Abstract:
We value possessing knowledge more than true belief. Both someone with knowledge and someone with a true belief possess the correct answer to a question. Why is knowledge more valuable than true belief if both contain the correct answer? I examine the philosophy of American pragmatist John Dewey and then I offer a novel solution to this question often called the value problem of knowledge. I present and explicate (my interpretation of) Dewey’s pragmatic theory of inquiry. Dewey values competent inquiry and claims it is a knowledge-forming process, and I argue that it is competently conducting inquiry that explains why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief. Knowledge is always the result of a process of competent inquiry (itself valuable) whereas belief can but need not be the result of inquiry. I end by considering and replying to reasonable objections to my pragmatic solution.
Machine summary:
Dewey values competent inquiry and claims it is a knowledge-forming process, and I argue that it is competently conducting inquiry that explains why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief.
This puzzle is the value problem of knowledge: Why is knowledge more valuable than true belief if both contain the correct answer?1 In this essay, I use the American pragmatist John Dewey’s theory of inquiry to offer a novel solution.
I will present Dewey’s theory of inquiry so that I may make clear how the process of competent inquiry explains why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief.
The value of knowledge is higher than true belief because the source of what one knows, competent inquiry, is itself valuable.
Since only competent inquiry results in knowledge, I argue that Hasbeen possesses knowledge whereas Neverbeen possesses mere true belief.
However, Neverbeen’s true belief about the path to Larrissa, because grounded on a map and not based on traveling to Larissa, does not enjoy the additional value of possessing an idea that is the direct result of inquiring competently into the question, “how do I travel to Larissa?”.
Even though Hasbeen and Neverbeen have correct answers to the tourist’s question, Hasbeen offers the preferable directions because his answer is the consequence of a process (inquiry) that has intrinsic value; that is, because only Hasbeen has knowledge of what the tourist wants to know.
Thus, the additional value enjoyed by knowledge but not true belief in grounded in conducting that inquiry competently.
You take this to be a case where Hasbeen has knowledge and Neverbeen has mere true belief concerning the path to Larissa.