JUSTIFIED—TRUE—BELIEF
WAYS OF KNOWING

BELIEF

The knowledge claim is a matter of conviction. We must own our knowledge.  We are fallible as well as capable and are quite often mistaken.

Here is one traditional deconstruction of the concept of knowledge. As powerful as it seems, we should be wary and keep in mind that ultimately Knowledge may be sui generis, that is: it is a holistic notion that stands by itself—unique in its blend of characteristics—rather than being perfectly and fully analyzable into a set of simpler foundational concepts.

JUSTIFIED

The knowledge claim is justified with adequate evidence. Justification requires coherence with previous data and clarity with regard to language and logic. There can be no contradiction or strong counter.

TRUE

The knowledge claim is true rather than false. It corresponds to the real world. It is a fact. It is “what is the case.”

Why is the metaphor of the three legged stool being used here?

Does this way of looking at knowledge encompass Absolute Certainty?

Can there be knowledge without mind?

Where, if at all, might the sensation of immediate experience, self-awareness, “knowing that you know,” be located in this model?

Where does emotion fit. Does it drive belief?