So, you are saying that the truth criterion of the JTB definition is evaluated from the standpoint of the speaker, regardless of the subject of knowledge? That is, if I say that someone else than me knows something, then the truth criterion applies to the proposition that I am stating? — Ø implies everything
He knows p = He is justified in believing p and this proposition is true/known by me — Ø implies everything
Then what do our experiences mean? We all have one fleeting moment after another and then we simply die. — jasonm
If you agree that for non-skeptical accounts of truth, truth is a redundant criterion of knowledge in the first person case, then you also agree that it is redundant for the nth person case. — Ø implies everything
Now, as for my definition of belief as emotional and knowledge as justified belief; what else do you propose? — Ø implies everything
First, some options are imagined. — Dfpolis
Far greater wounds are suffered in battle and may pass unnoticed because attention is not focused on one's body, but on something else. — Dfpolis
Doubts can only affect our commitment to the truth of what we continue to know. — Dfpolis
Will is a power that allows us to value and so choose. — Dfpolis
Still, given multiple conceptual possibilities (lines of action), one needs to be actualized. That actualization is a specific kind of intentional act. — Dfpolis
Because objects act on the senses to inform the nervous system, thereby presenting themselves for possible attention. When we choose to attend (focus awareness on) to them, we actualize their intelligibility, knowing them. — Dfpolis
Doubts question his commitment to the truth of what he continues to know and believe. — Dfpolis
I am calling this power (which is not a thing) "will." — Dfpolis
My preferred language is to call the neural modification induced by the action of the object on our senses a "presentation." — Dfpolis
He knew he was in his chamber, writing, but chose to believe he might not be. — Dfpolis
Thus, if you know that John knows P, you also know P, because if P were false, then John does not know P, which means you do not know that John knows P, which contradicts the premise. — Ø implies everything
Going from JTB to JB does not make knowledge into belief, by definition of JB as "justified belief", in which a belief is merely an emotional conviction, whereas "justified" (not "justifiable") is an emotional conviction that the belief is correctly supported. — Ø implies everything
There are theists who exemplify the state of feeling that one's conviction is true, yet simultaneously not feeling that it is justified. That is, these theist have, in their own eyes and others', unjustified beliefs. — Ø implies everything
Providing as they would, an impoverished environment/context for their children. — boagie
The 'disruption' is a bogeyman. — Isaac
It's pathetic that the left can't even muster enough solidarity to make a dent. — Isaac
If you read my first comment on this thread, you'll see how adding the criterion of truth introduces a different, more damaging weakness, in the event one has a skeptical account of truth. — Ø implies everything
Whether we are dealing with the former or latter depends on the relationship between truth and justification, according to the user of the definition. Either, a justified proposition is always true (1), or it is not always true (2). In the latter case, justification may have the capacity, if sufficiently strong, to prove a proposition true (2a), or it may never have this capacity (2b). In the event of 2b, justification like plays the role of increasing the probability of a proposition being true; it's simply that this probability will never reach 1. — Ø implies everything
It is true that, in a sense, the most that I can convey is that I (the speaker) also believe that P. But the truth condition is also a commitment to abandon my claim if p should turn out to be false.I'm afraid that doesn't quite cut it, because if P is false, (1), (2), and (3) will still be true and hence it will still be true (on your definition) that Sally knows that P. — Ludwig V
Belief is an act of will: committing to the truth of some proposition. — Dfpolis
So I shall start with that. There are a couple of points from your second post at the end.Belief is an act of will: committing to the truth of some proposition. — Dfpolis
the consequent changes of neural state, which are our visual representation of the object, — Dfpolis
That we can continue to know while suspending belief shows that belief is not a necessary condition for knowing. — Dfpolis
modal musings, — Banno
I don't see how the third person is relevant here. — Ø implies everything
I say that Sally knows P if
(1) Sally believes P
(2) Sally can justify her belief in P (according to current norms)
(3) I also believe P — green flag
At what point does the criterion of truth become necessary? — Ø implies everything
As you say, we can't limit ourselves to infallible claims. — green flag
Knowlege is experience, through which meanings are gained though fallible. — boagie
Thus, in all cases, the criterion of being true within the JTB definition is either redundant, or, it makes the definition quite useless. — Ø implies everything
So a technology for which we can see we'll run out of the main fuel, or run out of capacity to hold the waste product, is a technology that doesn't work. Back to the drawing board.
Un-foreseeable lack of sustainability is obviously going to be part of any technological innovation in a complex world, but we're dealing, in the most part, with completely foreseeable issues. — Isaac
It's solidarity that's the problem. Hence the main focus of any institution of power is to divide. — Isaac
What you describe is classic Western dualistic thinking and this bifurcated view of reality is, I agree, unproductive. — Tom Storm
It is easy to advocate for social justice and fairness and prosperity for all as an ideal; the actuality may be far less appealing to the side that currently enjoys the prosperity. — Janus
I think it's more a case of disagreement over how to get there than disagreement over what they mean. — Janus
I think this is the harm of 'the myth of progress'. It takes progress as the primary objective and sustainability as a kind of 'nice to have' icing on the cake. But sustainability, and equality, should be the constraints on any progress bar none, meaning no 'progress' which doesn't meet these criteria should take place. — Isaac
Taking sustainability and equality seriously means remaining in our apocryphal 'mud huts' for ten thousand years if necessary until we innovate the centrally heated, air conditioned bungalow in a form which is available to everyone, regardless of their status, and does not take more from its environment than it can sustain in its lifetime. — Isaac
an openness to goodness as a dimension of how we were created. — Tom Storm
Would many people deny that progress in the sense of social betterment, fairness and justice and greater prosperity for all is desirable? — Janus
So, why speak about propositional knowledge at all then, why not speak about more or less justified propositional belief instead, thus dissolving all the attendant paradoxes, and saving us from going over and over this same old boring ground ad nauseum? — Janus
What works, what is useful, what is pragmatic; or just that it's what we do? I'm not sure that the use of "pragmatic" isn't a bit too teleological, giving the impression of serving an 'ends' that isn't there. — Banno
I just explained why it wasn't as simple as that. So, yes, it's complicated, but it's complicated because of the uncertainty in our knowledge. — T Clark
That's one of the lessons learned, and subsequently taught, by the natural language approach. — Banno
foundationalist epistemology — Tom Storm
But if we keep truth small and simple then it is undeniable that there are true statements. Like that you are now reading this. — Banno
In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. — T Clark
You need knowledge of the likely facts and understanding of the level of uncertainty. — T Clark
Dependent on other conditions or circumstances; conditional: synonym: dependent — T Clark
So both first-hand experience and the theoretical approach are essential for learning and gaining knowledge. — Bret Bernhoft
So instead we have something like a general acceptance by a community, without the rigour for which one might have hoped. — Banno
But the idea that folk can be wrong has fallen into disfavour, and it seems it is now considered no more than bad manners, even in a philosophy forum, to point out people's mistakes. Oh well. — Banno
But I still think that first-hand experience is the best way to learn something and therefore the best way to obtain knowledge. — Bret Bernhoft
My point is more that we don't need to go back and say X wasn't really knowledge. I am looking at the term 'knowledge' as a term meaning here's stuff we categorize as very trustworthy because of Y (our batch of rigorous criteria). So some now no longer consider true theory from the past is still part of our history of knowledge. The stuff we arrived at rigorously. Oh, it wasn't really knowledge. No, it was. Now we know better. — Bylaw
I don't see how a person's own feelings of certainty can assist us with this. — Tom Storm
I can doubt anything. — T Clark
A property with no contamination is not considered a site under site cleanup regulations. — T Clark
I guess I was unclear. I do not consider JTB as useful definition of knowledge. I do not think knowledge has to be true, only that I believe it is true and am justified in that belief. Those are the only things I have control of. — T Clark
I agree with all this, although I wouldn't put quotation marks around knowledge. — T Clark
So, yes - knowledge is justified belief with the condition that the justification is adequate. — T Clark
knowledge is social, it is had by a community more than by an individual. — Banno
I think that to know something is to experience it and therefore to perceive it in an undoubtable way. — Bret Bernhoft
people who say they have knowledge of god though direct experience - how would you describe this type of claim? — Tom Storm
Certainty is the flip side of doubt; if something is undoubtable, then it is certain. — Banno
I don't think we ever really try to achieve certainty in our knowledge. I don't even think it's a valuable goal. Most uses for knowledge don't require certainty—only a balance between level of certainty and cost of justification. — T Clark
I'd just say that if we counted something as knowledge and later it turned out to be false, then we were wrong, that it wasn't knowledge, and we have now corrected ourselves. — Banno
Would it not be the case that as we go about our business we generally do struggle to achieve knowledge of the sort you describe (the certainty that this sentence is in English)? We seem to spend most of our lives in belief-land - some more than others. — Tom Storm
We find people who say they have knowledge of god though direct experience - how would you describe this type of claim? A belief? To call it a false belief would imply that we already have decided that knowledge of god is not legitimate. Or it begs the question that we can tell if someone has knowledge of god. — Tom Storm
Karl Popper's suggestion was to throw away certainty from knowledge and work with knowledge in terms of probability. Basically, we are justified in believing something if it's the most probable belief given our current data. — Cidat
As long as it doesn't detract from survival outside of mating it stays. — Benj96
some problems are currently considered good things and some good things are currently considered problematic. — Benj96
Out of curiosity, if you had to discern a direction, point or "aim" of humanity ie. "where we are going" - what would you say that is? — Benj96
Or furthermore, would you say evolution doesn't have a purpose its running towards but instead it's purpose is behind it - ie what it comes from out of pure neccesity? — Benj96
Should we look to home first? Should earthly problems be our sole perogative before choosing to undertake endeavours further afield? Or is taking endeavours towards space travel a neccesity to address the problems at home, even if just to inspire and motivate perhaps? — Benj96
I'm afraid I don't know anything like enough to debate why various battles have been fought. I would be very surprised to learn that any battles have ever been fought over solipsism. It seems rather unlikely. But as I say, I'm not a historian.It's not how they are viewed but many battles have likely been fought over solipsism. — introbert
I'm getting the idea that your idea of solipsism is essentially radical individual freedom. That's somewhat unusual.individual freedom is going to involve independent thought, which involves only having certainty of one's own mind and being critical of the validity, soundness or even existence of anyone else. — introbert
You are giving me a very simplified sketch of a very conventional view of what is required of a soldier in these different kinds of warfare. From the little that I know about it, I would say that the simplifications amount to distortions. I don't think we're going to reach agreement about this. I'll just repeat that so far as I understand it, fighting a war involves team work on one's own side - whether it is guerrilla warfare or conventional - and an enemy group or team. I don't see how solipsism could function at all in that kind of situation, even if it amounts to no more than a belief in the primary importance of individual freedom.the ideal guerilla is a freedom fighter, a partisan, a resistance member. The ideal conventional soldier unquestioningly follows orders from the command chain of a regime. The ideal guerilla is not an ideal conventional soldier and vice versa. Neither are inherently good or evil. The ideal guerilla is the solipsist and the ideal conventional soldier is the confederate. — introbert
Well no, if solipsism were true there would be no reason to connect with people because there would be no other people. — Darkneos
. . . so I look at critical thought such as postmodernism as being part of a struggle to redesign solipsism. Such things as turning one against social construction, disciplinary institutions (panopticon) and fascism etc and even an openness to schizophrenia as gently nudging the reader towards solipsism. — introbert
. Or so it seems to me.I am the subject of my experiences, make my various judgements, have various desires and values and perform various actions. No-one else can do those things. — Ludwig V
I'm asking because years ago I thought I saw a post on Quora that proved solipsism to be true and I suffered since then. But I don't remember what it said or even if it was right (I'm pretty bad at philosophy) and I can't find the post. So I've lived thinking it's true this whole time and there isn't a reason to connect with people because they aren't real. But if solipsism is unproveable then he's wrong and I can move on. — Darkneos