Knowledge --- Conclusion

The problem of 'The Cow in the Field',the following points are in issue-

1.The farmer believed the cow was safe in the field
2.There was enough justification for himself
3.And it was true that his cow was safe

The last point,as it turns out,was a mere coincidence.

So again,can we say that he knew his cow was safe in the field?

Philosophers have struggled to agree on what indeed is the defining constituent of knowledge.Let us assume that the cow was not found in the field as was believed by the farmer.Could we still say the farmer had the knowledge of his cow's safety and location?Yeah,now we are thinking,aren't we?

Some will say,no.How can know something which is not true?Certainly,it does not count as knowledge,does it?That is what a few philosophers  like E.L. Gettier have tried to assert.Nothing,they say,inferred from a false belief counts as knowledge.

A peep closer to ourselves now.Suppose,someone tells you something about a person close to you,who you have absolutely no reason to doubt;what's likely your response?What is the immediate thought in your mind?You don't feel like,'ok let's see if what I've heard is true'.Rather it's like,and mind it,it's not a weak and defensive response,but a cocksure and adamant and emphatic 'no way,I know him better'.'I know'.Right at that instant,you know.You possess the knowledge that your friend is innocent.Whether or not he is does not have anything to do with your knowledge at that very moment.Then what has?

I remember when we were being introduced into the disciplines of physics and chemistry just after the completion of the secondary certificate examinations,we were told that whatever we had learned about these disciplines upto then was all 'bullshit' - either false or incomplete or nothing - and we would do better to 'empty our cups to fill them again'.Weren't our secondary exams are meant to be aptitude of our 'knowledge'?

Man once knew the Earth to be round and the objects seen in the sky to revolve around the Earth.Before Charles Darwin,any scholar of the Holy Bible could boast of knowledge of the history of creation of life.They believed what they knew,or rather,they knew it because they believed it.Farmer Field believed his cow to be safe in the field.So,knowledge depends on belief.They need not be true,or even justified beliefs.You ask a blind believer if God exists,he says,yes.You ask,why?He says,he just knows it.

Knowledge depends also on perception.A bat 'sees' a different world than the eyes.A butterfly sees a hell lot differently than higher animals do.A dog sees and feels differently than a human.So does their knowledge of the world around them.Same with a human with respect to another human,in varying circumstances.Two witnesses in a court proceeding may give different accounts of the same thing,and yet both might be true to their knowledge.We know of nine planets in our solar system until even recently.What is the difference between then and now?Acceptance of the classification.We accepted 9 planets then as we do 8 now.So,acceptance is another material aspect of knowledge.

Fact and knowledge do not necessarily go hand in hand.Knowledge is not in the being of a proposition,but in the satisfaction of its being.It can either be true or false,right or wrong.Farmer Field believed and accepted,i.e.,he was satisfied that his cow was safe.HE KNEW.