To What Extent Does Accuracy Play a Role in the Validity of a Knowledge Claim?

This was a thought that occurred to me, as it plays an evident role in several areas of knowledge. Firstly, many empirical and rational models rely on accurate, or inaccurate, readings. This can be seen in areas of knowledge such as science, mathematics, and the humanities.

I consider accuracy to be the closeness a measurement or figure is to reality. For example, given that 901 out of a population of 1000 died of a given condition (ex., lung cancer), it would be accurate to say that 90% of the population died from this condition. 90% is extremely close to 901 out of 1000. Additionally, I consider the pragmatic approach to a knowledge claim's validity - a knowledge claim is valid if it can be applied to create the expected results. For example, saying that I know how to drive is a valid knowledge claim if it can be applied to me using my driving skill to navigate a town. It would be invalid if it could not be applied in this manner (i.e., I crash every time). Lastly, I use Socrates's notion of "knowledge as justified true belief" to define knowledge.

One area of knowledge in which the extent to which accuracy can affect a knowledge claim is biology. This is due to several prevalent biological theories being based on empirical data or calculations with questionable accuracy. This began with the initial discovery of a phospholipid bi-layer and the Gorter-Grendel model. In this example, they calculated how much lipids should be present in a cell to create a single layer. They then measured how much lipid was present and found approximately double. This resulted in the discovery of a bi-layer (which is considered known fact today). This makes zero sense because their numbers were off. The discovery of the phospholipid bi-layer was based on inaccurate calculation. Despite that, the knowledge derived was justified (the calculation was approximate enough), true (according to modern knowledge), and they believed it. Furthermore, the learning of the experiment could be applied to interpret cell membrane behaviour. This example, in isolation, suggests that perfect accuracy is not a necessity for valid knowledge.

But, is knowledge still knowledge if it founded in something false or inaccurate? Socrates's notion does not leave room for bad justification. By this logic, I could arrive at the conclusion 1+1=2, but do so by assuming that any number added to 1 is 2, therefore 1+1=2 as 1+2=2. Despite this is factually incorrect in the natural number system I was using for this equation, it could be claimed that I could know 1+1=2 or that I couldn't. This relativist approach to accuracy and valid knowledge does not internally conform with my radical absolutist ideal, so I henceforth reject this conclusion.

I think that fideism holds the key here, as to declare knowledge in anything is an act of faith. We have trust that our measurement is close enough to derive correct conclusions, given the impossibility of true 100% accurate measurement. This faith in the proximity of our senses and our reason for objective reality. Another example of an unorthodox way of knowing to define our threshold for accuracy is intuition - we like numbers because they sound close enough. This also justifies people to believe in a knowledge claim until proven otherwise. Both of these factors can affect the validity of a knowledge claim, as people apply the knowledge they claim more valid more rigorously, translating into real-world results being constructed (i.e., civilization).

In sum, accuracy only plays a role in the validity of a knowledge claim to the extent to which we trust the accuracy via faith and intuition. This is because people apply knowledge claims which sound more valid to a greater extent.

*PS: Relativism sucks, but I do not *overtly* support the politicide of all relativists