Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

What constitutes knowledge?

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 8:25:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As an epistemic nihilist, I find arguing my position has been at least 60% dreadful semantics most of the time. The popular definition of knowledge is "justified true belief" but that just seems ambiguous and I don't really like it. What does "justified" mean; good reason? But when people say "I know X is true, or I know X is false", that's a statement of certainty. I find most phil text books state that true knowledge requires certainty but the above definition does not seem to imply it. My phil teacher even used the term to define knowledge but then when I asked him to clarify whether it required certainty, he said yes. But I don't see how the definition implies certainty. I do believe true knowledge requires certainty. I just don't get the definition and a lot of people seem to dispute it.

Furthermore the word "knowledge" is a largely abused word in the English language. People misuse it all the time. For example, when people say "I don't know", they're usually saying they're undecided or don't have an opinion. But nothing in the true meaning of the word knowledge would entail that meaning. Furthermore, when you say you know what time it is, you don't really truly know because in all probability, your watch is off somewhat. It's just more pragmatic to use language that way.

Also there seems to be different types of knowledge. For example, you could say Daniel Dennet is knowledgeable in philosophy or that he knows a lot about it, but saying you know a lot about something does no imply certainty let alone belief at all. It's just saying he has much awareness over that field. It would seem weird to say he has a lot of justified true belief about philosophy. The biggest skeptics can be the most knowledgeable. Or should we say Hume and Descartes weren't knowledgeable persons? (Course not)
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2012 9:36:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://3.bp.blogspot.com...
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:43:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Once you actually take an Epistemology class, they will spend months teaching you that knowledge is "Justified True Belief." And then, 2 weeks before class is up, they will teach you that Justified True Belief isn't actually knowledge, and you will have wasted a considerable amount of money.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:50:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:43:33 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Once you actually take an Epistemology class, they will spend months teaching you that knowledge is "Justified True Belief." And then, 2 weeks before class is up, they will teach you that Justified True Belief isn't actually knowledge, and you will have wasted a considerable amount of money.

Yeah, they throw in the Gettier counterexamples and then you're mad forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:50:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:43:33 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Once you actually take an Epistemology class, they will spend months teaching you that knowledge is "Justified True Belief." And then, 2 weeks before class is up, they will teach you that Justified True Belief isn't actually knowledge, and you will have wasted a considerable amount of money.

Lol just read the 2-page destruction of epistemology by Gettier and you're good. (http://www.ditext.com...)
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:51:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:50:11 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:43:33 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Once you actually take an Epistemology class, they will spend months teaching you that knowledge is "Justified True Belief." And then, 2 weeks before class is up, they will teach you that Justified True Belief isn't actually knowledge, and you will have wasted a considerable amount of money.

Yeah, they throw in the Gettier counterexamples and then you're mad forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Beat me by like 40 seconds.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 12:53:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:50:11 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/30/2012 12:43:33 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Once you actually take an Epistemology class, they will spend months teaching you that knowledge is "Justified True Belief." And then, 2 weeks before class is up, they will teach you that Justified True Belief isn't actually knowledge, and you will have wasted a considerable amount of money.

Yeah, they throw in the Gettier counterexamples and then you're mad forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Mmmhm, I nearly threw my desk haha
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 3:54:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 8:25:14 PM, phantom wrote:
As an epistemic nihilist, I find arguing my position has been at least 60% dreadful semantics most of the time. The popular definition of knowledge is "justified true belief" but that just seems ambiguous and I don't really like it. What does "justified" mean; good reason? But when people say "I know X is true, or I know X is false", that's a statement of certainty. I find most phil text books state that true knowledge requires certainty but the above definition does not seem to imply it. My phil teacher even used the term to define knowledge but then when I asked him to clarify whether it required certainty, he said yes. But I don't see how the definition implies certainty. I do believe true knowledge requires certainty. I just don't get the definition and a lot of people seem to dispute it.

Furthermore the word "knowledge" is a largely abused word in the English language. People misuse it all the time. For example, when people say "I don't know", they're usually saying they're undecided or don't have an opinion. But nothing in the true meaning of the word knowledge would entail that meaning. Furthermore, when you say you know what time it is, you don't really truly know because in all probability, your watch is off somewhat. It's just more pragmatic to use language that way.

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2012 7:21:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 8:25:14 PM, phantom wrote:
As an epistemic nihilist, I find arguing my position has been at least 60% dreadful semantics most of the time. The popular definition of knowledge is "justified true belief" but that just seems ambiguous and I don't really like it. What does "justified" mean; good reason? But when people say "I know X is true, or I know X is false", that's a statement of certainty. I find most phil text books state that true knowledge requires certainty but the above definition does not seem to imply it. My phil teacher even used the term to define knowledge but then when I asked him to clarify whether it required certainty, he said yes. But I don't see how the definition implies certainty. I do believe true knowledge requires certainty. I just don't get the definition and a lot of people seem to dispute it.

I like the JTB qualifications, and agree the question is really, "What counts as justification?"


Furthermore the word "knowledge" is a largely abused word in the English language. People misuse it all the time. For example, when people say "I don't know", they're usually saying they're undecided or don't have an opinion. But nothing in the true meaning of the word knowledge would entail that meaning. Furthermore, when you say you know what time it is, you don't really truly know because in all probability, your watch is off somewhat. It's just more pragmatic to use language that way.

Eh. I wouldn't call this abuse. Words have different meanings in different contexts. It's fine to use the word "theory" in a non-scientific context if we aren't talking about science. It's fine to use the word "knowledge" in a non-epistemological context if we aren't talking about epistemology.


Also there seems to be different types of knowledge. For example, you could say Daniel Dennet is knowledgeable in philosophy or that he knows a lot about it, but saying you know a lot about something does no imply certainty let alone belief at all. It's just saying he has much awareness over that field. It would seem weird to say he has a lot of justified true belief about philosophy. The biggest skeptics can be the most knowledgeable. Or should we say Hume and Descartes weren't knowledgeable persons? (Course not)
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 1:38:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is harder understand and easier understanding. Although i am not sure "what kind of" or "at what kind of level" to be considered as the kind of harder understanding in this case.

Simply put: it's knowledge because, it gives us benefit and it answers our hope (whatever it means).

It's easy understanding that can be quickly applied to our everyday life. At least we can grasp knowledge rather than waiting with doubt. It's practical response in dealing with knowledge. Maybe it's oversimplified, but yes, that's what i mean in this case.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Cometflash
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 1:32:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the problem here, is reserving knowledge to what is "true". True is a very tricky word. Sometimes what is consider "true" is not really true.
If you reserve knowledge to only be to things that are true, what you think is knowledge might very well not be knowledge at all.

If someone possess information of many false informations, this person still possess knowledge. The knowledge of false information. Of course, this going by my definition.

But if you want to complicate things, you may all live in such of world of complication, and I be here just relaxing with my simple solution, and enjoying you all going around in circles and never finding an answer...

___
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 7:04:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/30/2012 12:43:33 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Once you actually take an Epistemology class, they will spend months teaching you that knowledge is "Justified True Belief." And then, 2 weeks before class is up, they will teach you that Justified True Belief isn't actually knowledge, and you will have wasted a considerable amount of money.

Thanks for the heads up!
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 9:52:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/29/2012 8:25:14 PM, phantom wrote:
As an epistemic nihilist, I find arguing my position has been at least 60% dreadful semantics most of the time.

As an epistemic nihilist, I find arguing my position has been at least 60% dreadful semantics most of the time.

I think the term "epistemic nihilist" makes arguing any position a self refuting proposition, so perhaps "dreadful semantics" is the best you can hope for from such a self contradicting position. Its self refuting because it implicitly contains the self referential paradox, any effort to make a reasonable argument would necessarily entail that it is false to believe that it reasonable from an epistemic nihilist position. I think the juxtaposition of the words epistemic and nihilist together with the concept of "arguing my position" is in effect, just another way of restating the self referential liar"s paradox, "this statement is not true".

That said, perhaps at issue here is that the problem of knowledge contains the very same self referential paradox at its core. The uncontested fact is, without a distinction between subject and object, between the knowing subject and the objective fact known, the fact of "knowledge" would be unaccountable. I will contend that this requisite bifurcation between subject and object, between knower and known, is not true to reality, it is in fact, the first instantiation of self referential liar"s paradox.

It"s fair to say that we must "face reality" right? Well no, that common expression is not right, we don"t stand apart from it and face reality, we are a part of reality.

What made knowledge possible in the first place was an evolutionary event whereby an animal, arguably the first human, gained access to self reflective consciousness, and that humanizing event itself introduced the self referential paradox. The moment in our evolutionary development when we gained self reflective consciousness was a cognitive break with the whole, after which, what we were seeing was a reflection, a "mirror image" which inverted reality into an artificial image of ourselves as independent beings separated from the reality we are actually a part of. The first humans were the first animals to image reality in a detached and symbolic manner, and everything that is distinctively human, language, culture, science, technology, it all followed from that "break" with the true reality we were once part of. We are consequently separated from reality by this bifurcation of things into "us" and "not us", by this "illusion" that reality is not an unbroken whole, the illusion that we can somehow stand outside of and apart from reality and "face" it. What makes us human is self reflective consciousness, and therefore what humans see is only a reflection of reality, and as it always goes with reflections, the image is inverted, what we perceive is an artificial image of ourselves as independent beings that are separate from the reality we are part of.

For knowledge to be considered "true" it must correspond to reality, but correspondence calls for representation, and the very act of representation is a process that inverts the reality known, in the end, knowledge is itself paradoxical because it is founded on the self referential liar"s paradox. It is only this artificial distinction we make in our minds, this self reflective bifurcation of reality into "us" and "not us" that makes knowledge possible in the first place, and consequently, "knowledge" is based on this illusion that reality is not an unbroken whole, the illusion that we can somehow stand outside of, and apart from reality and "face" it. The distinctions we make in our minds that we call "knowledge" may be useful, but they are only artificial distinctions that we make, only an illusion, they are not true to reality.

So it appears that the problem of knowledge all really just comes down to "Seeing things as they really are", and recognizing that the problem of knowledge is an unsolvable problem.

I think "Seeing things as they really are" is important because it"s possible that most, if not all, of our problems result from one single problem, and that is a problem with human perception. I think it follows that the problem of knowledge and the problem with human perception are one and the same problem, and perhaps all we can do is fall back on that recurring and ancient wisdom that knowledge and wisdom must go together to be complete.

If we can complement our so called "knowledge", with the "wisdom" that life is more than the simple duality of oppositions that we impose onto reality and call knowledge, perhaps we can recognize that these artificial distinctions in our minds are what result in so much conflict. With a deep conviction in the fundamental solidarity of life maybe we can can come to understand that life is not a "conflict" between opposites, and we can begin to think differently about other things and other people. We can begin to see that cooperation is what is natural, that competition is what doesn"t make sense, and we can see that religious one-upmanship is a betrayal of spirit, and intellectual one-upmanship is a betrayal of reason.

If we can come to see that everything is an essential part in a greater whole then maybe we can start seeing value in the differences between people rather than meet it with fear or resentment. Perhaps then we can learn to love the ultimate reality and at the same time, love one another as we love ourselves, because we know in our hearts that there is no real distinction between the two, that in the true unbroken reality of wholeness, they are one and the same, merely inverted reflections of each other. Then maybe we can stop confusing unity with sameness, and find unity in the diversity by loving one another as we love ourselves. Maybe we can begin to realize that if we could just think differently, we could stop killing each other and live in harmony, and then, and only then, we will be back on our way to the "Promised Land", so to speak.

Or...maybe not.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 4:17:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Sidewalker, I'll respond latter. I have to write a debate argument, finish my final paper and study math so I don't have the time atm. But check out my other thread in this forum if you want. It's related though wouldn't be a direct response.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)