is knowledge a justified belief?

Epistemologists have widely accepted that truth, justification, and belief are necessary conditions for knowledge. this article challenges the necessity of the two components, “belief” and “justification”, in the definition of knowledge. it argues that belief is distinct from knowledge; belief is an act of will, whereas knowledge is acquired automatically. one may possess knowledge without being actively willing to believe it, and conversely, one may will to believe something without actually knowing it. additionally, justification should be seen as a method of validating knowledge, not a fundamental part of its definition. therefore, knowledge without justification remains knowledge, even though its truth cannot be proven. building on this perspective, the proposed definition of knowledge shifts to “awareness or recognition of facts.” according to this definition, the gettier problem and the lottery paradox find alternative solutions.

is knowledge a justified belief?

epistemologists have widely accepted that truth, justification, and belief are necessary conditions for knowledge. this article challenges the necessity of the two components, “belief” and “justification”, in the definition of knowledge. it argues that belief is distinct from knowledge; belief is an act of will, whereas knowledge is acquired automatically. one may possess knowledge without being actively willing to believe it, and conversely, one may will to believe something without actually knowing it. additionally, justification should be seen as a method of validating knowledge, not a fundamental part of its definition. therefore, knowledge without justification remains knowledge, even though its truth cannot be proven. building on this perspective, the proposed definition of knowledge shifts to “awareness or recognition of facts.” according to this definition, the gettier problem and the lottery paradox find alternative solutions.