To All

Justification is just another word for argument. A deductive argument is such that if it's valid and the premises are true (sound argument), the conclusion has to be true.

Under the JTB definition of knowledge, insofar as deduction is concerned, the condition true is redundant.

Your belief that Gettier is wrong :razz: — I like sushi

:smirk:

I use a calculator and it tells me that the square root of 2 is 1.41421356237 — Michael

This is unjustified. We've already crossed that bridge.

That was just me being cranky. Sorry. — T Clark

Don't sweat it.

But false beliefs can be justified, too. Again, that's why knowledge is commonly defined as justified true belief, not just justified belief. — Michael

Gimme an example of a false belief that's justified. Inductive arguments are not allowed.

You said it was justified.

And as above, a false belief can be justified. — Michael

I change my mind.

I guess the right way to claim knowledge is to put an "if" before it.

IF all my assumptions are true then P is true.

justified — Michael

Not justified. An assumption - the calculator is working - was false.

What you didn't know is that the calculator you used is broken and always gives an answer of 15,129.

You believe that 123 × 123 = 15,129, it is true that 123 × 123 = 15,129, and as per your own acknowledgement you are justified in believing that 123 × 123 = 15,129. But Gettier would argue that you don't know that 123 × 123 = 15,129. Your justified belief is only accidentally correct. — Michael

The standard response to that would be a presupposition was wrong. Gettier isn't right still. I'm not justified.

A false belief can be justified. That's why the JTB definition of knowledge is JTB, not just JB. — Michael

Justification is not sufficient for truth but I have a feeling that it's a necessary condition. Oh! Gödel.

Let's say that you put 123 × 123 into a calculator and it tells you that the answer is 15,129. Are you justified in believing that 123 × 123 = 15,129? — Michael

I believe I am (justified). The calculator nearly always gets basic math right. What's your point?

I've gone over this issue with another poster who, very insightfully, raised the issue of knowing how to cycle in another thread on epistemology. Does the cerebellum (motor skills) know in the same sense as the cerebrum (thinking skills)? I pointed out that motor skills can be broken down into a set of propositions (cerebrum-apt) and so yeah, knowing how to whittle is, in some sense, a justified true belief.

Intriguingly, Martin Rees claims that Newton's laws are physically hardwired in our brains. How else do we make good estimates on what we can handle, physically, and what we can't. Just sayin'.

Where do we go from here?

Gettier is mistaken in thinking he has found a failure in our understanding of knowledge. — unenlightened

I agree.

He has discovered fallibility. — unenlightened

Yup.

What I'm driving at is all Gettier cases seem to be such that they violate the proportio divina rule (the conclusion is disproportionate given the premises).

Gracias for the input.

It's not about getting everything right. It's simply revising your position when it's contradictory. Partially correct isn't a contradiction. "I am partially correct and also fully correct and also not correct at all" is. — khaled

You missed the point.

:ok:

fool — khaled

Yes? Someone called mu name? Hello!?

all opinions are equally silly — khaled

:lol:

hatred of inconsistency. — khaled

I wonder how being partly right/correct fits into the notion of consistency/inconsistency. I'm half-right seems far better than completely wrong, the worst-case scenario being not even wrong (vide Wolfgang Pauli).

Consistency comes off as too much to ask, an impossible object (a square circle) - to get everything right is not what we expect of fallible creatures like humans and that's exactly what consistency is, no?

For a change, just for fun if nothing else, let's look up instead of down and sideways. We've been diggin' like archaeologists, exploring at eye-level but nobody's bothered to investigate the upper floors of consciousness.

?
$\uparrow$
? Supermind[positively nonphysical]
$\uparrow$
Mind (phsyical/nonphsical? :chin: )
$\uparrow$
Brain (positively physical)

If it walks, talks, and acts like a duck... — Harry Hindu

it's Donald Duck or Daffy Duck or any other anthropomorphized duck.

I guess humans are constrained by inequality one way or another. — john27

I don't get it. Conformity is usually considered a bad thing. Yet, when people are different, :brow: . WTF?

I've often assumed that to gain absolute power in a political sense would probably (except for inherited power) require deceit, violence and possibly murder to achieve and to remain there. So the kinds of people that get to absolute power are likely to be compromised from the get go. — Tom Storm

:chin: Very perceptive. Nobody gets to where they are by being nice. The higher they rise, the bloodier their history. It's a rat race, dog eat dog.

the Chinese market! — Tom Storm

Yes...it all boils down to dollar bills! No such thing as cheap thrills. Sorry Sia.

The point of metaphysics is to arrive at the terminus of explanation. — Wayfarer

Well put, beautifully phrased. Spot on!

A blend of the principle of sufficient reason & Agrippa's trilemma and we get an infinite regress of explanations. No terminus I'm afraid. Metaphysics was doomed from the start.

Objectivism = ‘it really exists’. Nihilism = ‘It doesn’t exist’. The two extreme views according to Buddhism. — Wayfarer

Metaphysically minimalistic...perhaps.

It's always been like that. So, long as the US has a bogeyman to frighten its people with, it can get away with anything: exotic WMDs, unethical experimentation, and so on. People, once they're told that there's an enemy that's different from them - racially, linguistically, geographically, culturallly, etc. - they'll completely ignore the fact that they kill and hurt each other by the millions (crime).

The murder count in USA for 2021 $\approx$ 20,000.

The death toll in the Syrian civil war for 2018 $\approx$ 20,000.

There's a civil war in the USA but that's ok, Chinese & Russians (people who haven't killed a single US citizen) are the real problem.

Same goes for China, Russia, other countries as well.

The way I see the issue:

1. Stereotype OR Sexist Or Racist

Casting director, make a choice!

Oh, I'll choose a white (that takes care of stereotyping), a woman (that takes care of sexism) and there should be a scene in the orient, Kathmandu (that takes care of racism). :grin:

You cannot please everyone. — I like sushi

It's the thought that counts! :grin:

The 'perhaps' still looks misplaced to me. — I like sushi

What word(s) is/are suitable then? "Yes, you're spot on!"??

I missed a spot. There's also the problem of stereotyping. My, who knew a casting director's job was that difficult. I hope they get paid well.

It appears we've both misread each other. Never say always but also, never say never. Oops! That's what reality does to you.

The 5 Rights

Most health care professionals, especially nurses, know the “five rights” of medication use: the right patient, the right drug, the right time, the right dose, and the right route—all of which are generally regarded as a standard for safe medication practices. — NCBI

Change, something's wrong. Suppose I say "The apple was green, now it's red, it's changed". Nothing amiss in this some might say but it gives me petitio principii vibes. I dunno! How do I know change has occurred? It depends on whether green is different from red but is it? The one who says it is is begging the friggin' question.

Saying 'not necessarily' is not the same as saying 'not at all necessary'. You must've misread. — I like sushi

Well, actually, let's (split hairs). What's the difference between them, plus, why is my response "perhaps" not up to the mark?

Perhaps at the back of their mind — I like sushi

Therein lies the rub. Is racism a natural response? What lies beneath.

According to you. You seem insistent to view this as a decision made on race rather than on their view of the actor.

None of this is me saying it wasn't a conscious choice. Perhaps at the back of their mind they thought it was also a bonus to cast her as it would give the film some extra publicity knowing that some folks are always looking for controversy (genuine or otherwise simply to sell articles or make a name for themselves). — I like sushi

You have a point but so do I.

Saying 'not necessarily' is not the same as saying 'not at all necessary'. You must've misread. — I like sushi

Let's not split hairs, shall we?

I'm just puzzled.

So, according to the casting director of Dr. Strange, the following equality holds true:

A white woman = An Asian male

:rofl:

That's about right.

Hence why I said "it can be though". To look at every choice as character as a decision made purely on race - unless that is the subject matter of the production - seems silly. — I like sushi

I agree but it is a sensitive subject.

As for the casting someone asian as an ancient martial arts master ... well, yeah. Why wouldn't you considering that in asia there is an established and long held tradition in the martial arts? It does seem strange (excuse the pun) that they when for a woman, but it may just have been because she applied for the job, did a good job and so they hired her. — I like sushi

Indeed, a possibility we can't rule out.

So, no. It is not necessarily racist or sexist to cast someone for a role in a film. — I like sushi

Perhaps. At least the Ancient One was in Kathmandu :lol: and not in New York. Wait "she" comes to New York. :roll:

Enlightenment is basically getting the dosage right. Responding to the right person/thing at the right time, in the right place, to the right amount/degree, for the right duration. Not too much, not too less, just right. Goldilocks zone, hit the sweet spot as it were. I'm no good in bed. :sad:

$\phi = 1.618...$ [proportio divina]

Eureka! It's about beauty! Oh, shit!