Is this really enough for knowledge? Is it possible for Locke to have been mistaken? Imagine if Locke was a brain in a vat. His experiences, as a brain in a vat, would be indistinguishable from experiences of living in the physical world. Yet, according to Locke’s view (our experiences are involuntary…our experiences are consistent) he, as a brain in vat, would still meet his requirements for knowledge. Here is where Locke’s paradox (that he has to say we have knowledge of things we do not know) arises. “Suppose that the brain in a vat is given some true beliefs. Does it then have knowledge? The evil Dr. Ruth allows the brain in the vat (Locke) to have some true beliefs and gives experiences like you or I would have for those beliefs like it is raining today. It is a JTB, meaning that it is a true belief and the evidence is exactly the sensory evidence you or I would have for this true belief. Does Locke have knowledge?” (Russell, 2004). No. Without Dr. Ruth to give the true belief and experience, Locke (as brain in vat) has no way to justify his knowledge that it’s, in fact, raining. Locke also fails, with weak justification, to disprove the acceptability of the JTB theory.

Rene Descartes, “who is sometimes described as the father of modern philosophy,” (Sober, 2001; pg158) was a French philosopher during the seventeenth century. He attempted to develop a form of epistemology known as Foundationalism, or strong justification. Foundationalism is divided into two categories: “ Foundational beliefs (which are perfectly solid) and Superstructural beliefs (which count as knowledge because they rest securely on that solid foundation).” (Sober, 2001; pg158). Descartes was basically trying to say that there are beliefs that are solid and indubitable: beyond any doubt, that can pass his “Method of Doubt” test. (Sober, 2001; pg160). According to Elliot Sober, Descartes’ Method of Doubt test declares, “if you see it is possible to doubt a proposition, then it is set aside (this does not mean it is false, just not absolutely certain). If it is not possible to doubt the proposition, then it becomes a foundational belief.�

Some topics in this essay:
Dr Ruth, , Elliot Sober, Descartes Locke, Valid Deduction, Rene Descartes, British Philosopher, Imagine Locke, Method Doubt, According Locke, sober 2001, god exists, strong justification, brain vat, weak justification, locke 2004, jtb theory, true belief, page front, foundational beliefs, strong weak justification, reliability theory knowledge, god exists deceiver, justified true belief, doubt existence god,