In this modern era of information and communication, someone's status in the world often depends on what that person knows. We, as humans, often think that what we believe is truth and stored in our brains as knowledge. I tell you however that just because you have a belief in something doesn't always make is knowledge and definitely not truth. For example, I could believe that President Clinton will be assassinated before he leaves office later this year. That does not mean that I have knowledge of this event; it was just a lucky guess (if it came to be). An ancient greek philosopher I am sure you are all familiar with, Socrates, once stated that true belief has to have "an account" or a justification for the belief in order for that "true" belief to become knowledge (or fact). This theory is the Justified-True-Belief theory of knowledge, let's call it JTB for short. How about an example to explain this theory so that everyone is on the same page. Let's say that my friend Joe has a dog and he believes that his dog is sitting on his mat. For Joe's belief to become knowledge, Joe has to believe that the dog is on the mat, he must have justification for his belief that the dog is on the mat, and finally, the dog has to be on the mat (the belief has to be true). In a nutshell this theory shows that for any proposition to be considered knowledge the proposition has to be true, the person has to believe it and has to have justification for the belief. This last aspect of the JTB theory of knowledge is where the conflicts occur.As in any theory in any subject there are things that fall outside the bounds of the theory where the theory does not apply. The JTB theory does not apply to self-justified beliefs. These self-justified beliefs justify themselves by simply having the belief, like "I am in pain". No one can say that you are not in pain, the belief of the pain is in the first person and not reliant of external data or jus...
