Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Knowledge; what is it?

kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 6:55:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

What do you define as "truth"?
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 7:08:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 6:55:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

What do you define as "truth"?

So that is a bit beyond the scope of what I am intending. Truth is things as they really are.

Why is truth necessary?

I venture not to declare how to determine truth at this time but I do think it is fair to say that you cannot know something that is untrue... inherently you misunderstand if you "know" something that is not.

Why is belief necessary?

If there is such a thing as truth, it is true regardless of my belief or disbelief in it. Thus for me to know I must have a relationship with truth, or in other words believe in it. Belief is the link.

Why is Justification necessary?

Suppose that you stumble across truth and believe in it, do you then know it? No, you have just happened upon it. Justification is how you demonstrate and understanding that is required for knowledge.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 7:20:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 7:08:51 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 8/12/2015 6:55:37 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

What do you define as "truth"?

So that is a bit beyond the scope of what I am intending. Truth is things as they really are.

Why is truth necessary?

I venture not to declare how to determine truth at this time but I do think it is fair to say that you cannot know something that is untrue... inherently you misunderstand if you "know" something that is not.

Why is belief necessary?

If there is such a thing as truth, it is true regardless of my belief or disbelief in it. Thus for me to know I must have a relationship with truth, or in other words believe in it. Belief is the link.

Why is Justification necessary?

Suppose that you stumble across truth and believe in it, do you then know it? No, you have just happened upon it. Justification is how you demonstrate and understanding that is required for knowledge.

Makes sense
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 7:35:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

What's your idea of "justified" in this case? It is pretty vague as it stands, to me.

I might define knowledge as, "A belief that is strongly held to be true by means of testing, challenging, and attempting to falsify it."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 7:47:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?
I was just about to respond on my own ;)

Justified true belief (JTB) is the traditional analysis of knowledge. It originates back to Plato or something. If you came to this analysis on your own, respect.
There are so called Gettier-problems which indicate that JTB is not sufficient for knowledge. So my provisional analysis is JTB + Gettier-clause.

Since Alpha brought up truth:
The perhaps most intuitive theory of truth is the so called correspondence theory. Basically you have truthbearers (statements, propositions, whatever) and truthmakers (in this case states of affairs in the real world). Truth then is the correspondence relation of states of affairs to propositions.

I personally sympathize with the so called deflationary theory of truth. The idea is that there really is nothing to truth.
I think Ramsey's (the guy who came up with it) ladder visualizes this rather well. Imagine we had separate conversations and I would each time say one of these statements to you (from top to bottom):

"It is really a fact that it is true that snow is white."
"It is a fact that it is true that snow is white."
"It is true that snow is white."
"Snow is white."

It is quite obvious that I am not adding anything to the message I'm trying to get across. I personally had a hard time understanding this so here is another example:

"Hey, kasmic, it is true that snow is white."
"Hey, kasmic, snow is white."
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 8:40:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Justified true belief (JTB) is the traditional analysis of knowledge. It originates back to Plato or something. If you came to this analysis on your own, respect.

Did I come up with that definition on my own... apparently not haha.

There are so called Gettier-problems which indicate that JTB is not sufficient for knowledge. So my provisional analysis is JTB + Gettier-clause.

What is an example of a "Gettier-problem?"

I personally sympathize with the so called deflationary theory of truth. The idea is that there really is nothing to truth.
I think Ramsey's (the guy who came up with it) ladder visualizes this rather well. Imagine we had separate conversations and I would each time say one of these statements to you (from top to bottom):

"It is really a fact that it is true that snow is white."
"It is a fact that it is true that snow is white."
"It is true that snow is white."
"Snow is white."

It is quite obvious that I am not adding anything to the message I'm trying to get across. I personally had a hard time understanding this so here is another example:

"Hey, kasmic, it is true that snow is white."
"Hey, kasmic, snow is white."

So in the Above, I guess I dont see the point.

Yes I understand there is nothing added to "Snow is white" and "It is really a fact that it is true that snow is white." However, saying Snow is white as an assertion is imply that it is a fact. Is it not?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 8:47:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What's your idea of "justified" in this case? It is pretty vague as it stands, to me.

I might define knowledge as, "A belief that is strongly held to be true by means of testing, challenging, and attempting to falsify it."

By justify I mean a demonstration of understanding. Much luck your definition "by means of testing, challenging, and attempting to falsify it."
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 9:11:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think it is reasonable to say that one cannot know something if that something is false (so I can't know that Manchester is the capital of England - although I can believe it) and that one cannot know something unless one also believes it (I cannot know London is the capital of England and simultaneously believe Manchester is the capital of England, at least not without risking schizophrenia!).

If truth and belief are necessary (which people seem to agree on) then only problem would appear to be whether to require justification for something to 'count' as knowledge.

But I don't see that as particularly deep - it's purely semantic. If we decide that for purposes of a dictionary definition and precision in philosophical debates the word 'knowledege' requires justification then all we need is a different word for 'unjustified knowledge' and the problem goes away.

Similarly if we decide that justification is not required then we just invent a word for 'knowledge with justification'.

I think a deeper problem arises because we are rarely if ever sure what is true. I am not at all fond of using 'isms' and 'ists' in my posts so I will skirt it by linking to the wiki page on what seems closest to my instincts.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 10:05:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

That definition seems fines. I think the bigger problem is asserting that knowledge, since ultimately any method of justification we could provide wouldn't give us a satisfying answer.

Pretend someone asked you "How do I know that's true?
The Munchhausen Trilemma shows that knowledge can be "justified" in three ways

1. The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)

2. The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)

3. The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)

The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values, they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.

This is just from the wiki page.

Although I don't think of this as an end to all knowledge, it does give us a reason to be eternally skeptical of everything.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 10:36:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
3. The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)


I am satisfied with this.

On a side note, this is the only way debate really works. When both sides start from the same understood resolution and argue for or against it.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 10:42:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 10:36:03 PM, kasmic wrote:
3. The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)


I am satisfied with this.

On a side note, this is the only way debate really works. When both sides start from the same understood resolution and argue for or against it.

Which is why I always add in the "no kritiks" rule.
shortman
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:29:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge? : :
'
Truth, belief and justification are only words that are meaningless to God's people unless they are chosen by God to understand what Truth is. Once you understand the Truth, then you will understand where all knowledge comes from.
CorieMike
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 3:13:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 10:05:21 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

That definition seems fines. I think the bigger problem is asserting that knowledge, since ultimately any method of justification we could provide wouldn't give us a satisfying answer.

I do not like this definition for two main reasons. 1. Justified and True sounds like a tautology. Why not just Justified Belief? 2. Gettier Problems 3. Arbitrary warrant doesn't make things more likely true than not (axiomatic reasoning).

Pretend someone asked you "How do I know that's true?
The Munchhausen Trilemma shows that knowledge can be "justified" in three ways

1. The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)

2. The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)


3. The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)

The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values, they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.


Being problematic doesn't entail something is wrong/impossible. Also, not accepting any of these three options is also an arbitrary choice.

This is just from the wiki page.

Although I don't think of this as an end to all knowledge, it does give us a reason to be eternally skeptical of everything.

I somewhat agree. The trilemma itself argues through Indirect Proof and makes it's own assumptions. Assumptions that are generally taken as truth for people who assert knowledge is possible. These assumptions range as follows:

1. The Principle of Sufficient Reason
2. Logic (LoE & LoNC, etc..)
3. Lack of justifications for why circular reasoning, infinitism and axiomatic reasoning are wrong (since the trilemma itself sets out to prove the impossibility of justification)
4. Why problematic reasoning is wrong?
****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates****
The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 9:40:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I accept knowlege to be 'jusified true belief', but I was wondering if anyone fancies telling us anything they truly know - other than dull tautolgies of course.

Descartes was sure of only one thing : 'I think therefore I am', but he was probably wrong to be sure about even that! Knowledge - strictly defined - is impossible for mere mortals. All we have are beliefs in which we have varying degrees of confidence, and our confidence is often poorly correlated to them being true!

Knowledge is an ideal, Platonic form that we can and should aspire to but it's not achieveable.
DizzyKnight
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 4:26:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is an example of a "Gettier-problem?"

The gettier problem is a philosophical problem that questions whether you can gain knowledge from justified, but invalid reasons.

Say Adam and Ben are applying for a job. At the end of the job, Adam is told by the interviewer, "sorry, we've decided to hire Ben." He has also discovered that Ben has 10 coins in his pocket when Ben was paying for his lunch. So combining these two pieces of information, he concludes, "the man who will be getting the job has 10 coins in his pocket."

To his surprise, Adam was hired instead of Ben in the end, and unknowingly to himself, he also had 10 coins in his pocket. This means that "the man who will be getting the job has 10 coins in his pocket" is indeed true. He is also justified in believing in this statement, since he has strong evidence for both Ben getting the job, and Ben having 10 coins in his pocket.

So according to the JTB criteria, he indeed has knowledge that "the man who will be getting the job has 10 coins in his pocket." But this runs counter to our intuition since he is believing in the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.

People who recognizes the importance of the Gettier problem might instead model knowledge as JTB+G, in which the G stands for "no-gettier-problem". Some might also add the condition that there is a casual link between one's justification and the statement's truth.
missmedic
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 5:07:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

Knowledge is knowledge about reality. Its base is perception, and its method is reason. We gain knowledge through observing reality. We use our minds to identify what we have observed by gathering more perceptual information until we can understand what we see. Reason is the tool that allows us to determine how to gather more information, and what kind of information we need. Reason is then used to compare and combine that new information into the rest of our body of knowledge in order to acquire a more complete understanding.

Knowledge requires clarity and the identification of limits and boundaries. Only reason can collect sensory data into something meaningful, which is clear and definable. To speak of knowledge that we don't understand is a contradiction in terms. Emotions, perceptual memories, or vague notions are not knowledge. Knowledge is lucid and can only be formed by the use of reason. There is no other path. Reason is absolute.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 6:31:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

Well, as others have mentioned, Gettier critiqued this idea in a paper already. I could simply paraphrase what he wrote, but I think I'll just quote him:

"CASE I
Suppose that Smith and Jones have applied for a certain job. And suppose that
Smith has strong evidence for the fol1owing conjunctive proposition:

(d) Jones is the man who will get the job, and Jones has ten coins in his
pocket.

Smith's evidence for (d) might be that the president of the company assured him
that Jones would in the end be selected, and that he, Smith, had counted the
coins in Jones's pocket ten minutes ago. Proposition (d) entails:

(e) The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.

Let us suppose that Smith sees the entailment from (d) to (e), and accepts (e)
on the grounds of (d), for which he has strong evidence. In this case, Smith is
clearly justified in believing that (e) is true.
But imagine, further, that unknown to Smith, he himself, not Jones, will get the
job. And, also, unknown to Smith, he himself has ten coins in his pocket.
Proposition (e) is then true, though proposition (d), from which Smith inferred
(e), is false. In our example, then, all of the following are true: (i) (e) is
true, (ii) Smith believes that (e) is true, and (iii) Smith is justified in
believing that (e) is true. But it is equally clear that Smith does not KNOW
that (e) is true; for (e) is true in virtue of the number of coins in Smith's
pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and
bases his belief in (e) on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he
falsely believes to be the man who will get the job.

CASE II

Let us suppose that Smith has strong evidence for the following proposition:

(f) Jones owns a Ford.

Smith's evidence might be that Jones has at all times in the past within Smith's
memory owned a car, and always a Ford, and that Jones has just offered Smith a
ride while driving a Ford. Let us imagine, now, that Smith has another friend,
Brown, of whose whereabouts he is totally ignorant. Smith selects three place
names quite at random and constructs the following three propositions:

(g) Either Jones owns a Ford, or Brown is in Boston.
(h) Either Jones owns a Ford, or Brown is in Barcelona.
(i) Either Jones owns a Ford, or Brown is in Brest-Litovsk.

Each of these propositions is entailed by (f). Imagine that Smith realizes the
entailment of each of these propositions he has constructed by (0, and proceeds
to accept (g), (h), and (i) on the basis of (f). Smith has correctly inferred
(g), (h), and (i) from a proposition for which he has strong evidence. Smith is
therefore completely justified in believing each of these three propositions.
Smith, of course, has no idea where Brown is.
But imagine now that two further conditions hold. First, Jones does not own a
Ford, but is at present driving a rented car. And secondly, by the sheerest
coincidence, and entirely unknown to Smith, the place mentioned in proposition
(h) happens really to be the place where Brown is. If these two conditions hold,
then Smith does not KNOW that (h) is true, even though (i) (h) is true, (ii)
Smith does believe that (h) is true, and (iii) Smith is justified in believing
that (h) is true.

These two examples show that definition (a) does not state a sufficient
condition for someone's knowing a given proposition. The same cases, with
appropriate changes, will suffice to show that neither definition (b) nor
definition (c) do so either. "


If you want to read the whole paper, here's a link:

http://fitelson.org...

It's fairly short, and the bulk of it is in these two cases tho.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 3:14:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So according to the JTB criteria, he indeed has knowledge that "the man who will be getting the job has 10 coins in his pocket." But this runs counter to our intuition since he is believing in the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.

People who recognizes the importance of the Gettier problem might instead model knowledge as JTB+G, in which the G stands for "no-gettier-problem". Some might also add the condition that there is a casual link between one's justification and the statement's truth.

That makes sense so JTB is susceptible to correlation/causation errors.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 7:53:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It seems to me that we are slowly defining knowledge in such a way that it is impossible, with the possible exception of a few uninteresting tautlogies.
cr_lewis
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 1:31:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 7:53:21 PM, kp98 wrote:
It seems to me that we are slowly defining knowledge in such a way that it is impossible, with the possible exception of a few uninteresting tautlogies. : :

Knowledge is whatever is gained by a man's senses including the thoughts that come into mind.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 2:15:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

Should a reasonable person not demand that philosophy should not be foolishly purveyed before people incompetent to see the point of it, as pearls before swine? For Nietzsche is utterly correct: philosophy is only for the healthy and whole-minded, the sick it has always only made even sicker. By means of philosophy they dig themselves even deeper into their pathetic delusions.
And if knowledge is truth then.....
Hegel understood the Heisenbergian reality of knowing: yes, it would be nice if we could somehow delicately capture the truth and bring it closer to ourselves without altering it, "like a bird caught with a limestick." But the reality is, every truth we manage to know is altered, deformed by our very "encheiresis naturae," by the act of our taking-in-hand of nature (to borrow the alchemists' phrase from Goethe's Faust). K.Smith
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 3:40:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

My own definition of personal knowledge goes back to personal experience.

That which I have seen, that which I have heard first hand, that which I have felt with my hands, that which I have determined with my own analytical mental processes, that which I have experienced first hand -- is that which is knowledge for me.

This has nothing to do with belief. Belief is a credibility factor based on something that I do NOT have knowledge of.

Knowledge is a subset of truth. What I have knowledge of is a subset of all true things. But there can be many more things which are true which I am unaware of.

So you cannot mix and match knowledge, belief and truth. They are independent of each other. They are completely different things.
CorieMike
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 5:21:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 3:40:31 AM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

My own definition of personal knowledge goes back to personal experience.

That which I have seen, that which I have heard first hand, that which I have felt with my hands, that which I have determined with my own analytical mental processes, that which I have experienced first hand -- is that which is knowledge for me.

This has nothing to do with belief. Belief is a credibility factor based on something that I do NOT have knowledge of.

Knowledge is a subset of truth. What I have knowledge of is a subset of all true things. But there can be many more things which are true which I am unaware of.

So you cannot mix and match knowledge, belief and truth. They are independent of each other. They are completely different things.

They are not necessarily independent, it depends on one's definition of knowledge.. you seem to be alluding to knowledge by acquaintance (i.e. sense of data and sense of self aka cogito ergo sum) but I'm not sure.

Are you basing knowledge (i.e. your experiences and rationale) on reliabilism or a priori and a posteriori synthetic and analytic propositions? I think it is quite obvious that, that criteria isn't always reliable. Take the Henry and the barn fa"ades thought experiment for example.

I'm still on the fence, whether belief is a proper truth bearer, candidates typically include beliefs, propositions, sentences, and utterances. Truth bearer theories all seem to have fair criticisms. For eg. All and only meaningful-declarative-sentence/proposition-type theories such as which make use of the type"token distinctions still run into Liar & Lair's Revenge pardoxes (if one cannot simply solve this by saying it is semantically defective, because another can ascribe truth and falsity to the deterministic propositional sign/utterances. Therefore one must recognise that truth cannot be an affair solely of actual utterances, since it makes sense to talk of the discovery of previously un-formulated truths. (Kneale, W&M (1962). https://en.wikipedia.org...

Beliefs seems to be an essential condition for knowledge. One must first have a belief that their justification for what they are experiencing or have experienced is something which has truth value. Knowledge itself only exists with the knower and I haven't seen a condition for knowledge which is indubitable.
****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates****
The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 5:35:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 5:21:58 PM, CorieMike wrote:
At 8/17/2015 3:40:31 AM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

My own definition of personal knowledge goes back to personal experience.

That which I have seen, that which I have heard first hand, that which I have felt with my hands, that which I have determined with my own analytical mental processes, that which I have experienced first hand -- is that which is knowledge for me.

This has nothing to do with belief. Belief is a credibility factor based on something that I do NOT have knowledge of.

Knowledge is a subset of truth. What I have knowledge of is a subset of all true things. But there can be many more things which are true which I am unaware of.

So you cannot mix and match knowledge, belief and truth. They are independent of each other. They are completely different things.

They are not necessarily independent, it depends on one's definition of knowledge.. you seem to be alluding to knowledge by acquaintance (i.e. sense of data and sense of self aka cogito ergo sum) but I'm not sure.

Are you basing knowledge (i.e. your experiences and rationale) on reliabilism or a priori and a posteriori synthetic and analytic propositions? I think it is quite obvious that, that criteria isn't always reliable. Take the Henry and the barn fa"ades thought experiment for example.

I'm still on the fence, whether belief is a proper truth bearer, candidates typically include beliefs, propositions, sentences, and utterances. Truth bearer theories all seem to have fair criticisms. For eg. All and only meaningful-declarative-sentence/proposition-type theories such as which make use of the type"token distinctions still run into Liar & Lair's Revenge pardoxes (if one cannot simply solve this by saying it is semantically defective, because another can ascribe truth and falsity to the deterministic propositional sign/utterances. Therefore one must recognise that truth cannot be an affair solely of actual utterances, since it makes sense to talk of the discovery of previously un-formulated truths. (Kneale, W&M (1962). https://en.wikipedia.org...

Beliefs seems to be an essential condition for knowledge. One must first have a belief that their justification for what they are experiencing or have experienced is something which has truth value. Knowledge itself only exists with the knower and I haven't seen a condition for knowledge which is indubitable.

A healthy dose of skepticism is useful to ensure you or I have taken every necessary measure to ensure what we have learned is correct.

However an overdose of skepticism is what leads to confusion and self doubt.

I define knowledge as anything that I truly know and have discovered on my own, whether by visual observation, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling or by analytical means of calculating or otherwise deducing.

I define belief as anything I choose to agree with although I have no proof of it one way or the other.

In the hierarchy of epistemology, I choose to believe my senses and my mental capacity for reasoning.

As a result I know that I am alive and to keep myself alive there are certain things that I must do, such as stay warm and dry, drink liquids, feed myself, stay safe and away from harm, protect myself against assault and/or robbery, shelter myself from the heat of the sun and the inclemency of the weather and seasons.

To these purposes and to provide for others as well as for the future, I have learned to make and use physical and analytical tools, obtain machines to assist me, and socialize with others to gain from the benefit of their company and mutual endeavors.

These are things that I know.

Anything that I do not know I can surmise their likelihood and decide to believe them or not. That is what belief is. Belief is not a degree of skepticism. Belief is a choice made in the absence of knowledge.

Anyone who does not believe something that should easily be known is a fool.

Anyone who thinks belief is equal to knowledge is also a fool.
CorieMike
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 7:36:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 5:35:42 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 5:21:58 PM, CorieMike wrote:
At 8/17/2015 3:40:31 AM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

My own definition of personal knowledge goes back to personal experience.

That which I have seen, that which I have heard first hand, that which I have felt with my hands, that which I have determined with my own analytical mental processes, that which I have experienced first hand -- is that which is knowledge for me.

This has nothing to do with belief. Belief is a credibility factor based on something that I do NOT have knowledge of.

Knowledge is a subset of truth. What I have knowledge of is a subset of all true things. But there can be many more things which are true which I am unaware of.

So you cannot mix and match knowledge, belief and truth. They are independent of each other. They are completely different things.

They are not necessarily independent, it depends on one's definition of knowledge.. you seem to be alluding to knowledge by acquaintance (i.e. sense of data and sense of self aka cogito ergo sum) but I'm not sure.

Are you basing knowledge (i.e. your experiences and rationale) on reliabilism or a priori and a posteriori synthetic and analytic propositions? I think it is quite obvious that, that criteria isn't always reliable. Take the Henry and the barn fa"ades thought experiment for example.

I'm still on the fence, whether belief is a proper truth bearer, candidates typically include beliefs, propositions, sentences, and utterances. Truth bearer theories all seem to have fair criticisms. For eg. All and only meaningful-declarative-sentence/proposition-type theories such as which make use of the type"token distinctions still run into Liar & Lair's Revenge paradoxes (one cannot simply solve this by saying it is semantically defective, because another can ascribe truth and falsity to the deterministic propositional sign/utterances. Therefore one must recognise that truth cannot be an affair solely of actual utterances, since it makes NO sense to talk of the discovery of previously un-formulated truths. (Kneale, W&M (1962). https://en.wikipedia.org...

Beliefs seems to be an essential condition for knowledge. One must first have a belief that their justification for what they are experiencing or have experienced is something which has truth value. Knowledge itself only exists with the knower and I haven't seen a condition for knowledge which is indubitable.

A healthy dose of skepticism is useful to ensure you or I have taken every necessary measure to ensure what we have learned is correct.

However an overdose of skepticism is what leads to confusion and self doubt.


Really lol Sounds like an appeal to consequences, plus beliefs are not necessary to have knowledge as you claim. So extreme skeptics can lack beliefs/be confused and self doubt and still have knowledge. Scepticism is a consistent and honest approach to discovering objective truth rather than settling for the pragmatic theory of truth including pragmatic encroachment and epistemic luck.

I define knowledge as anything that I truly know and have discovered on my own, whether by visual observation, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling or by analytical means of calculating or otherwise deducing.

How do you know if you truly know something? Intuition? Foundationalism/Foundherentism has it's own problems. How do you know your sense data and cognitive faculties are reliable, even now? If we accept any of the three horns of the dilemma then anything goes, so to say.

I define belief as anything I choose to agree with although I have no proof of it one way or the other.

Proof would be your justification. There is such a thing as justified belief. You can have all the justification in the world and still be wrong.

In the hierarchy of epistemology, I choose to believe my senses and my mental capacity for reasoning.

Then you are saying that you "believe" that these tools allow you to acquire knowledge entailing belief as a prerequisite.

As a result I know that I am alive and to keep myself alive there are certain things that I must do, such as stay warm and dry, drink liquids, feed myself, stay safe and away from harm, protect myself against assault and/or robbery, shelter myself from the heat of the sun and the inclemency of the weather and seasons.

You believe you exist but if you trust reasoning and watch this video series, you can reasonably conclude that you might not. https://www.youtube.com...

To these purposes and to provide for others as well as for the future, I have learned to make and use physical and analytical tools, obtain machines to assist me, and socialize with others to gain from the benefit of their company and mutual endeavors.

These are things that I know.

Anything that I do not know I can surmise their likelihood and decide to believe them or not. That is what belief is. Belief is not a degree of skepticism. Belief is a choice made in the absence of knowledge.

Some academic skeptics have dogmatic beliefs as well. For eg. the belief that knowledge is unattainable/ it doesn't exist or is meaningless. Also, belief is not always a choice for eg. indirect atheism.

One can even challenge your views on whether choice exists at all.
1) Some experiments demonstrate that decisions are almost always determined before the consciousness has caught up to it
(2) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (applied to personal volition)
(3) Possibility of Hard determinism (likelihood does not necessitate truth)

One can also have different propositional attitudes in the absence of knowledge. One being a proclivity, something you seem to indirectly favour.

Anyone who does not believe something that should easily be known is a fool.

Anyone who thinks belief is equal to knowledge is also a fool.

Better to be a witty fool than a foolish wit!
****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates****
The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 7:41:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 7:36:29 PM, CorieMike wrote:
At 8/17/2015 5:35:42 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 5:21:58 PM, CorieMike wrote:
At 8/17/2015 3:40:31 AM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

My own definition of personal knowledge goes back to personal experience.

That which I have seen, that which I have heard first hand, that which I have felt with my hands, that which I have determined with my own analytical mental processes, that which I have experienced first hand -- is that which is knowledge for me.

This has nothing to do with belief. Belief is a credibility factor based on something that I do NOT have knowledge of.

Knowledge is a subset of truth. What I have knowledge of is a subset of all true things. But there can be many more things which are true which I am unaware of.

So you cannot mix and match knowledge, belief and truth. They are independent of each other. They are completely different things.

They are not necessarily independent, it depends on one's definition of knowledge.. you seem to be alluding to knowledge by acquaintance (i.e. sense of data and sense of self aka cogito ergo sum) but I'm not sure.

Are you basing knowledge (i.e. your experiences and rationale) on reliabilism or a priori and a posteriori synthetic and analytic propositions? I think it is quite obvious that, that criteria isn't always reliable. Take the Henry and the barn fa"ades thought experiment for example.

I'm still on the fence, whether belief is a proper truth bearer, candidates typically include beliefs, propositions, sentences, and utterances. Truth bearer theories all seem to have fair criticisms. For eg. All and only meaningful-declarative-sentence/proposition-type theories such as which make use of the type"token distinctions still run into Liar & Lair's Revenge paradoxes (one cannot simply solve this by saying it is semantically defective, because another can ascribe truth and falsity to the deterministic propositional sign/utterances. Therefore one must recognise that truth cannot be an affair solely of actual utterances, since it makes NO sense to talk of the discovery of previously un-formulated truths. (Kneale, W&M (1962). https://en.wikipedia.org...

Beliefs seems to be an essential condition for knowledge. One must first have a belief that their justification for what they are experiencing or have experienced is something which has truth value. Knowledge itself only exists with the knower and I haven't seen a condition for knowledge which is indubitable.

A healthy dose of skepticism is useful to ensure you or I have taken every necessary measure to ensure what we have learned is correct.

However an overdose of skepticism is what leads to confusion and self doubt.


Really lol Sounds like an appeal to consequences, plus beliefs are not necessary to have knowledge as you claim. So extreme skeptics can lack beliefs/be confused and self doubt and still have knowledge. Scepticism is a consistent and honest approach to discovering objective truth rather than settling for the pragmatic theory of truth including pragmatic encroachment and epistemic luck.

I define knowledge as anything that I truly know and have discovered on my own, whether by visual observation, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling or by analytical means of calculating or otherwise deducing.

How do you know if you truly know something? Intuition? Foundationalism/Foundherentism has it's own problems. How do you know your sense data and cognitive faculties are reliable, even now? If we accept any of the three horns of the dilemma then anything goes, so to say.

I define belief as anything I choose to agree with although I have no proof of it one way or the other.

Proof would be your justification. There is such a thing as justified belief. You can have all the justification in the world and still be wrong.

In the hierarchy of epistemology, I choose to believe my senses and my mental capacity for reasoning.

Then you are saying that you "believe" that these tools allow you to acquire knowledge entailing belief as a prerequisite.

As a result I know that I am alive and to keep myself alive there are certain things that I must do, such as stay warm and dry, drink liquids, feed myself, stay safe and away from harm, protect myself against assault and/or robbery, shelter myself from the heat of the sun and the inclemency of the weather and seasons.

You believe you exist but if you trust reasoning and watch this video series, you can reasonably conclude that you might not. https://www.youtube.com...

To these purposes and to provide for others as well as for the future, I have learned to make and use physical and analytical tools, obtain machines to assist me, and socialize with others to gain from the benefit of their company and mutual endeavors.

These are things that I know.

Anything that I do not know I can surmise their likelihood and decide to believe them or not. That is what belief is. Belief is not a degree of skepticism. Belief is a choice made in the absence of knowledge.

Some academic skeptics have dogmatic beliefs as well. For eg. the belief that knowledge is unattainable/ it doesn't exist or is meaningless. Also, belief is not always a choice for eg. indirect atheism.

One can even challenge your views on whether choice exists at all.
1) Some experiments demonstrate that decisions are almost always determined before the consciousness has caught up to it
(2) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (applied to personal volition)
(3) Possibility of Hard determinism (likelihood does not necessitate truth)

One can also have different propositional attitudes in the absence of knowledge. One being a proclivity, something you seem to indirectly favour.

Anyone who does not believe something that should easily be known is a fool.

Anyone who thinks belief is equal to knowledge is also a fool.

Better to be a witty fool than a foolish wit!

As I said, an overdose of skepticism leads only to confusion and self doubt.
CorieMike
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 7:50:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 7:41:58 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 7:36:29 PM, CorieMike wrote:
At 8/17/2015 5:35:42 PM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/17/2015 5:21:58 PM, CorieMike wrote:
At 8/17/2015 3:40:31 AM, riveroaks wrote:
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

My own definition of personal knowledge goes back to personal experience.

That which I have seen, that which I have heard first hand, that which I have felt with my hands, that which I have determined with my own analytical mental processes, that which I have experienced first hand -- is that which is knowledge for me.

This has nothing to do with belief. Belief is a credibility factor based on something that I do NOT have knowledge of.

Knowledge is a subset of truth. What I have knowledge of is a subset of all true things. But there can be many more things which are true which I am unaware of.

So you cannot mix and match knowledge, belief and truth. They are independent of each other. They are completely different things.

They are not necessarily independent, it depends on one's definition of knowledge.. you seem to be alluding to knowledge by acquaintance (i.e. sense of data and sense of self aka cogito ergo sum) but I'm not sure.

Are you basing knowledge (i.e. your experiences and rationale) on reliabilism or a priori and a posteriori synthetic and analytic propositions? I think it is quite obvious that, that criteria isn't always reliable. Take the Henry and the barn fa"ades thought experiment for example.

I'm still on the fence, whether belief is a proper truth bearer, candidates typically include beliefs, propositions, sentences, and utterances. Truth bearer theories all seem to have fair criticisms. For eg. All and only meaningful-declarative-sentence/proposition-type theories such as which make use of the type"token distinctions still run into Liar & Lair's Revenge paradoxes (one cannot simply solve this by saying it is semantically defective, because another can ascribe truth and falsity to the deterministic propositional sign/utterances. Therefore one must recognise that truth cannot be an affair solely of actual utterances, since it makes NO sense to talk of the discovery of previously un-formulated truths. (Kneale, W&M (1962). https://en.wikipedia.org...

Beliefs seems to be an essential condition for knowledge. One must first have a belief that their justification for what they are experiencing or have experienced is something which has truth value. Knowledge itself only exists with the knower and I haven't seen a condition for knowledge which is indubitable.

A healthy dose of skepticism is useful to ensure you or I have taken every necessary measure to ensure what we have learned is correct.

However an overdose of skepticism is what leads to confusion and self doubt.


Really lol Sounds like an appeal to consequences, plus beliefs are not necessary to have knowledge as you claim. So extreme skeptics can lack beliefs/be confused and self doubt and still have knowledge. Scepticism is a consistent and honest approach to discovering objective truth rather than settling for the pragmatic theory of truth including pragmatic encroachment and epistemic luck.

I define knowledge as anything that I truly know and have discovered on my own, whether by visual observation, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling or by analytical means of calculating or otherwise deducing.

How do you know if you truly know something? Intuition? Foundationalism/Foundherentism has it's own problems. How do you know your sense data and cognitive faculties are reliable, even now? If we accept any of the three horns of the dilemma then anything goes, so to say.

I define belief as anything I choose to agree with although I have no proof of it one way or the other.

Proof would be your justification. There is such a thing as justified belief. You can have all the justification in the world and still be wrong.

In the hierarchy of epistemology, I choose to believe my senses and my mental capacity for reasoning.

Then you are saying that you "believe" that these tools allow you to acquire knowledge entailing belief as a prerequisite.

As a result I know that I am alive and to keep myself alive there are certain things that I must do, such as stay warm and dry, drink liquids, feed myself, stay safe and away from harm, protect myself against assault and/or robbery, shelter myself from the heat of the sun and the inclemency of the weather and seasons.

You believe you exist but if you trust reasoning and watch this video series, you can reasonably conclude that you might not. https://www.youtube.com...

To these purposes and to provide for others as well as for the future, I have learned to make and use physical and analytical tools, obtain machines to assist me, and socialize with others to gain from the benefit of their company and mutual endeavors.

These are things that I know.

Anything that I do not know I can surmise their likelihood and decide to believe them or not. That is what belief is. Belief is not a degree of skepticism. Belief is a choice made in the absence of knowledge.

Some academic skeptics have dogmatic beliefs as well. For eg. the belief that knowledge is unattainable/ it doesn't exist or is meaningless. Also, belief is not always a choice for eg. indirect atheism.

One can even challenge your views on whether choice exists at all.
1) Some experiments demonstrate that decisions are almost always determined before the consciousness has caught up to it
(2) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (applied to personal volition)
(3) Possibility of Hard determinism (likelihood does not necessitate truth)

One can also have different propositional attitudes in the absence of knowledge. One being a proclivity, something you seem to indirectly favour.

Anyone who does not believe something that should easily be known is a fool.

Anyone who thinks belief is equal to knowledge is also a fool.

Better to be a witty fool than a foolish wit!

As I said, an overdose of skepticism leads only to confusion and self doubt.

And because you said so, it must be true. Didn't realize you were the authority on what an overdose of skepticism "will" lead to (whatever that means). Ever heard of the slippery slope fallacy? https://en.wikipedia.org...

Then again, from your dismissive and redundant reply, I sense that you are too comfortable in your own bubble to be concerned with the possibility of being mistaken.
****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates****
The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 8:58:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 6:41:46 PM, kasmic wrote:
This is my sad attempt to define knowledge.

I am not referring to knowledge in the sense of knowing how to, knowing someone, knowing a place etc. Knowledge to which I am referring seems to require three things; truth, belief, and justification. When a person observes a principle that is true, believes it, and has sufficient justification for that belief, then that person has knowledge.

I would thus define knowledge as "a justified belief in truth."

Is this a reasonable definition or is it lacking? How do you define knowledge?

Yes its a reasonable def I think. and a pretty good one. the only questionable word in your def is "justified." that word as well would need further explaining. like, "justified by who." but that aside I would gladly go with your def. its pretty close to this one from the Dictionary..........

knowl"edge

noun

1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms:understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery; More
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
"the program had been developed without his knowledge"
synonyms:awareness, consciousness, realization, cognition, apprehension, perception, appreciation; formalcognizance
"he slipped away without my knowledge"
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 9:15:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 7:53:21 PM, kp98 wrote:
It seems to me that we are slowly defining knowledge in such a way that it is impossible, with the possible exception of a few uninteresting tautlogies.

Is this not what a skeptic does conclude. That you cant have sufficient justification to really "know" something, and no way to be sure what is true.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...