.

Two earlier articles in this series explored the conditions that define Knowledge: we described what it is to justify an impersonal knowledge claim and what we mean by truth in such knowledge claims.

In the tradition following Plato, for something to be established as Knowledge, three conditions have to be met.

These conditions are
• justification
• truth
• belief

We have thus far discussed the justification condition and the truth condition.

Now we come to the belief condition. To recap, a widely used definition of knowledge is “that which is justified, is true, and is believed.”

While “Justification’ is easy to understand as a condition, “Truth” creates some complexities for understanding, as “Truth” is essentially an abstract concept.

This idea of belief is somewhat more complex than the idea of truth. “Belief” here relates to the belief of the person who claims to have knowledge about something or claims to know something. When I say I “know” something, I must “believe” that which has been justified and is true. Thus, if I make a knowledge claim, then I must justify it, it must be true, and I must believe it. That does not mean that everyone will share my belief.

This is where a serious complexity arises: there will always be people who will refuse to believe something, even when there is sufficient justification and truth in the proposition.

For example, even today, there are people who do not “believe” that the moon landing happened; they believe instead that Neil Armstrong’s moon-landing was mere propaganda.

But what about Neil Armstrong himself, and the team of scientists and engineers who put him on the moon?

Neil Armstrong “knows” (has knowledge) that he landed on the moon because he can prove it, he knows the evidence to be true, and he also believes it. So also does the team which put him on the moon.

***
Let us now look at how a hypothesis is made. When we state a hypothesis, we start with some idea of what knowledge outcome will result from our hypothesis.

Here’s an example. “The crowds will be large whenever we hold the meeting in town X,” we might say as a hypothesis. We strive to justify our hypothesis by providing evidence. The evidence we provide has to be true for us to say that we “know” that “the crowds will be large whenever we hold the meeting in town X.” We believe our conclusion when we arrange our meetings in town X.

Belief is essential for the person who says he “knows” something.

What if we don’t believe our hypothesis? Obviously, justifying a hypothesis as true for someone else would be next to impossible if we are not willing to believe it ourselves. Such an attempt would be a sheer waste of time.

What if, in the example above, the crowds are not large in town X, as expected? There could be many reasons why our hypothesis turned out to be wrong. Does it mean that we didn’t believe it? The answer is “no”. We believed in our finding and therefore “knew” what to expect. But subsequent events turned out otherwise, which should lead us to enquire why that happened, and thus modify our knowledge for the future.

There will always be problems of uncertainty when it comes to knowledge about future events. We keep that in mind when we say we “know” with reference to the future. Such uncertainty arises with reference to past events also. There are many instances in recent and ancient history that demonstrate this uncertainty. Court cases are reopened and sometimes a person serving a sentence is acquitted. Study of the past or the study of history is replete with examples where new evidence comes up to discredit currently held knowledge about historical events, personalities, and even dates. For instance, there’s a disagreement on who invented the radio and when.

***
We cannot as individuals arrive at all knowledge. Much of our knowledge is received from a variety of sources. When we try to apply knowledge and theories that are widespread (or generally held to be true) directly to our daily lives, we cannot be (or may never be) certain that
• the justification provided by some authority is sound
• the evidence is reliable, and
• the “truth” condition has been met

Sadly, we may even question whether the person in authority actually believes it. Often, people in the business of propaganda disseminate “knowledge” that they themselves may not believe. Such a situation should not frighten the true seeker of impersonal knowledge. On the contrary, it should motivate us to examine sources, to demand facts, to be open to alternate interpretations, and to enquire further.

When we search and seek knowledge, we need to stay clear of the pitfalls of propaganda and/or motivated research, by adhering strictly to what we know about the veracity of knowledge claims, backed up by evidence, justification, truth, and belief.

***
Summing up
To sum up, then, justification, truth, and belief are essential conditions for something to be accepted as knowledge. This simple formula has been used widely, but it has also been debated widely in philosophy. There are philosophers who assert that three conditions are NOT sufficient for Knowledge. There are other philosophers who question the inclusion of “belief” in Knowledge.

Such an intellectual debate is inevitable and natural. Given that all knowledge is open to refinement, the process of debate and questioning alone can dispel controversies and doubt. When philosophers discuss Knowledge, they are keenly aware that “truth” and “belief” are liable to be subjective. That is a major hurdle in defining Knowledge. Even “justification” is often limited by the data or tools we have.

All of this means just one thing. Knowledge is always growing. Knowledge is always open to refinement and renewal. And Knowledge is the basis for all intellectual search.

The primary questions in the study of Theory of Knowledge are as follows:
• What is Knowledge?
• What kinds of Knowledge can we speak of?
• What are the sources of Knowledge?

Those are the questions I have tried to address in the five articles in this series so far. Beyond that, Theory of Knowledge engages us in exploring our many ways of knowing, and how these ways of knowing help us in the study of various disciplines, such as the experimental sciences, theoretical sciences, the humanities, languages, arts, and many others. In that process, we begin to see how seemingly different disciplines (such as mathematics and languages; chemistry and visual arts) are interconnected. Understanding such ideas supports the learning process in several ways: it guides the learner to internalize what has been learned, and to then integrate such learning into life.

The author is an educator and writer with significant experience teaching at secondary and tertiary levels. She can be reached at papukamakshi@gmail.com.