It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.
Justified true belief is a definition of knowledge that is most frequently credited to Plato and his dialogues. The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but one must also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, a subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
P is true
S believes that P is true, and
S is justified in believing that P is true
The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense, since it focuses on the lack of justification for either:
Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) or
Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature
Causality (also referred to as causation) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a physical consequence of the first.
"Induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy."
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Woodcarver
I've got work so I will have to respond to the majority of this later . I have never heard of him. I first heard this argument presented by Jeff durbin that is also were my first encounter with tag. So no I dont know that guy. All the above information comes from David Hume's and Bertrand Russell
Also you are attacking me like I don't agree with what I have already said. All I have said is that this poses a problem for the atheist not the theist. And you just started jumping to.all kinds of conclusions about how I would respond.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlephBet
you post as though citing yourself is doing anything to improve your credibility. i hate to burst your bubble, but you are only hurting yourself.
I also love that your first quote is from C.D. Broad. He was a brilliant analytical thinker and a famously outspoken agnostic and homosexual, at a time when homosexuality was very much illegal. Kudos to him, a genuine philosophic hero. He was definitely not a christian, even though he gained most of his higher education from christian institutions. He has many books and papers to pick quotes from, but you decided to pick one which mocks your side of the argument.
Your philosophical problem poses absolutely no problem for me because I'm not afraid to say that I don't know everything.
i could get vicious as well and point out that everything you just laid down as being problematic for atheists also applies to theism. in other words, you can only BELIEVE that your senses (and therefore your spiritual experiences) are accurate
, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable