Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Positive claims and knowledge

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 1:11:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, it's a short question that I'd like opinions on:

If you make a positive claim, does that necessarily entail that you're making a claim about knowing that claim to be true?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 1:35:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 1:11:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
So, it's a short question that I'd like opinions on:

If you make a positive claim, does that necessarily entail that you're making a claim about knowing that claim to be true?

isn't claim just another word for assertion?
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 1:53:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 1:35:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 1:11:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
So, it's a short question that I'd like opinions on:

If you make a positive claim, does that necessarily entail that you're making a claim about knowing that claim to be true?

isn't claim just another word for assertion?

Except for, perhaps, some slight connotative differences, yes, but that doesn't really answer the question which, if it wasn't clear enough, was intended to focus on the "Knowledge" part.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 1:57:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 1:53:55 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 1:35:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 1:11:19 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
So, it's a short question that I'd like opinions on:

If you make a positive claim, does that necessarily entail that you're making a claim about knowing that claim to be true?

isn't claim just another word for assertion?

Except for, perhaps, some slight connotative differences, yes, but that doesn't really answer the question which, if it wasn't clear enough, was intended to focus on the "Knowledge" part.

ok but yeah I guess if your making that claim you would have the knowledge to back your claim up
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 2:01:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Depends what knowledge is.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 3:25:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 2:01:28 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Depends what knowledge is.

A very valid point. The definition most oft-used when it comes up is "Justified True Belief", which is not really one I love for several reasons.

However, it seems to me that if you're making a claim (in honesty, of course), then you must feel it is justified, it is true, and that you yourself believe it. Otherwise you wouldn't claim it. Yes?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 3:30:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 3:25:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 2:01:28 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Depends what knowledge is.

A very valid point. The definition most oft-used when it comes up is "Justified True Belief", which is not really one I love for several reasons.

However, it seems to me that if you're making a claim (in honesty, of course), then you must feel it is justified, it is true, and that you yourself believe it. Otherwise you wouldn't claim it. Yes?

If you're making a positive claim then if you can show it's justified, and you believe it to be true, then you may be claiming knowledge of the belief. If it is true. If the belief isn't true, then you don't have knowledge of it?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 3:37:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 3:30:45 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:25:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 2:01:28 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Depends what knowledge is.

A very valid point. The definition most oft-used when it comes up is "Justified True Belief", which is not really one I love for several reasons.

However, it seems to me that if you're making a claim (in honesty, of course), then you must feel it is justified, it is true, and that you yourself believe it. Otherwise you wouldn't claim it. Yes?

If you're making a positive claim then if you can show it's justified, and you believe it to be true, then you may be claiming knowledge of the belief. If it is true. If the belief isn't true, then you don't have knowledge of it?

That's the idea of the JTB theory of "knowledge". Like I said, it's not one I like really. But it's one of the most common (particularly on here among people who discuss this sort of thing).

In all honesty, I'm bringing this around to concepts like Strong Atheism, which someone on here was disagreeing with me that it's necessarily gnostic (I was saying it was).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 3:41:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 3:37:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:30:45 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:25:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 2:01:28 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Depends what knowledge is.

A very valid point. The definition most oft-used when it comes up is "Justified True Belief", which is not really one I love for several reasons.

However, it seems to me that if you're making a claim (in honesty, of course), then you must feel it is justified, it is true, and that you yourself believe it. Otherwise you wouldn't claim it. Yes?

If you're making a positive claim then if you can show it's justified, and you believe it to be true, then you may be claiming knowledge of the belief. If it is true. If the belief isn't true, then you don't have knowledge of it?

That's the idea of the JTB theory of "knowledge". Like I said, it's not one I like really. But it's one of the most common (particularly on here among people who discuss this sort of thing).

In all honesty, I'm bringing this around to concepts like Strong Atheism, which someone on here was disagreeing with me that it's necessarily gnostic (I was saying it was).

Well I believe there are no deities, but I don't think that I know that there are none. I have a high degree of certainty, but I don't think it's high enough to claim knowledge.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 3:44:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 3:41:18 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:37:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:30:45 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:25:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 2:01:28 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Depends what knowledge is.

A very valid point. The definition most oft-used when it comes up is "Justified True Belief", which is not really one I love for several reasons.

However, it seems to me that if you're making a claim (in honesty, of course), then you must feel it is justified, it is true, and that you yourself believe it. Otherwise you wouldn't claim it. Yes?

If you're making a positive claim then if you can show it's justified, and you believe it to be true, then you may be claiming knowledge of the belief. If it is true. If the belief isn't true, then you don't have knowledge of it?

That's the idea of the JTB theory of "knowledge". Like I said, it's not one I like really. But it's one of the most common (particularly on here among people who discuss this sort of thing).

In all honesty, I'm bringing this around to concepts like Strong Atheism, which someone on here was disagreeing with me that it's necessarily gnostic (I was saying it was).

Well I believe there are no deities, but I don't think that I know that there are none. I have a high degree of certainty, but I don't think it's high enough to claim knowledge.

Where is the line? At what point does certainty become knowledge?

And, just to state from the outset, since I frustrated wiploc:

I'm really trying to understand, because I do have a pretty high degree of confidence in a lack of a deity...but I don't make the assertion, because I don't "know". So while this is all semantical quibbling, I think it addresses questions of epistemology that are very important.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 4:29:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 3:44:12 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:41:18 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:37:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:30:45 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:25:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 2:01:28 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Depends what knowledge is.

A very valid point. The definition most oft-used when it comes up is "Justified True Belief", which is not really one I love for several reasons.

However, it seems to me that if you're making a claim (in honesty, of course), then you must feel it is justified, it is true, and that you yourself believe it. Otherwise you wouldn't claim it. Yes?

If you're making a positive claim then if you can show it's justified, and you believe it to be true, then you may be claiming knowledge of the belief. If it is true. If the belief isn't true, then you don't have knowledge of it?

That's the idea of the JTB theory of "knowledge". Like I said, it's not one I like really. But it's one of the most common (particularly on here among people who discuss this sort of thing).

In all honesty, I'm bringing this around to concepts like Strong Atheism, which someone on here was disagreeing with me that it's necessarily gnostic (I was saying it was).

Well I believe there are no deities, but I don't think that I know that there are none. I have a high degree of certainty, but I don't think it's high enough to claim knowledge.

Where is the line? At what point does certainty become knowledge?

And, just to state from the outset, since I frustrated wiploc:

I'm really trying to understand, because I do have a pretty high degree of confidence in a lack of a deity...but I don't make the assertion, because I don't "know". So while this is all semantical quibbling, I think it addresses questions of epistemology that are very important.

If knowledge requires truth, I can never be actually sure I know anything. I think things like knowledge of the sun rising, that I'd poor cereal from a box, that the house I try to get into when I get home is actually my house etc.

I don't really have enough evidence showing that no deities exist, so I don't know they don't. But to me, each theory about deities seems as likely as any random assertion (it may me slightly more so, though). I believe most random assertions are untrue, so I think it's likely that such a thing is also unture.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 4:56:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 4:29:58 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:44:12 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:41:18 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:37:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:30:45 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:25:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 2:01:28 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Depends what knowledge is.

A very valid point. The definition most oft-used when it comes up is "Justified True Belief", which is not really one I love for several reasons.

However, it seems to me that if you're making a claim (in honesty, of course), then you must feel it is justified, it is true, and that you yourself believe it. Otherwise you wouldn't claim it. Yes?

If you're making a positive claim then if you can show it's justified, and you believe it to be true, then you may be claiming knowledge of the belief. If it is true. If the belief isn't true, then you don't have knowledge of it?

That's the idea of the JTB theory of "knowledge". Like I said, it's not one I like really. But it's one of the most common (particularly on here among people who discuss this sort of thing).

In all honesty, I'm bringing this around to concepts like Strong Atheism, which someone on here was disagreeing with me that it's necessarily gnostic (I was saying it was).

Well I believe there are no deities, but I don't think that I know that there are none. I have a high degree of certainty, but I don't think it's high enough to claim knowledge.

Where is the line? At what point does certainty become knowledge?

And, just to state from the outset, since I frustrated wiploc:

I'm really trying to understand, because I do have a pretty high degree of confidence in a lack of a deity...but I don't make the assertion, because I don't "know". So while this is all semantical quibbling, I think it addresses questions of epistemology that are very important.

If knowledge requires truth, I can never be actually sure I know anything. I think things like knowledge of the sun rising, that I'd poor cereal from a box, that the house I try to get into when I get home is actually my house etc.

I don't really have enough evidence showing that no deities exist, so I don't know they don't. But to me, each theory about deities seems as likely as any random assertion (it may me slightly more so, though). I believe most random assertions are untrue, so I think it's likely that such a thing is also unture.

Right. But where is the line of "knowledge", then?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:00:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 4:56:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 4:29:58 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:44:12 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:41:18 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:37:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:30:45 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 3:25:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 2:01:28 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Depends what knowledge is.

A very valid point. The definition most oft-used when it comes up is "Justified True Belief", which is not really one I love for several reasons.

However, it seems to me that if you're making a claim (in honesty, of course), then you must feel it is justified, it is true, and that you yourself believe it. Otherwise you wouldn't claim it. Yes?

If you're making a positive claim then if you can show it's justified, and you believe it to be true, then you may be claiming knowledge of the belief. If it is true. If the belief isn't true, then you don't have knowledge of it?

That's the idea of the JTB theory of "knowledge". Like I said, it's not one I like really. But it's one of the most common (particularly on here among people who discuss this sort of thing).

In all honesty, I'm bringing this around to concepts like Strong Atheism, which someone on here was disagreeing with me that it's necessarily gnostic (I was saying it was).

Well I believe there are no deities, but I don't think that I know that there are none. I have a high degree of certainty, but I don't think it's high enough to claim knowledge.

Where is the line? At what point does certainty become knowledge?

And, just to state from the outset, since I frustrated wiploc:

I'm really trying to understand, because I do have a pretty high degree of confidence in a lack of a deity...but I don't make the assertion, because I don't "know". So while this is all semantical quibbling, I think it addresses questions of epistemology that are very important.

If knowledge requires truth, I can never be actually sure I know anything. I think things like knowledge of the sun rising, that I'd poor cereal from a box, that the house I try to get into when I get home is actually my house etc.

I don't really have enough evidence showing that no deities exist, so I don't know they don't. But to me, each theory about deities seems as likely as any random assertion (it may me slightly more so, though). I believe most random assertions are untrue, so I think it's likely that such a thing is also unture.

Right. But where is the line of "knowledge", then?

Some arbitrary place between belief and certainty? Knowledge could be claimed to be a little presumptuous. Can you truly know if you have knowledge without being ignorant, if knowledge does in fact rest on the truth?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:22:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:00:49 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:


Some arbitrary place between belief and certainty? Knowledge could be claimed to be a little presumptuous. Can you truly know if you have knowledge without being ignorant, if knowledge does in fact rest on the truth?

Well, that's the problem with all these "knowledge" discussions. Is the term, itself, meaningless, then?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:23:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:10:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If you assert a hypothesis, are you asserting that you know that hypothesis is true?

Well, that depends. Since you're asserting, which implies asserting it as true (as opposed to, say, asserting X is our hypothesis), then I would say "yes".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:25:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:22:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:00:49 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:


Some arbitrary place between belief and certainty? Knowledge could be claimed to be a little presumptuous. Can you truly know if you have knowledge without being ignorant, if knowledge does in fact rest on the truth?

Well, that's the problem with all these "knowledge" discussions. Is the term, itself, meaningless, then?

We have to discuss which arbitrary placement best describes what we would call knowledge, which would then give it meaning. Maybe.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:25:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:23:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:10:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If you assert a hypothesis, are you asserting that you know that hypothesis is true?

Well, that depends. Since you're asserting, which implies asserting it as true (as opposed to, say, asserting X is our hypothesis), then I would say "yes".

Is asserting something to be true the same as asserting that you know something is true?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:28:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:25:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:23:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:10:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If you assert a hypothesis, are you asserting that you know that hypothesis is true?

Well, that depends. Since you're asserting, which implies asserting it as true (as opposed to, say, asserting X is our hypothesis), then I would say "yes".

Is asserting something to be true the same as asserting that you know something is true?

I would think so...I mean, if you don't think you know it's true, why are you asserting it as such?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:29:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:23:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:10:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If you assert a hypothesis, are you asserting that you know that hypothesis is true?

Well, that depends. Since you're asserting, which implies asserting it as true (as opposed to, say, asserting X is our hypothesis), then I would say "yes".

Does asserting a hypothesis as true mean you're saying;

A) You claim the hypothesis is true.

B) You feel the hypothesis is true.

C) You have faith that the hypothesis it true.

D) You believe the hypothesis is true.

E) You think the hypothesis is true.

F) You know the hypothesis it true.

G) You're certain the hypothesis is true.

-=-=-=-=

Can two people assert contradictory hypothesis? And if so, does that mean that one of them doesn't "know" their hypothesis is true? Because both can't be true, and apparently knowledge requires truth.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:30:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:25:16 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:22:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:00:49 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:


Some arbitrary place between belief and certainty? Knowledge could be claimed to be a little presumptuous. Can you truly know if you have knowledge without being ignorant, if knowledge does in fact rest on the truth?

Well, that's the problem with all these "knowledge" discussions. Is the term, itself, meaningless, then?

We have to discuss which arbitrary placement best describes what we would call knowledge, which would then give it meaning. Maybe.

Right; and where is that? Because, to me (and this is my problem in these type of discussions), if you aren't appending something along the lines of "Based on X data", and are just asserting "Y is true", there must be a presumption of knowledge there, otherwise it seems dishonest to say "Y is true" when you are not certain "Y is true"; and if you are certain "Y is true", why wouldn't you call that "knowledge"?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:32:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:29:22 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:23:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:10:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If you assert a hypothesis, are you asserting that you know that hypothesis is true?

Well, that depends. Since you're asserting, which implies asserting it as true (as opposed to, say, asserting X is our hypothesis), then I would say "yes".

Does asserting a hypothesis as true mean you're saying;

A) You claim the hypothesis is true.

B) You feel the hypothesis is true.

C) You have faith that the hypothesis it true.

D) You believe the hypothesis is true.

E) You think the hypothesis is true.

F) You know the hypothesis it true.

G) You're certain the hypothesis is true.

-=-=-=-=

Can two people assert contradictory hypothesis? And if so, does that mean that one of them doesn't "know" their hypothesis is true? Because both can't be true, and apparently knowledge requires truth.

Well, does it? I mean, the JTB framework is the one most people I've talked about this use. But one of the reasons I hate it is the solipsistic-ness of it. The folks who like it hate to admit that, by the definition, there's no such thing as knowledge, since we can't ever be definitively sure anything is true.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:33:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:30:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:25:16 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:22:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:00:49 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:


Some arbitrary place between belief and certainty? Knowledge could be claimed to be a little presumptuous. Can you truly know if you have knowledge without being ignorant, if knowledge does in fact rest on the truth?

Well, that's the problem with all these "knowledge" discussions. Is the term, itself, meaningless, then?

We have to discuss which arbitrary placement best describes what we would call knowledge, which would then give it meaning. Maybe.

Right; and where is that? Because, to me (and this is my problem in these type of discussions), if you aren't appending something along the lines of "Based on X data", and are just asserting "Y is true", there must be a presumption of knowledge there, otherwise it seems dishonest to say "Y is true" when you are not certain "Y is true"; and if you are certain "Y is true", why wouldn't you call that "knowledge"?

Because apparently a prerequisite of knowledge is truth, and I'm not certain that anything is true. That might make my claim of knowledge presumptuous, I could claim that I believe I know something, though.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:36:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:32:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Well, does it? I mean, the JTB framework is the one most people I've talked about this use. But one of the reasons I hate it is the solipsistic-ness of it. The folks who like it hate to admit that, by the definition, there's no such thing as knowledge, since we can't ever be definitively sure anything is true.

And this is where we agree. I think knowledge is probably the stage of belief where we don't strongly question our belief, if we do at all. Sure, we can question any belief. But when I'm unlocking the door to get into my house, I don't question if it is actually my house. I "know" it is, although I could still be wrong,
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:43:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think you can be intellectually honest, and claim to believe to know something. Maybe knowledge is a justified true belief. But you can then, never be sure if you have knowledge, only belief it to be so.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:44:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:36:09 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:32:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Well, does it? I mean, the JTB framework is the one most people I've talked about this use. But one of the reasons I hate it is the solipsistic-ness of it. The folks who like it hate to admit that, by the definition, there's no such thing as knowledge, since we can't ever be definitively sure anything is true.

And this is where we agree. I think knowledge is probably the stage of belief where we don't strongly question our belief, if we do at all. Sure, we can question any belief. But when I'm unlocking the door to get into my house, I don't question if it is actually my house. I "know" it is, although I could still be wrong,

I like that example, but does it correlate to the "god question"?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:52:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:28:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:25:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:23:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:10:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If you assert a hypothesis, are you asserting that you know that hypothesis is true?

Well, that depends. Since you're asserting, which implies asserting it as true (as opposed to, say, asserting X is our hypothesis), then I would say "yes".

Is asserting something to be true the same as asserting that you know something is true?

I would think so...I mean, if you don't think you know it's true, why are you asserting it as such?

Permit me to respond with a further question. Suppose you'd like to claim about some proposition, P, that you know it to be true; however, you can't imagine entirely ruling out the possibility of not-P. In other words, you would like to claim certainty about the truth of P, but you cannot rule out other possible worlds in which P does not obtain; nevertheless, you have what you suppose are good reasons for believing that P is true, and assert on the basis of this evidence that P is true. Do you think it reasonable to assert something as true without being able to rule out all other possibilities? Is it reasonable, for instance, to assert (roughly speaking, of course), on the basis of your experiences, that the sky is blue, despite the fact your data isn't strictly replicable, or your inability to rule out being deceived by a machine? If so--I assume you are willing to commit to things like the blueness of the sky, the existence of other people, etc. in spite of the absence of unerring confidence--then you would be forced to concede to incomplete correspondence between the act of assertion and knowledge concerning its content (otherwise put, between the standalone assertion and your relationship, e.g., knowing, feeling, believing, to that assertion).
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 5:57:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:44:09 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:36:09 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:32:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Well, does it? I mean, the JTB framework is the one most people I've talked about this use. But one of the reasons I hate it is the solipsistic-ness of it. The folks who like it hate to admit that, by the definition, there's no such thing as knowledge, since we can't ever be definitively sure anything is true.

And this is where we agree. I think knowledge is probably the stage of belief where we don't strongly question our belief, if we do at all. Sure, we can question any belief. But when I'm unlocking the door to get into my house, I don't question if it is actually my house. I "know" it is, although I could still be wrong,

I like that example, but does it correlate to the "god question"?

I don't know. I can't rule out deities. Tbh, I'm not completely sure which cases would count as a "deity" and which cases wouldn't. If a deity is materialistic, does that make it not a deity? If a deity exists in reality, and didn't create it, does that make it not a deity. One of the only properties I can be sure a deity has is consciousness, and a few people try to do away with that. I think that maybe slight form of thinking we haven't defined deities very well, and the fact that I don't think belief in theism will affect our lives, the fact I don't think we'd be accurate in any belief we could form now and the fact that "higher consciousness" seems like a dubious concept makes me a a weak-strong atheist. But the fact that we're notoriously bad at concepts to do with the creation/eternal-existence of reality and infinity etc. makes me feel that I'm not quite justified in claiming knowledge in such an area, either.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:00:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 5:52:15 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:28:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:25:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:23:29 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:10:38 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If you assert a hypothesis, are you asserting that you know that hypothesis is true?

Well, that depends. Since you're asserting, which implies asserting it as true (as opposed to, say, asserting X is our hypothesis), then I would say "yes".

Is asserting something to be true the same as asserting that you know something is true?

I would think so...I mean, if you don't think you know it's true, why are you asserting it as such?

Permit me to respond with a further question. Suppose you'd like to claim about some proposition, P, that you know it to be true; however, you can't imagine entirely ruling out the possibility of not-P. In other words, you would like to claim certainty about the truth of P, but you cannot rule out other possible worlds in which P does not obtain; nevertheless, you have what you suppose are good reasons for believing that P is true, and assert on the basis of this evidence that P is true. Do you think it reasonable to assert something as true without being able to rule out all other possibilities? Is it reasonable, for instance, to assert (roughly speaking, of course), on the basis of your experiences, that the sky is blue, despite the fact your data isn't strictly replicable, or your inability to rule out being deceived by a machine? If so--I assume you are willing to commit to things like the blueness of the sky, the existence of other people, etc. in spite of the absence of unerring confidence--then you would be forced to concede to incomplete correspondence between the act of assertion and knowledge concerning its content (otherwise put, between the standalone assertion and your relationship, e.g., knowing, feeling, believing, to that assertion).

Is this describing the slippery slope to solipsism? I think it's ok to assert things you believe have sufficient justification to be true. Then it's down to someone else to provide sufficient justification that it isn't true. The certainty of belief, to me at least, is also called ignorance.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:03:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2013 6:00:41 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/1/2013 5:52:15 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Permit me to respond with a further question. Suppose you'd like to claim about some proposition, P, that you know it to be true; however, you can't imagine entirely ruling out the possibility of not-P. In other words, you would like to claim certainty about the truth of P, but you cannot rule out other possible worlds in which P does not obtain; nevertheless, you have what you suppose are good reasons for believing that P is true, and assert on the basis of this evidence that P is true. Do you think it reasonable to assert something as true without being able to rule out all other possibilities? Is it reasonable, for instance, to assert (roughly speaking, of course), on the basis of your experiences, that the sky is blue, despite the fact your data isn't strictly replicable, or your inability to rule out being deceived by a machine? If so--I assume you are willing to commit to things like the blueness of the sky, the existence of other people, etc. in spite of the absence of unerring confidence--then you would be forced to concede to incomplete correspondence between the act of assertion and knowledge concerning its content (otherwise put, between the standalone assertion and your relationship, e.g., knowing, feeling, believing, to that assertion).

Is this describing the slippery slope to solipsism?

It is not.

I think it's ok to assert things you believe have sufficient justification to be true. Then it's down to someone else to provide sufficient justification that it isn't true. The certainty of belief, to me at least, is also called ignorance.