full of enthusiasm she described the performance she heard yesterday. So I am confirmed in believing Maria’s testimony.Now for a few examples. Apply the questions suggested above to the following examples:The witness says that she saw the car swerve and hit the lamp post.The witness says that he saw a man walk through a closed door.The witness says she saw a ghost in the library.The witness said that he saw water flowing upwards.The reporter claimed that the Frenchman ate three hundred and twenty four snails.David Hume considered that when the Indian prince or the inhabitant of Sumatra refused to believe that water froze, that belief was a reasonable one. So he thought that it is reasonable sometimes to believe something that is false. There is no reason to disagree with that. We are now ready to discuss what makes for reasonable belief, what justifies belief.To express a belief you do not always have to preface the remark with the words ‘I believe that’. Normally when you make a statement you intend your hearer to understand that it is to be taken to be a true statement. When you say, ‘Mary is coming tomorrow’, it is clear to anyone who takes spoken sentences as we normally take them that you believe it. A false statement or a lie is under normal circumstances, i.e. unless we have grounds for doubt, taken to be true. When we believe a false statement we take it to be true. That is why people lie.A proposition is a statement, i.e. a sentence that expresses either a truth or a falsehood. It is a claim and it is either true or false, but not both! It is a sentence that makes an assertion. The following two sentences make claims. ‘Today is the twenty-ninth day in February.’ ‘Leila’s maternal grandfather is six years younger than she is.’ Note that the first is true now, the ‘now’ being as I write in the second month, but it will not be true tomorrow but only again four years from now. The second will not be true tomorrow either, but for a different reason. It is a logical impossibility. Define the terms correctly and there is a contradiction. The passage of time has nothing to do with its truth or falsity. We do not look for evidence for its falsity because we cannot. When we understand the meaning of the terms we know that the claim is false. Sentences that make claims are called propositions. They can be either true or false. We may or we may not believe them. As we have just seen, they make claims in their different ways.In contrast, ‘Get up!’, ‘What a beautiful morning!’, ‘Let us move forward.’ are complete sentences but they do not make claims. They are not propositions. They are not statements. One is a command. One is an exclamation. One is an exhortation. None of these can be true. Nor can they be false. Such a sentence that may be true or false is a proposition. We respond appropriately to each of these different kinds of sentences in different ways. But we cannot believe these three kinds. Take an exclamation for example. Jane says, ‘What a lovely day!’ and wants you to take this as an exclamation rather than as a claim. Jenny says, pointing to the facts, ‘It’s pouring with rain and the river is overflowing. So it’s not appropriate to say, What a beautiful morning.’ ‘Oh! But it is!’ says Jane, ‘I have just heard that I have passed my exam!’ Reacting thus appropriately is not the same as believing, asserting, claiming. An exclamation expresses an attitude. It does not make a claim. But the attitude may or may not be appropriate. What makes the attitude expressed in an exclamation appropriate will, of course, be some state of affairs about which a proposition may truly be made. Hence Jenny points to some dismal facts which seem to make Jane’s happy exclamation inappropriate, only to be countered with Jane’s stating a different fact which makes her expression of delight appropriate for her.Sometimes sentences that have the form of propositions and so appear to make a claim may function differently. They may express an attitude. For example, ‘That dog is a terror’ (which has the form of a statement) may mean effectively that I am expressing an aversion to the beast! Something like ‘Ugh!’ Or I am sounding a warning: ‘Keep well clear of him!’ When Jane says, ‘I’ve passed! I’ve passed!’(which has the form of a statement) she is expressing her exultation and means effectively, ‘Wow! Whoopee!’ as well as giving you the information that the examiners have passed her. It has the form of a statement but in effect it is not only a statement, but also an exclamation. It is to be taken rather as an expression of delight than a statement of fact. It does have these two functions of course. But one is predominant! Some religious sentences are like that. It is a matter of recognising both the function and the status of the particular sentence. Take and consider for example ‘God loves us as a father loves his child’. It may be intended as an exclamation of contentment, or as a claim, sometimes both!Some things we believe are justified and others are not. I may or not be justified in my belief about a perception, an event, or an abstract proposition.To answer how you would justifiably affirm or deny a claim, you must ask the general question about the grounds on which one makes claims. There are two basic answers to this question: First, ‘It stands to reason!’ where ‘reason’ means logical consistency. The statement has to be true given the meaning of the terms and the relation asserted between them: e.g. 2+2 = 4. The statement is logically necessary.The second sort of ground is that there is sufficient evidence to verify the claim. The evidence may be direct. It is given to me by some experience I am having or have had. I have seen, heard etc. Or, the evidence comes to me from reliable witnesses. Mary told me she saw, heard etc.Having asked the general question and given your answer you then can go to the specific case and apply it there. Try the examples that follow:The sound I am now hearing is a car exhaust. (To hear is to perceive.)The flower I am looking at is yellow. (To see is to perceive.)What I smell is lavender. (To smell is to perceive.)People never have illusions.There are pink elephants.The earth is flat.Not all claims are concrete. Some are abstract. You may or may not be justified in your belief about an abstract claim. First of all, of course, you have to understand it. You may then believe it. You may then not believe it. Your belief depends upon your understanding. If you do not understand Pythagoras’ theorem, you cannot believe its conclusion. You may pretend to assert it. But without comprehension you neither believe nor can you make a genuine assertion. Your stating it may give the appearance of an understanding you do not have.Consider the following:20 litres is larger than 10 gallons.The end justifies the means.Knowing involves believing.A necessary condition for believing is understanding.The interior angles of a triangle amount to two right angles.A large dog is a better house dog than a small dog.Boojams are inflabulated.An interesting issue arises. When one affirms a belief one does not understand the conformity that results may be artificial and/or hypocritical. You may appear to agree with the majority when you have not reached an understanding of what it is you appear to assert. So you give the impression that you believe. Such artificial agreement 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
