## Hanlon, Gettier & I like sushi.

• 13.7k
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. — Robert J. Hanlon (Hanlon's razor)

Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by bad luck. — I like sushi (I like sushi's razor)

Gettier Problems (luck & knowledge)
• 3k
A man is wrongly accused at work of stealing. He is sacked and goes home early in an angry state. He walks into his house to find his wife having sex on the counter top with his best friend and neighbour. There happens to be knife readily to hand laying o the counter. In a rage the man picks up the knife and stabs his friend once in the neck cutting his artery. In horror he drops the knife and breaks down in tears whilst his wife screams. They then try and help him but he bleeds to death despite their frantic attempts.

Why did the man’s friend die?

It depends on your beliefs how you express your answer. The answer could be ‘he died because he was born, he died because his friend was wrongly accused of stealing at work, he died because not enough oxygen was getting to his brain, he died because he betrayed his friend, etc.,.

‘Knowledge’ (outside known sets of rules and limits) is always driven by ‘belief’ which is in turn framed by ‘truth attitudes’ (how we actively appeal to evidence and how we define evidence).

It probably helps to employ the Germanic term ‘ken’ rather than confuse it with ‘know’. We ‘ken’ the reason for something but we do not ‘know’ it unless we’re dealing with absolutes (abstract items).

An abstraction would be 1+1=2. We cannot ‘disagree’ that 1+1=2 within the rules and limits of basic arithmetic. Being human we can, and do, make mistakes but in the realm of abstracted functions we’re able to spot and prove our answers. Such answers are ‘knowledge’.

If someone shows their working to be:

1+1 = 1+1 Therefore 1+2 = 2-2 so 1+1= 2

They may not have knowledge, or they may have knowledge, of basic arithmetic. Their unconventional approach may actually be a requirement for them getting to the correct answer even though it may look nonsensical to us.

Abstractions are much easier to verify as such a person using the technique above (whatever it may be) would fail if their approach was faulty. The true benefit of abstractions is that we deal with universal terms not variables. We cannot say that it is ‘knowledge’ when we declare that ‘the Sun rises in the East’ even though we understand this to be evident from most perspectives. Just for clarification we’re not dealing with abstract universals when we talk about the Sun, rising and east. We can ask ‘east relative to what?’ or ‘Rising fro which perspective?’ Whereas we cannot ask ‘which number 1?’ in the same manner as we can ask about items experienced in reality.

A very common problem is applying logic as a means of making knowledge concrete and undeniable. That is nonsense. Knowledge is always an abstraction and even in that realm still requires verification.

In the lived world what is ‘known’ is that to which we are not directly conscious of. When we tend to anything consciously we must necessarily bring it into question. If we cannot tend to it we cannot cognise it - ‘it’ isn’t as ‘it’ for us.

If I refer to the chair I am sitting on it is not because I ‘know it’ it is because I am attending to it. As the chair is a concept I don’t fully understand it as an abstraction or as a specific item (because I cannot be aware of what I ‘know’), and the real functionality of a chair (being a non-universal) does not live in an abstracted realm where there is some ‘absolute chair’ - reference to ‘a chair’ as in ‘specifically this or that chair’ unlike in basic arithmetic where there is no ‘this or that’ number 1 in the abstract realm.

One thing we know about humans. They will adjust their view more if new facts favour them, yet they will not adjust as much for facts that don’t favour them. We are ‘hard-wired’ like this.

‘Stupidity’ is the genius of humanity - as in it is an ‘ethical’ way to do ‘unethical’ human experimentation.

I should probably confound even more by stating that ontology is just the same thing as epistemology and the ‘ethics’ is just some term made up for no apparent reason other than to justify ‘reason’. Mostly ‘ethics’ is ‘unethical’ as it looks to inhibit as any cost all in the name of ‘reducing pain and suffering’ (which I find to be Stupid so I just observe the Stupid and make notes from my ‘ethical palace in the sky’ with no apologetics). All too often people are more hell-bent on ripping down others beliefs than attending to their own. Then there are those that clamour over ‘knowledge’ and dismiss ‘belief’ outright … which is a bizarre ‘belief’ to hold for someone claiming to logical and rational.
• 13.7k
Why did the man’s friend die?

It depends on your beliefs how you express your answer. The answer could be ‘he died because he was born, he died because his friend was wrongly accused of stealing at work, he died because not enough oxygen was getting to his brain, he died because he betrayed his friend, etc.,.

The word "etc." makes it even more interesting than it already is. Depending on what beliefs one subscribes to, the justification explanation also differs.

‘Knowledge’ (outside known sets of rules and limits) is always driven by ‘belief’ which is in turn framed by ‘truth attitudes’ (how we actively appeal to evidence and how we define evidence).

Care to share the details of your theory as regards "how we define evidence"?

Abstractions

Abstractions are the basis of knowledge in most cases. They're basically patterns and nature is chockablock with them. Particular instances are identified as being part of some general pattern.

The definition of knowledge as JTB is an abstraction/pattern that, for some, made the most sense.

‘Stupidity’ is the genius of humanity - as in it is an ‘ethical’ way to do ‘unethical’ human experimentation.

Excelente! The plot thickens...

stating that ontology is just the same thing as epistemology

Keep going...

One thing we know about humans. They will adjust their view more if new facts favour them, yet they will not adjust as much for facts that don’t favour them. We are ‘hard-wired’ like this.

Then there are those that clamour over ‘knowledge’ and dismiss ‘belief’ outright … which is a bizarre ‘belief’ to hold for someone claiming to logical and rationa

It should be the other way round, right?

P. S. Some people get it wrong not because they're stupid but because fortune didn't favor them. Just as luck can, like in Gettier cases, lead you to the truth, it should, in my humble opinion, depending on how unlucky you are, make you arrive at the wrong conclusion. Luck has no inferential significance to truth.
• 3k
Care to share the details of your theory as regards "how we define evidence"?

I never talked about a theory. It should be clear enough to you and everyone else that 'evidence' is not a rigidly defined thing. Evidence is often used in 'truth attitudes' too.

In logic we don't look for evidence we provide proofs. the real world plays with evidence whilst the abstract world works with proofs.
• 3k
It should be the other way round, right?

It depends what we're calling 'knowledge'. In the real world most certainly. In the abstract world most definitely not.
• 3k
Like I tried to outline, what we 'know' is not knowledge. We ken the world but we don't know it. We know only via abstraction but we don't 'ken' abstractions.
• 3k
As for epistemology and ontology it is just a convenient distinction not an actual one. We have to use words and define knowledge in order to talk about origins and being, as the terms 'origins' and 'being' must sit somewhere in terms of 'knowledge'. As knowledge only exists within set bounds (rules and limits) the ontological questions don't appear to have a way in yet we can only talk about ontological questions via epistemic understanding (as there is no other 'understanding').

All of these things axiological, yet we have to ask about what value means so we are required to think about the beginning of value and the meaning of value. The ontological and epistemic approaches are just a means of cutting up the problem into manageable pieces, but by doing so it creates the illusion of difference between what something is and what some thing does.

In short too many people fall into believing 'knowledge' is an absolute even when they keep saying they don't do this. I wittingly and willingly believe certain things and frame knowledge as something 'existing' (back to the ontological split from epistemic) as absolute only in abstract boundaries (with clearly defined rules in clear defined limits - a black box). The mistake is to think that the world we live in is a black box.

We are humans trying to be more. We can and will be more because enough of us are Stupid and enough of us are Intelligent.
• 13.7k
Your position is, well, pixelized. It's rather vague, perhaps even too vague. You field a lot of never-before-heard (at least I haven't encountered them in the 5 or 6 years on this forum) phrases and make claims that seem rather bizarre but, as in the other thread we had a discussion in, your posts are low on necessary details. Could be me though. Good day.
• 3k
You said JTB was the standard yet you talk about Gettier (which shows problems with JTB.

My 'position' is not crystallised nor do I wish it to be.

I can dumb it down and state some points regarding ontology and epistemology?

It is nothing extraordinary but it may seem pedantic. Ontology deals with what is 'existent' (broadly speaking) and epistemology deals with 'knowledge' (broadly speaking). I am saying these are the same. We declare what is 'existent' through framed as 'knowledge' and what is 'knowledge' by what is framed as 'existent'.

There is use in splitting them to focus on different elements more specifically but if we ignore that they the same then we may miss out on an overarching philosophical view.

If you can understand that and understand the kind of problems it may pose as well as the kind of problems it may resolve then I don't really need to expound my point about 'beliefs' and 'knowledge'.

'Ken' was a common enough verb in English not so long ago. 'Truth attitude' is less tangible and more or less leaning towards something like 'Epoche' in a Husserlian phenomenological sense - meaning not being concerned with some 'truth' but simply observing and regarding in a freeform style rather than 'truth seeking' for the sake of bolstering some given position.

I might help to think about some people having a 'truth attitude' towards 'knowledge' and others having a 'truth attitude' towards 'belief'. The point is they are just 'truth attitudes' and it doesn't matter particularly what it is 'towards' - just like having a focus on ontology rather than epistemology doesn't really matter as they are effectively making the same misstep.

It will always be nebulous because as far as I can tell there isn't a form of communication available to express what I mean (or rather there is a lack of concepts OR I just haven't found them yet OR I'm too far gone to recognise them).

You seemed to be open so I threw some stuff out. If nothing sticks nothing sticks. Was fun making a vague attempt anyhoos :)
• 13.7k
My 'position' is not crystallised nor do I wish it to be.

:up: I like that (attitude)!

I can dumb it down and state some points regarding ontology and epistemology?

Please do. I'm all ears...er...eyes...and also...all thumbs. Don't expect me to endorse your point of view but if you feel like sharing it, by all means, be my guest.

It will always be nebulous because as far as I can tell there isn't a form of communication available to express what I mean (or rather there is a lack of concepts OR I just haven't found them yet OR I'm too far gone to recognise them)

I feel like that sometimes. Made me feel special on a number of occasions - I can think in ways for which there are no words in any frigging language I know. It turns out my vocab was wanting - you hardly realize the depth and breadth of a language until you sit down with a dictionary, a good one that is.

Returning to what you said, mathematically ontology = epistemology, I do have a rather nebulous intuition of what you're gettin' at; after all, all said and done, knowledge, the vast majority of what's presented to us as knowledge, is ontological in character.

The only problem with your point of view, if it is a problem at all, is that the rationale seems to be, for lack of a better term, fuzzy-logic based. That's my diagnosis anyway. You're fully entitled to a second/third/nth opinion of course.

Now the prognosis: A blurry/grainy picture of the sum total of all things. Not to worry! That's probably the way life should be lived!
• 3k
If I start throwing out terms like enantidromia (which funnily enough has a red squiggly line under it!) I think that is less tangible than what I may wish to get across.

My vocabulary is above average as I have a love of language and I'm far enough past juvenile years to have naturally amalgamated a quarry of terms and phrases into a broad enough lexicon.

The only problem with your point of view, if it is a problem at all, is that the rationale seems to be, for lack of a better term, fuzzy-logic based.

Fuzzy logic in lived life not in abstract realms. Given that when we're talking about 'knowledge' and such and talk about it in terms of lived life then I very much side with fuzzy logic as I'm not omnipotent. When it comes to an easily appreciated set of rules and limits I wouldn't waste my time with fuzzy logic as we can easily determine what is or isn't.

It generally boils down to 'what do you mean?' and in situations where we are dealing with absolute universals there is no room for a 'what do you mean?'.
• 3k
Returning to what you said, mathematically ontology = epistemology,

I didn't. but clearly I did to you as you're using the term 'mathematically' in a rather specific and rather unusual sense.
• 13.7k
I didn't. but clearly I did to you as you're using the term 'mathematically' in a rather specific and rather unusual sense.

Unusual? Look who's talking!
• 13.7k
If I start throwing out terms like enantidromia (which funnily enough has a red squiggly line under it!) I think that is less tangible than what I may wish to get across.

My vocabulary is above average as I have a love of language and I'm far enough past juvenile years to have naturally amalgamated a quarry of terms and phrases into a broad enough lexicon.

It will always be nebulous because as far as I can tell there isn't a form of communication available to express what I mean (or rather there is a lack of concepts OR I just haven't found them yet OR I'm too far gone to recognise them)

:up: Like someone in the old forum said to a rather persistent/tenacious theist, paraphrasing, "you're privy to information we're not." Good to know someone's having fun! Superb!

Fuzzy logic in lived life not in abstract realms.

That, I'm told, was the purpose of fuzzy logic - nonbinary people, some animals too I'm sure. Experience has taught us to not think in 0s and 1s. Despite our urge to think in yeses and nos, many a times the actual answer is maybe.

I'm not omnipotent

Is it a requirement? :chin:

what do you mean?

Indeed. So, what do you mean?

We're going off-topic. Thank you for the conversation. It was interesting. If you feel that you have anything specific to say regarding the OP do post. If I can I'll try and respond. Keep an eye out for updates from me.

Good day I like sushi.
• 13.7k
Update

Epistemology, logic, morality, and avidya (deserves to be mentioned separately from the first item in this list?). What's the connection?

Siddhartha Gautama, Socrates, Aristotle/Chrysippus, Kant/Bentham-Mill, Gettier, Dice/Coins/Roulettes...how are they all linked?
• 3k
We're going off-topic. Thank you for the conversation. It was interesting. If you feel that you have anything specific to say regarding the OP do post. If I can I'll try and respond. Keep an eye out for updates from me.

Are we? If we're going to talk about knowledge then I think mentioning epistemology makes sense, and given my view of its connection to ontology that is also relevant.

'Luck' is just 'entropy' at work. I believe Fortune was one Roman goddess they all praised when something went well for them. When people laugh and say 'luck doesn't exist' they think of it as some mystical item rather than entropy at work.

I've been over morality numerous times before and noticed a reluctance from many to make any serious kind of moral investigation. People prefer to abscond from feeling and resort to logic as a means of shirking responsibility from making a poor choice. This is because they can always say after the matter of the fact that they used logic. Using logic in a given human situation is more correctly framed as 'rational' than 'logical' - things get complicated when the items involved are not discrete (ie. languages such as English).

Ethics is unethical because it is roughly framed as a one size fits all item rather than a more nuanced and personal thing where individuals act in ways they wish to act rather than acting in ways they are told is better to act.

Nietzsche respected the man who killed because wanted to kill but not the man who killed and then said they killed in the act of stealing. Covering up our acts with reasons is more often than not self deceit. Worded thought itself has embedded within it the 'society' so thought holding to speech cannot really escape the ties of society and therefore has to guard against acting out of social coercion rather than purposeful individual intent (which is generally what we all wish as we think of ourselves as acting as we wish to act rather than acting as we're taught to act).
• 13.7k
Are we?

Yes.

'Luck' is just 'entropy' at work.

Disagree. Nothing systematic about luck.

I've been over morality numerous times before and noticed a reluctance from many to make any serious kind of moral investigation.

And you're not one of them? :lol:

Ethics is unethical because it is roughly framed as a one size fits all item rather than a more nuanced and personal thing where individuals act in ways they wish to act rather than acting in ways they are told is better to act.

Old news.

Nietzsche respected the man who killed

:lol:
• 3k
Yes.

You were talking about ‘knowledge’ and ‘luck’ right in terms of the Gettier problem? That is what I was talking about.

isagree. Nothing systematic about luck.

‘Entropy’ is ‘systematic’? I don’t understand. How do you define luck? I view it as a simple distribution issue. Some people will necessarily have things go for them more than against them and vice versa.

As the old physics joke goes ‘if you don’t know what something is just call it Entropy’. There is nothing systematic about something we know understand … or is there? :)

I've been over morality numerous times before and noticed a reluctance from many to make any serious kind of moral investigation.
— I like sushi

And you're not one of them? :lol:

Poor wording! ‘Refusal’ for ‘reluctance’. We’re all reluctant as it is painful. I don’t ‘refuse’ to but I can understand why people make excuses not to cause themselves distress and pain.

If you can flesh out what it is you wish to discuss a bit more I’m game :)
• 13.7k
Update

In Buddhism there are The Three Poisons:

1. Moha (ignorance, pig)

2. Raga (greed/sensual attachment, bird)

3. Dvesha (hate/aversion, snake)

In Western traditions, from how philosophy, was (unfortunately) such a big deal, there's only one summum malum:

1. Ignorance

Western philosophy, I reckon, sees/views the lack of knowledge as the root of all suffering. Buddhism too, by some accounts, traces all suffering back to not knowing.

Unfortunately for us, as Gettier demonstrates with his Gettier cases, there's an element of chance (luck) in knowledge despite the fact that we have what we believe is a method for distinguishing knowledge from mere opinion viz. logic.

I guess we could create a Hackliste for Buddhism as follows:

Prime evil: Ignorance

Lesser evils: Hate, Lust/Greed
• 13.7k
@I like sushi $\uparrow$ On topic.
• 3k
I don’t see anything here other than some doctrine I don’t care about and some terms used that lack definitions.

Ignorance meaning what and knowledge meaning what? What is absolute and/or is there ‘absolute’ knowledge? Can anything we know everything about really make sense in the real world? What is ‘the real world’?

Why do you frame the “western” view as having ignorance as a singular ‘poison’ and what does any of that have to do with knowledge and luck other than some brief mention of Gettier?

The above is not what I would call ‘fleshing out’ at all. Let me go blow by blow:

In Buddhism there are The Three Poisons:

1. Moha (ignorance, pig)

2. Raga (greed/sensual attachment, bird)

3. Dvesha (hate/aversion, snake)

I don’t care.

In Western traditions, from how philosophy, was (unfortunately) such a big deal, there's only one summum malum:

Why? Because you say so? And if I take this as a given why does it matter?

Western philosophy, I reckon, sees/views the lack of knowledge as the root of all suffering. Buddhism too, by some accounts, traces all suffering back to not knowing.

So what? You give me an opinion. Let’s see if the next line divulges anything …

Unfortunately for us, as Gettier demonstrates with his Gettier cases, there's an element of chance (luck) in knowledge despite the fact that we have what we believe is a method for distinguishing knowledge from mere opinion viz. logic.

Knowledge in what form? I could repeat myself about the question of Justified True Belief as being used in ‘real world’ (clearly open to uncertainty) and in the abstract (truths in the abstract in set limits with set rules).

Am I correct in assuming you’re only interested in ‘knowledge’ framed in the ‘real world’ as in with vague speech and limit data?

Never heard of ‘Hackliste’ but it appears to mean a hierarchy of some kind.

I guess we could create a Hackliste for Buddhism as follows:

Prime evil: Ignorance

Lesser evils: Hate, Lust/Greed

What is that for?

If you just asking how we judge and nothing more then I’m puzzled why you don’t just ask that and instead use ‘knowledge’ and ‘luck’ as a way to get to grips with this problem - without articulating exactly what you mean by ‘luck’ and ‘knowledge’ as these are the key elements you’ve chosen.

This could be boiled down to an example perhaps? How about this question in relation to whatever you’re trying to look at …

Is it better to steal from a thief or a murderer? Which is more justified? Is there any way to decide between the two that can be agreed upon?

This is the kind of moral investigation people shy away from. Ou can offer another more closely related to whatever you mean if you wish and show me via that what our point/question is.

Failing the above maybe reiterating certain Gettier cases might help here?

there's an element of chance (luck) in knowledge despite the fact that we have what we believe is a method for distinguishing knowledge from mere opinion viz. logic.

Like I’ve tried to get across a number of times this ‘believing’ is key. Outside of the abstract ‘logic’ looses rigidity. We apply it in the real world because it is the only thing we know of that works in limited instances with 100% accuracy if the limit remains constant and rules are followed exactly without exception.

In the real world errors occur due to bad/good luck, lack of data (not necessarily ‘knowledge’ but that depends on how we’re distinguishing terms?) and/or entropy (the ‘real world’ is not necessarily a static item like constructed abstractions are). No one has an answer to the relation/separation between consciousness, the physical world and mathematics - we’re not omnipotent.

This is the kind of quandary where nihilistic notions often begin to germinate. There are different reactions where people lean into the nihilism, or generally side more readily with physical positivism or metaphysical ideals.
• 13.7k
I don’t see anything here other than some doctrine I don’t care about and some terms used that lack definitions.

:lol: So you don't care about what you said viz. luck (Gettier cases) explains stupidity (I like sushi's razor)? Ignorance is (some times) mistaken for malice (Hanlon's razor). They're all connected.

• 3k
So you don't care about what you said viz. luck (Gettier cases) explains stupidity (I like sushi's razor)?

It is pretty hard not to reply when you are claiming a quote you wrote were my words.

I was actually trying to sneak in that what he is really talking about (underneath) is more or less about plain bad luck framed as Stupidity.
— I like sushi

In reference to the specific definition of Stupidity given in the context of that thread.
• 13.7k
See you around. Thanks.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal