Do you truly know something if you know it for the wrong reasons?

This is called epistemology - philosophical discussions about the nature of knowledge. A friend and I were talking about this. He posed the above question to me and I told him it was a tough question but that my gut told me no.

If you know something for the wrong reason, you don't truly know that thing. I used the crude example of high school math text books with the answers in the back. If you turned to the back and wrote down the answers, you'd ace the assignment. But you'd obviously have no idea how to do math - so you truly wouldn't understand.

He agreed and used a better example. Imagine you're watching Wimbledon - but it was in actuality a re-run of last year's Wimbledon going on at the same time as this years. So, in fact, you thought you were watching this year's Wimbledon. And indeed it has all the same tennis stars and matches and lo and behold the same winner - Andre Agassiz.

So do you truly know the winner of Wimbledon? You'd say "Andre Agassiz" and you'd be correct. (Because he won last year as well.) But it seems obvious that you don't truly know the winner of this year's Wimbledon.

Only by concidence, your knowledge happened to be correct. You watched last year's Wimbledon, thinking it was this years, and that means your knowledge was incomplete, unbenowst to you.

Likewise, you also wouldn't truly know who won last year's Wimbledon - even though you just watched it on TV. That's because you thought you were watching this year's Wimbledon. So we have the same problem, but in reverse.