Notes on Norman Malcom and a Drawing

(Originally written September 4, 2006, with accompanying artwork in Book 8)

One More Essay on Skepticism!

"Two Types of Knowledge"
Norman Malcom

-1911-1990
-Cornell Professor
-Distinguishes between weak and strong knowledge
-weak knowledge will allow further investigation to determine whether we have knowledge or not
-strong knowledge is so certain that no evidence can count against it

We cannot stake a belief for knowledge because we are aware of something being a belief or being knowledge - a paraphrase of H.A. Prichard

Malcom asks: can I discover in myself whether I know something, whether then merely believe it?

1) One can offer a belief with no justification and if the belief is true it is because you had a true belief.

2) One can offer a belief that has a justification and then it proves true, then one can say with a hesitation that knowledge was had.

3) One can offer a knowledge statement that has a justification and if it proves true it will be declared knowledge with less hesitation.

4) One can offer a knowledge statement that has a stronger justification and if it proves true there will be no objection to it being knowledge.

5) One can offer a statement of knowledge with a strong justification, but if it proves to be false it is not knowledge, but a belief.

The amount of confidence one has in a judgment can cause it to be knowledge or a belief.

Prichard is wrong because in cases four and five a statement is proved to be knowledge in four and a belief in five. No matter how much reflection is done one could not distinguish between knowledge and belief until the reality is discovered empirically or through the senses.

Making a statement of perceived knowledge that turns out to be false and thus a false belief and not knowledge only proves an error, not that knowledge is impossible.

When one person asserts knowledge without being completely sure of it, he is affirming a 'weak' knowledge.

The use of the words, 'know' and 'knew' in language distinguishes strong knowledge from weak knowledge.

Reflection is possible in weak knowledge. Reflection is impossible in strong knowledge, no matter how good the arguments are.

Weak and strong knowledge can be applied to empirical knowledge also.

For anything to be proven false, something necessarily cannot be proven false. "It is impossible that every statement about physical things could turn out to be false" (Pojman, 68-69).

Chaos fills minds when everything could be false. It takes away too much from the mind. Admitting some claims can be false is admitting that mistakes can be made, not destroying all knowledge.

The strong knowledge is analogous to what various philosophers have called, "perfect", "metaphysical", and "strict certainty".

Knowledge of the physical world is knowledge of the physical world, not of sensory perceptions, sense-data, or appearances.

Strong and weak knowledge is applicable to a priori knowledge and empirical knowledge.

Linehan - I like the idea of strong and weak knowledge. Could it apply to metaphysical knowledge? I am curious, but too tired to delve into it.