is often welcomed by the authority or the company! At least you are off the hook.Sometimes a belief is justified and sometimes it is not. Even if what I believe is true, I may not be justified in believing it. On the other hand, I might be justified in believing something false. So we need to address the question of how a belief is justified. From what we have said, it is clear that a justified belief is not the same as a true belief, not the same as knowledge. So, now we shall ask, What is knowledge? Is it a special kind of belief?Note that in logic we define an argument as a process of reasoning. Statements follow one another and are connected in such a way that we draw a conclusion and say that we are justified in doing so. If the argument is a sound one, the conclusion will follow from the preceding sentences, which are called premises. In such a case if those premises are true the conclusion will be true. Look at the following argument.You can justifiably believe a false statement.Knowledge involves believing a true statement.Knowledge involves justifiably believing a true statementTherefore, you cannot know a false statement.Nor can you know a true statement unless you can justifiably believe it.Does it also follow from:You cannot know a true statement if your belief is not justified:thatJustifiably believing a true statement constitutes knowledge?If testimony is to be credited and provide justified belief, (1) the attester must be honest. This is the sincerity dimension, and (2) she must also have sufficient knowledge or experience to form a true belief. This is the competence dimension. For example, If Pamela testifies on the basis of a lucky guess that Samantha was in Nottingham yesterday, she cannot transmit justification or knowledge to Peter, the person to whom she speaks. What she testifies to is true, but it is a fluke that she believes that it is true. It is even more of an accident that the one to whom she testifies believes the true statement.So their belief is not justified and an unjustified belief is not knowledge. I may believe that what she says is true. Her belief was not justified. But what about Peter’s. Is his belief justified? If you say that it is, will you also have to add that he does not know what he believes? I can believe what I do not know. I can believe what I am not justified in believing. Also it is quite possible that I might justifiably believe something that is false. Think of circumstances in which this might be the case. The one above is an example.Questions to think about:Are there other reasons why my belief might not be justified?Since a justified belief may be a false belief, what more must there be for a justified belief to constitute knowledge?On what basis would you consider a belief to be justified by someone’s testimony? This might be either someone’s verbal account, a report in a newspaper, or what a textbook says.But you may be justified through my testimony even if I who testify am not justified in my belief. Whether you are justified in your belief will depend on (1) The way I attest to Samantha being in Nottingham yesterday, and (2) your background information about me and about the circumstances. Can you work out this example? Then make up one of your own of (1) justified belief, (2) unjustified belief based on testimony.Statement of principles: A belief based on testimony is justified provided the believer has adequate grounds for taking the attester to be credible regarding the proposition in question. Belief constitutes knowledge only provided the one testifying knows the proposition and provided the one hearing, the one who comes to believe, has no reason to doubt either the proposition or the attester’s credibility about it.So if I have reason to think the attester is trustworthy and has no motive for deceiving me and has a good ground for believing what she says and perhaps also is in a position of authority, or has access to special knowledge, then my belief is reasonable and so is justified.Questions: Was it reasonable for many thousands of people for long periods of time to believe that the earth is flat, i.e. were they justified in so believing a falsehood? So is one justified in believing something at one time but not at another time?Think of examples of justified but false belief.2 A Summary of Some IssuesOur question is: How does testimony produce belief?Distinguish inferential and non-inferential beliefs. Ask, Are all beliefs which are derived from testimony inferential, as in the following case?Premises: The witness seems reliable.Evidence: The statement the witness makes fits in with what I know about the case.Conclusion: Therefore, it is reasonable that I believe that statement.Perception is necessary for the formation of beliefs grounded in testimony. I must hear the testimony. A basic belief is one not based on other beliefs. The beliefs evoked by testimony need not be based on premises at all, i.e. they can be non-inferential.The epistemological question is: ‘How does testimony yield justified belief and knowledge?’ Certain conditions must be fulfilled if testimony is to provide knowledge to its hearer. If I who am testifying do not know that p [p stands for ‘any statement’], you who hear my testimony can’t come to know that p on the basis of my attesting to it. If I do not know but only pretend that I do, you cannot know what I testify to. For example, if I do not know, but only surmise, that I am getting a good return on my investment, and testify to you that I am, you, the hearer, cannot know. You may believe but the belief may turn out to be false. Whether you are justified in believing me depends on other considerations.However, even if I am not justified in believing it, my testifying to it can provide you with justification for believing it, by providing the main materials for your becoming justified in believing it. The way I attest to the proposition, together with your background justification regarding me and the circumstances, may give you justification, independent of whether I have such justification.If testimony is to be credited and provide justified belief, (1) the attester must be honest, and so fulfil the sincerity dimension, and also (2) must have sufficient knowledge or experience to form a true belief, the competence dimension. For example, say that Pete testifies on the basis of a lucky guess that Bob made a deal with Mary yesterday.What he believes is true, what he testifies to is true, but it is a lucky accident that his testimony is true. But he does not know that it is. Suppose I believe his testimony. I may or may not be justified in my belief. Whether I am must be determined by considerations about my previous contacts with Pete, and my present grounds for taking his testimony to be true, e.g. my experience of his previous reliability as a giver of testimony. There is irony in such an example. His belief is a true belief, but for him it is not justified since it is a fluke that he got it right. So since his testimony is true, and will turn out to be known as true, he may, because of that, be taken as a reliable witness, not only in this case, but in other instances. The question is whether my belief is justified as the grounds for his reliability in other cases than this one.You may be justified through my testimony even if I, in testifying, am not justified in my belief. Whether you are justified in your belief in my testimony will depend on first, the way I attest to say, Samantha being in London yesterday, and second, your background information about me and third, independent of your considerations about me, your awareness of the circumstances to which I am testifyingStatement of principles: A belief based on testimony is justified provided the believer has justification for taking the attester to be credible regarding the proposition in question.
Belief constitutes knowledge (1) provided the proposition is true, (2) provided the one testifying knows the proposition and (3) provided the one hearing and coming to believe, has good reason to believe or has no reason to doubt either the proposition or the attester’s credibility about it.2
1 Validating TestimonyChristians, like other believers, have writings they consider to be not only authentic but also authoritative. The Christian believer is interested both in the present and in the past. The writings, called ‘scripture’ have frequent references to events that happened, to people and peoples who lived in the past, what they did, what they said, what happened to them, the writings that survived them. Historical questions are often of primary importance. But their importance is to be distinguished from other kinds of importance.We rely for our knowledge of the past on the testimony of those who lived and left evidence of their living. Such sources provide testimony to persons, events, beliefs. Sometimes the evidence is in the form of writing about the events it purports to report and interpret. Such testimony is thus available for the kind of careful scrutiny the historian directs to historical sources. Such scrutiny reveals the importance of that past to the present. How is this testimony validated?The testimony of Christians has a present aspect in that the believer is now making claims about what is present. Christians testify (1) to something that has happened in the past, something that they claim is essential for their belief, (2) and claim that, fulfilling the same conditions, can also happen in the present to the hearer. Some such testimony is effective and is validated through a two stage process: The hearer believes the proposition about the experience of others. What the testator
