Im arguing that the only use to which I've ever seen that kind of theory put is to denigrate animals in such a way as to justify their mistreatment. That is the reason why I'm opposed to it. — Pseudonym
I don't think we're going to make any progress here. We agree that human language is worlds away from other animals, you think that distance is so significant as to affect our thought process and requires a whole new language to describe its effects, I don't. — Pseudonym
So, you want to lose a perfectly valid distinction between believing and knowing? — Janus
If you see something there is no doubt, and consequently no need for belief, that you see it... — Janus
...unless you start to question whether what you are seeing is really what you think it is, and this questioning requires language, I would say. I can give an account of how such questioning, in the context of the questioner using language, is done; I cannot give any account of how such questioning could be done, in the context of a percipient not using language to do it. Can you? — Janus
If you see something, and there is no doubt in your mind, then, certainly, it is the case that you have a belief to that effect! — Sapientia
If you read carefully you will see that I have already made a distinction, and much earlier in previous exchanges with others in this thread as well, between the non-linguistic or non-conceptual activity of believing and linguistic or conceptual state of holding beliefs. — Janus
Earlier you were denying the validity of even this distinction. — Janus
Now apparently you are allowing it, but arguing that my proposal that "expecting" would be a better term than "believing" for any non-propositional cognition doesn't match the "reality". What "reality" would that be, then? — Janus
Certainty is a type of belief. I’m writing this in Fremantle while eating grilled local sardines.
That’s not just probable, but certain. — Banno
You are in a little world all of your own on this one. — apokrisis
Hmm. So you have adopted a moral position and you demand the science must find a way to support it? — apokrisis
As I say, this area was also my specialist subject about 30 years ago (while oddly enough, computer science was where I was focused just before that). — apokrisis
Come on, a cursory glance over my argument will show that's not the case, you're just being disingenuous for effect. — Pseudonym
Im arguing that the only use to which I've ever seen that kind of theory put is to denigrate animals in such a way as to justify their mistreatment. That is the reason why I'm opposed to it. — Pseudonym
So you’ve got nothing but the demand I should share your certainty? — apokrisis
what is it for something to be metaphorical? — mrcoffee
So for you, at the moment, the question is why shouldn’t I be certain I am in Femantle? — Banno
Of what philosophical significance is such a subcatagory of belief? — Hanover
Well, there's a few books about it. — Banno
Pragmatically, it's irrelevant whether you're 99.99% sure or 100%. I don't think that's denied.Sure you can play the game of pedant and claim confusion or evil daemon or whatever you like. There is no reason hereabouts to think I am confused - apart from Hanover wanting to suport an aesthetic that says we ought not be certain. — Banno
Here's a basis for an epistemology: Some statements are true. And there are some statements which it is unreasonable to doubt. — Banno
I might reply by saying that those who refuse to say they are certain are afraid to commit; that the lie inherent in their words is shown by their actions - for example they do not habitually check that they have legs before attempting to stand up, because contrary to their claims they are certain that they have legs. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.