I don't know what you're talking about again. — Bartricks

If your conclusion is knowledge, then a machine must be able to reach the same conclusion. Otherwise, it is not knowledge.

No, if there are beliefs that cannot be expressed in a language that's irrelevant to whether they will qualify as items of knowledge.

No, that's just a bizarre claim that I see no reason to think is true

And even in the extremely unlikely event that your bizarre claim is true, it would do nothing to show that machines can have knowledge. Although perhaps you were talking about experts and expertise - I am a bit lost now.

But machines can't have knowledge (not unless they can have minds). And if an expert in a field says something then you've reason to think it is true (other things being equal - as usual).

No, if there are beliefs that cannot be expressed in a language that's irrelevant to whether they will qualify as items of knowledge. — Bartricks

They are formally not knowledge because it will be impossible to verify their justification.

You don't have to verify that a belief is knowledge before it qualifies as knowledge. After all, if you did you'd get a regress.

And if an expert in a field says something then you've reason to think it is true (other things being equal - as usual). — Bartricks

No, that means that you trust him. You trust that he has a justification. On what grounds would you trust him?
We do not trust. We verify.

If a random stranger with no expertise in medicine says that my mole is cancerous, and then another random strange with no expertise in medicine says that my mole is cancerous, have they verified each other? And do you think that, because they have both said the same thing, I now have good reason to think the mole is cancerous?

:up: :victory: :ok:

You don't have to verify that a belief is knowledge before it qualifies as knowledge. After all, if you did you'd get a regress. — Bartricks

You have the knowledge claim and then you have evidence/justification that supports it. We are talking about two different documents. For example, document 1 claims that water boils at 100C. Document 2 is test report in which they made water boil a few times and consistently measured its temperature.

It is necessary to verify that document 2 at least exists. Otherwise, you can seriously question what is written in document 1. On what grounds do they even write it?

If a random stranger with no expertise in medicine says that my mole is cancerous, and then another random strange with no expertise in medicine says that my mole is cancerous, have they verified each other? And do you think that, because they have both said the same thing, I now have good reason to think the mole is cancerous? — Bartricks

It does not work like that.

Document 1. "Your mole is cancerous".

Document 2. Evidence for document 1.

So, where is document 2?

I only work with documents. I do not work with strangers babbling about arbitrary subjects. I want document 1 and document 2. They must first commit to paper what it is about. Otherwise, the proposition is not even receivable.

You're confusing verifiability with truth and justification.

To be justified in a belief is for there to be normative reason for you to believe what you believe (whether you have to be aware of the reasons is another matter).

You can be justified in a belief in the absence of verification. After all, as I have just noted above, if every belief, to be justified, required verification, we'd have a regress and no belief would be justified.

For example, if I am alone in the world I am nevertheless justified in believing I exist, even though my belief is not verifiable.

And I am justified in thinking I just drank a beer because I seem to remember doing so, even if I cannot travel back in time and verify it. And so on.

Well, that's nice for you - but your random and unjustified assertions do not determine what's true in this area. Not unless you're an expert, that is (joke).

You're confusing verifiability with truth and justification. — Bartricks

No, not at all. I did not say that the justification had to be some kind of extensive verification. I only said that I wanted to verify the justification, which could perfectly well rest on falsifiability, or on witness depositions, depending on what it is about.

There needs to be a document that contains the justification, and I will verify, i.e. read or peruse, that justification. It is not that I would subscribe to verificationism. I am perfectly happy to accept justification in the form of a falsifiable test report.

And I am justified in thinking I just drank a beer because I seem to remember doing so, even if I cannot travel back in time and verify it. And so on. — Bartricks

Yes, but this is not formal knowledge.

Does the random non-expert's cancer diagnosis verify the other random non-expert's cancer diagnosis? If not, why not?

Well, that's nice for you - but your random and unjustified assertions do not determine what's true in this area. Not unless you're an expert, that is (joke). — Bartricks

There is pretty much a good consensus on the three core, formal knowledge-justification methods:
axiomatic, scientific, and historical.

Furthermore, these methods do not guarantee that any claim would be correspondence-theory "true".

The reason why we need to agree on the existence and suitability of these three epistemic methods, is that we need somewhere a starting point. Otherwise, it becomes an exercise in infinite regress.

You realize there's a consensus that verificationism is false?

Plus, I thought you didn't value what experts think - why are you suddenly into consensuses?

Does the random non-expert's cancer diagnosis verify the other random non-expert's cancer diagnosis? If not, why not? — Bartricks

Verification in this context means that the method was correctly applied. It does not mean that the results are correct.

Since a diagnosis does not seek to refer to another diagnosis, I do not see how that would work. In what way does one diagnosis verify if the method was correctly applied in another diagnosis?

In the end, knowledge is subject to a bureaucracy of consistency-maintaining formalisms. We just verify if the procedures were properly followed. The result could still be wrong, but that does not matter. In the end, nobody cares about that. If a doctor follows all procedures required, the professional-liability insurance company will not cancel his cover. That is the same principle.

So, basically, long story short, a big bunch of no-nothings can create knowledge by writing a Wikipedia page, yes?

You realize there's a consensus that verificationism is false? — Bartricks

It is not about verificationism. It is about verifying that all formalisms and procedures were followed. Furthermore, verificationism is not accepted in science because impossible. So, science revolves around falsificationism. Mathematics, however, is staunchly verificationist. Unlike the scientific method, the axiomatic method does not allow for mere sampling of random cases. So, verificationism is only rejected in the scientific method.

Plus, I thought you didn't value what experts think - why are you suddenly into consensuses? — Bartricks

Epistemology is not mathematics nor science. It has its own requirements and procedures. Consensus does not matter in mathematics. In principle, it also does not matter in science. It does matter, however, in epistemology.

So, again, two no-nothings say the same thing and suddenly we have verification and knowledge, yes? Only, no, no, no.

So, basically, long story short, a big bunch of no-nothings can create knowledge by writing a Wikipedia page, yes? — Bartricks

They do not create knowledge. Read Wikipedia's No original research page.

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

Your remark suggest that you are not even properly familiar with the core of the epistemic method that governs Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a good first stop: a place to go to find out where to go next. It's also better for some things than others - it's fantastic for history and biography and anything 'factual' (geography, landmarks, basic science) - but once you get into more abstract things, like maths, high-level science, and philosophy in particular, it becomes almost more a hindrance and a help.

The entries on philosophy are particularly poor, and the IEP and the SEP are a great deal better. This is largely not the 'fault' of Wiki itself, but the very medium: philosophy is not well suited to 2-3 paragraph summaries, and in most cases having incomplete information is even worse than having no information. And IEP and SEP have the opposite problem of being very, very dry, and not all that great for popular consumption. Podcasts and Youtube videos I think are far more effective mediums for popular consumption of philosophy.

So, again, two no-nothings say the same thing and suddenly we have verification and knowledge, yes? Only, no, no, no. — Bartricks

Verification only occurs when the second no-nothing uses a sound procedure to double check the first no-nothing's justification. We do not ask the verifier to produce a new claim. We also do not ask him if he likes the results of the original claim. We only ask the verifier to verify if the original conclusion necessarily follows from the original evidence.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140708-when-crowd-wisdom-goes-wrong

Wikipedia has faults and limitations. And so does academia. Even doctors have as institution spent many years doing completely useless and therefore dangerous and damaging operations. Philosophical critiques of academia - Kuhn, Feyerabend etc along with the various scandals indicate that perfection is unobtainable, and alas the perfection of machine knowledge is also a fantasy. The search for God continues to yield no result. Trust no one completely and everyone provisionally.

Citing Francis Galton of all people on the wisdom of the masses - who'd a' thunk it?

Wikipedia is great. I donate to their yearly fundraiser. I’ve edited a few articles and even created one. Of course it’s not an authoritative source but it’s often handy to grab a snippet to illustrate a point. I’d go so far as to say it’s one of the best things about the Internet.

Wikipedia is not an academically respectable source, as your institution should itself have told you. It is shot through with mistakes. Nothing on there is subject to proper peer review. — Bartricks

↪alcontali
Wikipedia is not peer reviewed... — Bartricks

Peer-review on Wikipedia

So, will you continue to create your truth by repetition only, as modern 'truth'-tellers do, or will you accept actual facts, according to the old-fashioned way of truth-telling?

For instance, consider something you know a lot about. Look up a wikipedia entry on that subject, whatever it may be. Then notice all the mistakes. — Bartricks

Yes. I just did that. I looked at the page describing audio power amplifiers. There are always ways in which any article could be improved, but the article in Wikipedia is as good as one could hope, and contains no obvious mistakes.

Just like all your other comments, this one proves to be entirely without foundation. :roll: :roll: :roll: