positivism, which you're espousing here, — Wayfarer
Ideas transcend the subject-object distinction, in that they’re neither ‘in the word’ nor ‘in the mind’ but are facets of the intelligible nature of reality, structures of thought. — Wayfarer
Ideas transcend the subject-object distinction, in that they’re neither ‘in the word’ nor ‘in the mind’ but are facets of the intelligible nature of reality, structures of thought.
— Wayfarer
How might we understand this? Is it supposed to be true? What difference does saying this make to what we ought to do?
What is the criteria for success? — Banno
I think hierarchy of understanding vs truth. Truth is binary and can't be understood, while understanding can be more or less...understood, but isn't true.I can make sense of a hierarchy of believe, or of justification. Not so much a hierarchy of truth. Isn't something either true or false? — Banno
The appeal to 'objectivity' is characteristic of modern philosophy... — Wayfarer
And yet we know that this thread is in English. — Banno
We talk about stuff we know all the time, but khaled would have us not do so — Banno
replacing knowledge with mere belief. — Banno
There's a reason we have the word "know" and use it sometimes rather than "belief". — Banno
Mandating that we not do so. — Banno
“is not wrong about” (which is the same as “cannot be wrong about”) — khaled
Is an approximation knowledge? If its understood to not quite be true, but informative enough to be useful. Can't call it a belief, because it isn't believed to be the actual if it is a known approximation. Also, can't call it true if it is a known approximation. It is very justified though, considering it's the basis for every load bearing structure built to a code. But, under your definition it isn't "justified" as in the justified to be the truth. Much like the roof over your head, if you didn't know whether or not it would collapse you wouldn't be sitting where you are at the moment. I recommend always looking for cracks in that bit of knowledge.Might leave it at that. It kinda sums up the differences in our opinions neatly. Come back to me when you can see the distinction I've made. — Banno
Ideas transcend the subject-object distinction, in that they’re neither ‘in the word’ nor ‘in the mind’ but are facets of the intelligible nature of reality, structures of thought. Not private or personal thinking but the way the mind operates on a more general, inter-subjective level. — Wayfarer
Under this system you can know true things and mislabel false things as known. But, nothing mislabeled is known; only incorrectly claimed to be known. The definition is self-consistent it just doesn't really describe the human experience from the perspective of the knower. It's the definition of knowledge from the perspective of God basically. Which is a good bit of irony.So you can know something, and be wrong? But I thought you can’t know things that are false (from your about page) — khaled
Under this system you can know true things and mislabel false things as known. — Cheshire
I'd conjecture it's the result of a flawed assumption that foundationalism is a workable model for reality. If knowledge was actually built from the ground up one true premise at a time it might be that way. But, it's not and the definition never changed. He's just repeating the technically "correct" answer for a couple thousand years definition from what I gather. It is arguably what people want when they seek knowledge. It's just not quite what they get.I'm not disagreeing with Banno I just wanna know why he defines things that way. What benefit does it bring? — khaled
Do you know things that are false? — Banno
All I have done is to set out the consequences of answering "no" to that question. — Banno
Knowledge is the product of humansDo you know things that are false?
All I have done is to set out the consequences of answering "no" to that question. — Banno
But it is just poor expression to say you know something that is false. — Banno
A very large number of problems have their beginnings in folk failing to differentiate clearly between knowledge, truth and belief. — Banno
Technically, you end up with an infinite regress always trying to justify the thing that justified. While we're at it. Knowledge can exist in a book with the author dead and no one alive even aware of it. So, go ahead and toss out belief too.What's an example of a problem that occurs when one defines knowledge as a very high degree of justification? — khaled
Technically, you end up with an infinite regress always trying to justify the thing that justified. — Cheshire
I acknowledge your example is linguistically coherent, but generally we talk about justifying from a deductive point of view. What you are describing is induction and comes along with it's own bag of broken glass. Or if you rather, knowledge of the future isn't really a reasonable example for knowledge in the context of philosophical discussion. You are more than welcome to pursue it if you see otherwise, but it looks like the hard way.And you don’t end up with infinite regress if you decided beforehand what constitutes good justification. — khaled
All human products are subject to human error — Cheshire
So on your version you can know things that are not true. Fine. Time to shake my head and walk away.The act or state of knowing doesn't change based on whether what is known corresponds to the facts. — Cheshire
But in much of modern philosophy the naturalist attitude is taken for granted, not seeing how this limits the scope of philosophical conceivability to what is 'inside the square', what can be definitely known by means of sense and science. — Wayfarer
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.