When can we be said to know something, and how should we reliably construct and justify beliefs? — Cidat

To me, Justified True Belief, including the Gettier problems, shed no light on how people actually come to know things. What follows is something I wrote in a recent thread on pragmatic epistemology. It isn't a very popular view, but I thought I'd add it to the discussion.

For me, my experience as an environmental engineer lays the groundwork for how to see knowledge. You start with data - unprocessed observations, measurements, counts, photographs, and recordings. The data is then processed to be put in a more usable form, e.g. tabulation, graphing, and statistical analysis, what we call information. Information does not become knowledge until it has been further processed to be put in the context of a conceptual model of conditions of interest. Conceptual models are not true or false, they are accurate or inaccurate.

This is a simplified description of a more complex process, but I think it gets the point across. The process described is iterative. Development of a conceptual model raises new questions, which sends us back to the beginning of the process.

A mixture of Correspondence and Coherence

A mixture of Correspondence and Coherence — Garrett Travers

Interesting

Put some thought to it.

The only problem is I’m not sure that you’re answering the question. My answer to the question of how can we reliably get knowledge would be through the use of spies or Espionage. LoL

through the use of spies or Espionage — Average

That's pretty much the same thing in a different wrapper. The method is what I'm highlighting, not how the method is employed. But, what exactly do you mean by this, lol?

What part is unclear? I’m happy to provide clarification but first I need to know what needs to be clarified.

what needs to be clarified. — Average

Specifically spies and espionage.

“Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation. Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.”

“Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation. Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.”

Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.” — Average

Distributed cognition, then?

Distributed cognition, then? — Garrett Travers

I don’t think that the ideas of Edwin Hutchins are what I have in mind.

I don’t think that the ideas of Edwin Hutchins are what I have in mind. — Average

Then what can one mean by "only be obtained from other men?"

Maybe I just don’t understand the concept of distributed cognition. Would you mind giving me a short summary?

Then what can one mean by "only be obtained from other men?" — Garrett Travers

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DA0WJkysRmM

....... Is this supposed to be serving a purpose?

I’m just having fun. No malicious intent. I thought you wanted an example of what I meant by “obtaining from other men”.

I’m just having fun. No malicious intent. I thought you wanted an example of what I meant by “obtaining from other men”. — Average

lol, you're ridiculous. I thought I was about to see some mind blowing shit. But, while we're at it, have you ever heard this song? If not check out those lyrics from, like, 1920'sish I think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7NJ9ylAhos

I enjoyed the listen.

I enjoyed the listen. — Average

One of my favorites.

When can we be said to know something, and how should we reliably construct and justify beliefs? — Cidat

We can be said to know something when we have irrefutable proof that it is correct. A belief can be justified if it is necessarily the case.

I completed a reliable method of knowledge here that I use in my day to day life. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge

Justified True Belief has been refuted by the Gettier problems — Cidat

Has it? I thought Gettier drew attention to vagueness around the concept 'justification'. Something that counts as justification in one context may fail to do so in another. Looking like a barn is usually enough for something to qualify as a barn. In Fake Barn Country, looking like a barn is not enough to count as justification. Mistaking a dog for a sheep is not enough to justify a belief that there's a sheep in the field; even though, if it had been a sheep, it would have been enough. So what is enough? It's tricky. But Gettier doesn't refute JTB. Just gets us to think more about J.

What if knowledge gets to us?

We seem to be under the (false?) impression that knowledge is static/passive, that it just sits there, motionless, waiting so to speak, for someone to come and "pick it up".

Memes, knowledge is memetic (oui?), are active i.e. they exhibit intentionality, like all life - they seek hosts to multiply in and mutate under selection pressure, transforming themselves into powerful ideas that then metastasize, like malignancies, infecting the whole of humanity. I hope the relationship is symbiotic, fingers crossed.

I'd like to do a study on how many people have fought/died for (an idea).

Sorry, rambling. Do forgive me, if you can.

Memes, knowledge is memetic (oui?), are active i.e. they exhibit intentionality, like all life - they seek hosts to multiply in and mutate under selection pressure, transforming themselves into powerful ideas that then metastasize, like malignancies, infecting the whole of humanity. I hope the relationship is symbiotic, fingers crossed. — Agent Smith

That relationship depends on the idea and the ideas used by the majority and the people these ideas blossom in. I have done some research on this about two particular ideas in physics. I asked why the ideas of preons, hidden variables, and black holes as dark matter are unpopular in physics (while having the potential to solve many fundamental problems). The usual irrational reactions. Closing of the question without any good reason why. It's the way the majority thinks that counts. Deviating ideas should be avoided or wiped under the carpet. I don't like this feature which ideas have given to their hosts in order to secure themselves.

May the best strongest man win!

Strength in numbers.

Who, in their right mind, will want to dare to contradict a frenzied mob of armed men (women and children) screaming for blood!

Memes, knowledge is memetic (oui?), are active i.e. they exhibit intentionality, like all life - — Agent Smith

Memes are screaming for procreation like genes? A curious case, dear Watson...

Memes are screaming for procreation like genes? A curious case, dear Watson... — EugeneW

That's about it.

No genes or memes, nor God or laws of nature, can tell me what to do or how to think.

When can we be said to know something, and how should we reliably construct and justify beliefs? — Cidat

The ‘answer’ is in the ‘question’. Why do you seek such ‘knowledge’.

In more explicit terms ‘knowledge’ is defined by the limitations it is bound by. If we can question something in some way then it is ‘knowledge’/‘known’. That which we do not and cannot ever question is not ‘known’/‘knowledge’.