Below are two pieces of dialogue between John Nash and his wife-to-be Alicia from the movie, "A Beautiful Mind." Use them as a jumping off point to reflect on the relationship among knowledge, belief, and proof (a.k.a. justification?).Nash: Alicia, does our relationship warrant long-term commitment? I need some kind of proof, some kind of verifiable, empirical data.
Alicia: I'm sorry, just give me a moment to redefine my girlish notions of romance.
Alicia: How big is the universe?
Nash: Infinite.
Alicia: How do you know?
Nash: I know because all the data indicates it's infinite.
Alicia: But it hasn't been proven yet.
Nash: No.
Alicia: You haven't seen it.
Nash: No.
Alicia: How do you know for sure?
Nash: I don't, I just believe it.
Alicia: It's the same with love I guess.
Most of this last piece of dialogue can be viewed starting at the 52 second mark in the trailer at
| http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2279866649/ |
22 comments:
Knowledge will always exist with a certain amount of doubt. There is no way as humans that we can totally say that something is 100% proven because this statement is beyond us. Even if we had overwhelming evidence we cannot say for sure. Jeffrey Olen discusses how we cannot rule out possibilities even if they are very unlikely. Over history we have proven that whole systems were wrong so what is to say that this won’t happen in the future? The thing is though there are many unlikely things that we can rule out; concentrating on this small percentage is usually unproductive. Instead we can focus on how we know. Knowledge is found in ways to ways that are described and ways that are not described. It can be private, unexpressed, arise from feelings, experiences and intuition or it can also be supported by evidence, stated in propositions, judged true or false and believed. Knowledge is a hard subject to pin down because it exists as such a large concept. The variation from person to person just adds to the problem. On top of this we have belief or how a person relates to the subject. We have talked about how smart people believe weird things. This is because the way that we acquire knowledge is dependent on our environment. Since knowledge is so huge we subconsciously run everything through a filter. This filter then weighs out “viable” solutions and then we choose what we want to believe. Sometimes the things that make “logical sense” don’t outweigh others in our filters. We may be more influenced by what we are use to then what is right. We may be more in tune to what we are feeling then what is going on. If someone questions what we believe we must put the subject in reverse and review our process. By looking at our chains of beliefs we can see why we filtered out certain aspects in the vast scheme of things. Once we know why we did it, to prove something you have to run it through someone else’s filter and have a positive confirmation. This is where we run into trouble. Everyone’s filter is different because every experience you have and your perspective in those experiences changes the filter. We make some proof universal and beyond doubt to try to avoid this. We know that it’s hard for your process to fit through someone else’s filter so we make common standards to make life simpler.
I think that Knowledge, Belief and Proof are helpful to justify each of them. Knowledge can be justified by using belief and proof. Belief can be justified with knowledge and proof, etc. This reminds me of the Web of Belief that we learned in class, where a concept helps in furthering your understanding to the general knowledge or belief but you don't have to use or fulfill all of them to get to your answer unlike the justification chain, where you have to use each of them to get to your answer.
Proof is probably the most difficult concept for knowledge,because us humans "proof" requires physical justification, using our 5 senses. To believe something, you don't need physical proof but it does aid in solidifying your belief.
Knowledge is probably the most useful in believing something because it's such a broad subject, it can encompass almost anything. Knowledge can be learned or experience, this also ties into proof.
So, in my opinion, Knowledge, Belief and Proof correspond to each other.
BY THE WAY MR. Currier,
THIS IS R.J. "Baby Kangaroo" Relos
This kind of reminds me of the discussion we had in class on the "You Are What You Say" article. The man is presenting this piece of his "knowledge" to the woman and because he is considered so genius with his "beautiful mind" (plus he is a man so of course he is infallible), it's supposed to be this "awe, how touching", moment where the man is generous enough to bestow his knowledge upon the inferior woman with her feeble mind and weak thinking capabilities. Yet, in fact, according to what we have learned in class, there is no possible way Nash could know the universe is infinite. He believes it, and so does the majority of the intellectual and scientific community, with lots of data to back up theories, but does that make it true? Who knows, maybe it is maybe it isn't. He has no definite proof of his statement, but he feels confident enough in it to deduce that it must be true. In turn, the woman seems to believe him because she recognizes that he is considered extremely intelligent and she loves him, and that is reason enough for her. Although who knows what love is? Could just be the chemical oxytocin being released into our bodies (the happy chemical). Yet, human commitment and companionship is something we all look and long for, and of course we all want/have to believe in something in order to make sense of all the chaos. This dialogue is rather short, but definitely brings up some interesting topics.
The human mind doesn't necessarily need justification in order to "know" some thing is true. We believe many things daily without having 100% solid proof about it, and many of the beliefs are widely considered to be true. The example of the universe being infinite is a good one because the majority of people would accept that as true and when asked the majority of people would probably not be able to offer a valid and thorough justification of this belief. Also, emotions such as love prove to be a good example as well since we feel them and often have no proof that they are real or some times even why we feel them. But it's instinctual to trust your own emotions and I think that many other concepts that we encounter throughout our lives are similarly accepted.
Belief constitutes the strongest part of our beliefs in certain areas of knowledge. We can be a little hazy in our justification, and we don't even have to know it is true, but we MUST believe in order for us to know something. In the realm of love and relationships, belief constitutes the most important piece. If you don't believe that you love someone, then you most assuredly do not. Conversely, it doesn't take much more than a believe that you love someone, for you to know it. In these types of situations, the belief is the proof.
The justified true belief model states that for knowledge to exist it must be believed, true, and justified by some form of verifiable truth. The first conversation they have is on the subject of their future. Nash who seems to be the type of person who can only function in terms of logic needs proof from Alicia that their relationship will last. Alicia is aware that there is no way for her to know her future. She doesn't have the knowledge needed to assure Nash that their relationship will last. She cannot state that she "knows" there will be a future for them. She may believe that there will be, but to use their existing relationship as proof that they can last forever is not necessarily substantial enough justification for knowledge. There may be circumstances in the future that change the dynamics of their relationship, and they end up not being together. The comparison between the universe and love makes sense. Although we as humans can never fully know that the universe is infinite or that love truly exists; we can point to all the circumstances and data that shows that both exist. I know I love my friends and family, but love is a hard thing to show empirical evidence for. I may be able to physically show the sacrifices I have made, or possibly explain my psychological certainty in the matter of love. At the same time, I think it would be equally difficult for someone to dispute love and state that there is no justification for it.
in this instance the dialog is comparing something that is unable to be proved, (the universe is infinite) to something else that cannot be tangibly proven. (one persons commitment to the other) therefore you are forced into a realm where the only knowledge is belief. Its will be a very long time before we ever figure out if the universe is infinite, or if we will ever figure it out for that matter. it is like love in this way because there really is nothing you can do to PROVE one persons love for the other. there are lots of things that two people can do to convince the other into believing in love, but it cannot be proven.
I would assume love to be more based on belief then knowledge or proof but this could just be the way that it has been romanticized in modern movies.I have i never been in love so I can't give any examples other then what I know but what I do know is if you tell someone the only reason they have been with someone for 20+ years of their life is because of the knowledge that their a wonderful person or because of a chemical reaction in the brain their not going to believe it.
Even though the knowledge of an "infinite universe" has been justified by other pieces of data from people who study this kind of thing you don't have proof or evidence that it exists. Nash is just showing us that he believes that there is an infinite universe because there is scientific data that shows this, but he doesn't have physical "proof" that there is one. His belief is justified, so it is knowledge by definition.One does not necessarily need "proof" to know that something is true. If this was the case then many of us would know nothing. For example, everyone knows that the world is round because of information given to us by scientists who study the Earth. One may not have physical "proof" of the world being round, but we all know that it is. This truth is justified by scientific data and it points to the fact that it is round. "Proof" is an overrated concept mainly because it is physical evidence which is only one of the many ways that you can justify knowledge.
As this post is about love...does love need proof? Does love even have proof? Beats me. However, proof in itself...something rather hard to come up with, isn't it? For the most part. If you believe in something...do you have to have proof? No. I think not. Like Santa-many children will tell you that he is real. No doubt. Will they have proof? No. There are present under the tree and the cookies are gone-that is proof enough for them. This just goes to show how easily proof can be fabricated. Of course, children are sometimes (I wouldn't say often) easier to fool than adults, but the concept remains true. And of course, most adults have doubt in there beliefs. Humans are cynical-even of what we ourselves take to be true,
In the first conversation, John Nash is in search of proof that his relationship with Alicia will last. He is a logistical genius, but he cannot find a math equation that will give him love. Love is an emotion, which is one of the Four Ways of Knowing. Emotions are always taken as knowledge. If I say I am sad, then it is true that I am sad. Out of the categories of justification, truth, and belief, emotions such as love are based mainly on belief. In my opinion, this makes a knowledge claim less reliant, because beliefs can change. Belief is also a key factor in the second conversation. Nash believes the universe is infinite. He even says he doesn't know for sure, because it is not proven. If something is not true, believed, and proven then it isn't considered knowledge. Alicia replies by saying "It's the same with love I guess." She believes she loves him, but since there is no logistical formula to prove it, she cannot be certain.
We have read that knowledge is justified true belief. I think the truth part is the most important piece because you cannot know something if it is not true. I think the justification is the next important part because if you have justification on a subject your belief could stem from that justification. Your beliefs are the only thing that would keep you from accepting justification. In the case of feelings I think it is the same. You have strong feelings for someone so you believe that you are in love with them. Your feelings are also your justification, and the reason you would accept your love as true. Either way you need all three.
Nothing in our world can be completely certain. But, there are some things that you can be a lot more certain of than others and some things are emotional and don't need proof, such as love. This is why Alicia's comparison is completely wrong. She compares love to a scientific theory. In order to become a valid theory, it had to go through much questioning and testing and can be proved to some extent. Not to mention that love is an emotion that doesn't require scientific evidence. So, we can't prove our emotions but we can separate completely ridiculous claims from ones that make sense and can be backed by some sort of evidence.
When Nash says that he believes the universe is infinite he is using the coherence theory of truth to justify his belief. He is referring to scientific data that suggests this. It would be near impossible even in the near future for any human to decipher whether the universe is infinite or not through personal sense perception. Even though I have not seen this movie, it seems that Nash is a person that depends far more on the reasoning aspect of the four ways of knowing than any of the others. Nash is basing his beliefs of the universe's infinity based on calculations and research. However a limitation of reasoning is that it can be built upon fallacies. It is unhealthy for Nash to depend completely upon reasoning to answer all questions. If Nash were to use the other ways of knowing including sense perception, he would most likely arrive at a different conclusion, most likely one that would point to the truth that there are certain things that humans may not ever "know" within their own lifetimes.
We might not always believe everything is always 100 % true. We are mostly influenced by what has been told by us through society in order to keep a common person's curiousity satisfied. Speaking towards love... being in love is indescribable emotion that alters our language to the person your attracted too. Our emotion takes over our reasons to follow through with the love we desire. As for perception or sense we use this belief of being in love to see and activate the emotions we have towards the attracted person. Love is just a small example of the variety of similarities to emotion, language, sense and reason.
As humans we don't always distinguish between what we may believe in, and what we know is certain. The whole basis of making knowledge claims is being able to justify what you claim. As we have been over in class pointless times, in order to know something, you have to believe in it, or obviously you do not know it. Again, as humans we also like to generalize things instead of specifying our exact feelings/claims. The thing that gets muddled into the equation, is what we deem is eligible "proof," especially when it comes to expressing our feelings as shown by the movie quoted. Another way to justify a knowledge claim is possibly through plain logic. If someone tells me that elephants are grey, using the logic and prior knowledge, I can deem that that statement was true. In conclusion, I think that sometimes we base our knowledge off of what we believe but do not necessarily know, and as other humans we learn to accept it because others may have.
Love is a stupid thing. It takes over our lives, but we can't define it. But perhaps the fact that love is just a "feeling" is why we let it rule our pitiful lives.. Do we stray away from things because it so boringly makes sense?
I've been watching a relationship recently. Where the two people loved each other like never before, but ended recently due to the guy being unhappy about what's to come in the future. At first this sees like a stupid thing to do all together, but my point is that it was because he tried to analyze love and the relationship so much that he eventually did not want to be a part of it anymore. It seemed logical because what he was afraid of was pretty much inevitable and he would be unhappy bout it /later/.
Shortly after the breakup, I watched Letters to Juliet. It's exactly what I needed to understand what went wrong. Letters to Juliet was a pure love story. The two fell in love and did not bother complicating things. This changed my perspective on life dramatically. I realized that it's not worth analyzing people and thinking through things such as love. That's it's more fun to just go where you're happy.
There is no justified true belief in love that we know of. Love to us is purely belief and predicting the future is belief as well. Analyzing it and treating what you believe as knowledge hurts some kind of system.
As people have already menetioned, knowledge can't be created without some sort of doubts; same goes with how you can't fully "know" something without using your other ways of knowing. You have to apply all of the different types of obtaining a clear understanding before you apply it.
We "know" that knowledge is justified, true, belief. This in itself is a knowledge claim. We claim to know a lot of stuff because we believe it, or it has been proven. Take global warming, for example. Many people claim to know that it is happening, because they believe it and they can show proof of it happening. However, there are also people who think global warming is really just a phase that the earth goes through. I am trying to say that there is no certainty to knowledge, there is simply justification and belief. These two factors can be so strong in a persons mind that they claim to KNOW ---- is true. How do we know anything is ever true though? Knowledge is kind of like love and faith in that sense, you just have to believe in it, and use justification as proof of its existence.
The concept of infinity is totally intangible, but that is the limit to our beliefs and justification. Nash claims to know that the universe is infinite because he believes it. There is no way to know how big the universe is, so the concept of infinity comes in to explain it. Infinity is nothing more than a belief. To me, you can never really know things for sure, but you can definitely believe and justify them, which can create pseudo-knowledge, like the concept of infinity, which is a pseudo-number to explain the universe.
Justification isn’t always required to find something to be factual. The universe being infinite is a great example. There is no absolute proof that demonstrates the infinite expansion of the universe, yet I believe in it. Believing in something is just as important as proof, but proof surpasses belief. I mean, how can someone not believe in something factual that has statistics to back it up. Now, the dialogue between Nash and Alicia is relevant to the example of the universe. You can’t prove love, you can feel it and believe in it, but there is nothing that gives physical proof that two people love each other, unless they’re married, but even marriage doesn’t always prove love. So in a relationship, both have to strongly believe that they are in love and feel love in order for them to be in love.
To have belief in something is to have no doubt; to have doubt is not to know, because belief becomes the strongest part in different areas of knowledge. Our justification may not always be correct, and we don't have to justify something we know, but to know something we have to believe it. Also, love is an emotion, something that is felt and you must believe it for yourself to make yourself believe that you are truly in love with the other person, in this case belief is your proof of love, but it can’t be justified or proven.
Both these scenes deal with a certain type of knowledge that evades the traditional paradigm of what is knowledge. Traditionally knowledge can only be attained through justified true belief. But in the circumstances of the first scene, love can work in mysterious ways. Love is an extremely sensitive word and one does not say it as much as possible; it is reserved for the people who are special to that particular person. Nash asks for some empirical data, or evidence for love. The problem with love is that the knowledge of love is acquired internally, and the only evidence is feelings. It is the feelings we get when we are with someone special that we know that love exists within ourselves and the other person. The same paradigm works, just in a different way.
In the second instance due to our limited discoveries in the size of our universe, we can only speculate at the size of it. we map the stars, and right when we think we have mapped them all, new ones pop up, creating a never ending cycle. We have come to the conclusion that the universe is infinite, and due to our own knowledge on the physical laws of space, we create the best explanation possible. And we state that we know the universe is infinite because we truly believe that is the conclusion which the evidence points to. Same paradigm, just a bit different
Post a Comment