The knowledge that we value the most is the knowledge for which we can provide the strongest justifications.” To what extent would you agree with this claim?

It is believed by most philosophers that if someone does not value the extent of knowledge, then he/she may not know it. It actually means that if someone is not ready to believe in something, then he/she does not know about that thing, because believing and valuing knowledge is as important as knowing something. For instance, if you know that a fish would die, if she is out of the water, but if you don’t believe in this knowledge, then it means you actually don’t possess that knowledge. So valuing and believing the information is equally important. It can also be said that knowledge comes with the requirement of believing. The knowledge is defined as “justified true belief”, so it means that there are two aspects associated with knowledge. The first simple is thing is that you know about something, but the second thing is a bit complicated, and that is how much that knowledge is valued, which we possess. It is true that all the knowledge we have, cannot be considered equally important and valuable (Turri)

The question is how we would identify about something and how it would be judged whether the information is valuable or not? However, it is important to understand that justifying our knowledge is a very critical thing that cannot be ignored by any means. But still, there could be knowledge, which will always remain important and valuable, even if we don’t value it. Humans come in contact with so much knowledge on a daily basis, and there are many ways for this knowledge to reach humans. For instance, knowledge may come with some logic, or it may arrive on the basis of some perception, or humans may get their knowledge from their religion. But all of this knowledge cannot be considered valuable, some of the knowledge may have more importance in our lives, and some of the knowledge may have the least value in our lives. So, a justification given for each category of knowledge would depend on its importance and value in society. In this paper, I am going to present a viewpoint that it is not necessary that every category of knowledge may not the strongest justification, which is valued by us. It means that there could be knowledge, which can be valuable even without providing any justification (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

            I think my viewpoint is bit different from many philosophers as it is a strong concept that knowledge is valued by us, which we can justify the most. It is not that I am totally against this viewpoint, I somewhat agree with this. I also understand that there could be variety of knowledge, which we value the most because we have strong justification for it, and we give this justification to prove others that knowledge shared by us is the most valuable one. But if we say that it is true in all given situation, then I don’t believe in this view point, because there can be variety of situations, where knowledge may not be given the justification to prove its value. I will explain this idea with two categories of knowledge, one is religious knowledge, and the other is scientific knowledge. It is vital to mention here that different situations may come up with variety of justifications, and these justifications can be based on perception, expertise, personal experience, feelings or emotions. However, there can be knowledge, which may not any justification from each person to prove its value and wroth.

            It is necessary to code some examples here so that I can explain my viewpoint with more elaboration. For instance, we take scientific knowledge as an example to understand my idea. There is an attraction between the objects and earth, and this attraction is proved by science. Newton came up with three laws of motions, which defined the attraction between objects and earth, and these laws off motions were based on strong scientific knowledge. The universal gravitation law was also presented by Newton, which proved so many things experienced by human beings and other objects on this earth. Now, if a person says that he/she does not believe in the law of motion, and then he should provide any justification to that, otherwise refusing a body of scientific knowledge will not be accepted, because science has proved it. We all know that the law of motion and other relevant concepts explained by Newton still stands true and no one has been able to invalidate them (Lucas). It means that there is no justification needed to give value to this scientific knowledge with regards to the law of motion, because it is proved on daily basis in our lives, and no one can deny such open fact without providing any logical reasoning. 

            So, even we do not value the scientific knowledge related to motion and gravitation, it will still stand true because it cannot be refused without providing any justification, which is based on any logical conclusion. It shows that knowledge may not be value by a person for any given reasons, but if it is based on scientific experiences and observations, where results were proved wits strong justifications, then it does not matter whether one value it or not because the worth of such knowledge is already proved. The other major example to explain my viewpoint is related to religion. There are so many popular religions in the world, and one may believe or not believe in those religions, but reality cannot be changed. I actually mean to say that if a person says that he/she does not believe in any religion, but his/her viewpoint stands no value, because truth is that religions are a big reality of this world and these religions are valued by millions of people around the world.

            However, it is important to explain the religious knowledge, how different it is from the scientific knowledge, but still valued by people. The religious knowledge cannot prove scientific and experimental proves and facts like they are presented by scientific knowledge. One good example is the existence of God, who is running all the matters of this universe. There are no scientific proves or valid justifications to say that God exists, but still millions of people around the world believe in one God (BLOOM). One good example can be given for people belonging to Muslim Faith. They strongly believe that the universe is run by one God, and there is a life hereafter, where they will be answerable for their actions in front of God. They give various justifications for this, which may not comply with the mindset of many, but still, this religious knowledge will stand true for millions of Muslims around the globe. It is an interesting point to make here: if people are not able to give justification for the existence of God, but still believe in it, and people who do not believe in any God, they have no proved facts and justification to prove the non-existence of God (SEP)

            Looking at the examples from scientific as well as religious knowledge, it is proved that there is so much knowledge valued by us in our daily lives, but still, we don’t have any justifications to prove the value of knowledge. People do believe in God, it is a most valued knowledge for them, but when it is asked to justify this valued knowledge, and then they have no justification to prove the existence of God, and still believe in one God. Therefore it can be concluded in the end that whether knowledge is valued by us or not, it is not necessary to give its justification with facts to prove its worth. There could be valuable knowledge, which can easily be justified, but there is also a variety of knowledge, which cannot be justified, but still, it is considered true and valuable.

Works Cited

BLOOM, PAUL. Scientific Faith Is Different From Religious Faith. 2015. 24 October 2019 <https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/why-scientific-faith-isnt-the-same-as-religious-faith/417357/>.

Lucas, Jim. Newton's Laws of Motion. 2017. 24 October 2019 <https://www.livescience.com/46558-laws-of-motion.html>.

SEP. Religion and Science. 2017. 24 October 2019 <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/>.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Analysis of Knowledge. 2017. 24 October 2019 <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/>.

Turri, John. "Is knowledge justified true belief?" Synthese 184.3 (2012): 247–259.