Right, and to restate my point, J's objection holds against any theory of knowledge which takes truth to be a necessary condition of knowledge, and this is not just JTB, it is pretty much every theory of knowledge. — Leontiskos
I am not sure about that implication of what J has been arguing, but I think truth is a necessary condition of knowledge, — Janus
and I also think knowing the truth and knowing how you know it is also a necessary condition of knowledge. That said, I am not claiming that we cannot think we have knowledge and yet be wrong. — Janus
The problem, as I pointed out earlier, is that if we don't know whether the justifications for our beliefs are themselves [sound] then [...] How do we know they are adequate as justifications? — Janus
Thermometers never commit epistemic errors; they can only mislead those who uncritically rely upon them. Likewise, the same can be said of a 'believer's' utterances.
The dilemma is either
A. a belief merely refers to the coexistence of a believer's mental state and an external truth-maker, where the external truth-maker is decided by the linguistic community rather than the believer. In which case the intentionality associated with the believer's mental state is irrelevant with respect to the belief that the community ascribes to the believer as a matter of linguistic convention rather than of neurological fact.
or
B. Beliefs refer to the actual physical causes of the believer's mental-state - in which case the believer's intentionality is relevant - so much so, that it is epistemically impossible for the believer to have false beliefs. (Trivialism). — sime
The situation isn't different with humans as measuring devices. And hence as with the example of a thermometer, either humans have intentional belief states, in which case their beliefs cannot be false due to the object of their beliefs being whatever caused their beliefs, else their beliefs are permitted to be false, in which case the truthmaker of their belief is decided externally by their community. — sime
So we have two distinct notions of truth in play: Intersubjective mathematical truth... versus what we might call "John's subjective truth"... — sime
I was thinking rather the opposite. The reason people fiddle with T is to make it so that we can possess "knowledge" and access "truth" while still maintaining a view of J (and B) that makes it impossible to possess knowledge and have access to truth in their traditional sense. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The problem I see is that this just seems like equivocation. The problems of global fallibilism appear to go away because "knowledge" and "truth" have been redefined, but they aren't actually being dealt with. — Count Timothy von Icarus
That's why I say the J, T, and B are more loaded than they might first appear.
...
A "justification," of claims to be in contact with reality (in possession of knowledge) on the basis of appearances needs some metaphysics of how appearances relate to reality. If this linkage doesn't exist, I am not sure how J ever falls into place or how T would ever show up in our experience. But if J is about the private and communal imputation of status in the first place, and not about a relationship between the knower and known, how could it ever bridge the gap? — Count Timothy von Icarus
JTB declares that we possess knowledge when our justified beliefs are true. The problem, as I pointed out earlier, is that if we don't know whether the justifications for our beliefs are themselves true then where does that leave us? How do we know they are adequate as justifications? — Janus
Right, and to restate my point, J's objection holds against any theory of knowledge which takes truth to be a necessary condition of knowledge, and this is not just JTB, it is pretty much every theory of knowledge. "Truth can't be a necessary condition of knowledge," is not merely an objection against JTB; it is an objection against the traditional understanding of knowledge in toto. — Leontiskos
JTB declares that we possess knowledge when our justified beliefs are true. — Janus
JTB declares that we possess knowledge when our justified beliefs are true. The problem, as I pointed out earlier, is that if we don't know whether the justifications for our beliefs are themselves true then where does that leave us? How do we know they are adequate as justifications?
Or looking ta it the other way around, take the Theory of Evolution, for example. It seems we are amply justified in thinking it is true, but we don't really know whether it is true. Can the justifications for thinking it true be themselves true even if the theory is false? — Janus
Hume was skeptical of what cannot be observed as "matter of fact". If I know you well, and I see you fall off your bicycle, there can be no doubt in that moment that I see you fall off your bicycle, so I can say that I know you fell off your bicycle because I saw it happen. How long does the "no doubt" situation last, though? — Janus
That would be down to the accuracy of my memory. I might say my memory is very good and has been well-tested over the years and hardly ever fails me, and even when it does only in small matters, not significant ones like you falling off your bike, but that doesn't logically entail that my memory remains reliable, or even that my memory of the results of my memory being tested is accurate. — Janus
No, you are quite right. Justification and investigation are how we determine the truth. — Ludwig V
The issue here turns on justifications that provide evidence, but not conclusive evidence. In the context of JTB, such justifications can work, because the T clause denies claims to knowledge based on partial justification when their conclusions are false. — Ludwig V
Well, I was going to respond to you before about "infallibalists," but I figured it might be beside the point of the thread. — Count Timothy von Icarus
What then in infallible? — Count Timothy von Icarus
I think the difficulties for truth and knowledge crop up when the metaphysics of reality versus appearances is ignored, and so we default into this thin idea of "p is true if p." There is no explanation of how the being of p relates intrinsically to the thought of p. Appeals to cognitive science or the physics of perception don't end up being able to bridge this gap if they themselves are viewed as largely a matter of pattern recognition within appearances. Fallibalism will be unavoidable, except perhaps within the realm of our own experiences (a sort of solipsistic tendency). — Count Timothy von Icarus
Although I will add that the fact that people are incapable of living like they believe nihilism is true is precisely what you would expect if their intellects were being informed by the world around them; they would be unable to shake off their understanding. No matter how hard they reasoned about the groundlessness of their own knowledge, they would still run from rabid dogs like Pyrrho or climb a tree to get away from raging bull elephants like Sanjaya. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I see. I think JTB is flawed but figuring out just how is tricky. JTB seems very thin and portable, but I think an investigation of the metaphysical context in which it was developed is helpful for diagnosing it. — Count Timothy von Icarus
My concerns with JTB are all about how the truth of P is supposed to be established. — J
I think JTB is flawed but figuring out just how is tricky. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Regarding "probablistic" - do not mistake this with orthodox Bayesian epistemology, which depends on the absurd assumption that we can attach a consistent set of epistemic probabilities to every statement we claim to believe. Rather, I embrace Mark Kaplan's* "modest Bayesianism", which makes the modest claim that we can attach a relative confidence level to SOME pairs (or small sets) of statements of belief. If there's a reasonable basis for the ranking. — Relativist
If there is no pole of knowledge then I don't see how one IBE can be better than another (because no IBE can better approach that pole).
Similarly, if we know what ice is then we have a pole and a limit for the coldness of water. If we don't know what ice is, then the coldness of water is purely relative, and there is nothing to measure against. I would argue that knowledge is prior to IBE, and that IBE is parasitic upon knowledge. Thus if you make IBEs the only option, then there is nothing on which an IBE can be parasitic upon or subordinate to, and this undermines IBEs themselves. — Leontiskos
Does your "tentpole" comment refer to the mere fact that knowledge exists, are you suggesting IBEs that aren't based on knowledge are all equivalent, or something else entirely? — Relativist
Here is a different approach to the same conclusion:
Can it be in any way validly justified that no ontologically occurring truths occur? If one believes that this is the case, what does one intend to express by the proposition of “no ontically occurring truths occur” if this proposition is not meant to conform/correspond to the actual states of affairs of the world and, thereby, of itself be an ontic truth? Thereby contradicting the very proposition made. Therefore, there is no justifiable alternative to the proposition that ontic truths occur. — javra
As to providing knowledge of some "ontological truths", this, again, is what our ability to honestly and cogently justify offers us the possibility of. It just that our JTB knowledge will not, by a fallibilist account, be infallible. (Fallibiilty does not equate to being wrong.) — javra
Remember that the JTB model of knowledge was presented by an Ancient Skeptic. If one presumes knowledge to be infallible, then this quote holds. If one presumes knowledge to be fallible, then it does not. — javra
By everything I've so far stated, there then can occur ontically true beliefs which we can justify at will. These then will be instances of ontic knowledge, which is certain. Because we can only hold epistemic appraisals of what is ontically true, though, everything we uphold as knowledge will be epistemic knowledge, rather than ontic knowledge - which, as with epistemic truth, is less than "completely assured, fixed, and invariable." — javra
I'll be back tomorrow. — javra
The truth of the proposition here quoted would of course of itself be an epistemic truth. One which I so far find thoroughly justifiable: To keep things short, I so far find that there can be no epistemic truth in the absence of an ontically occuring truth it aspires to express. Can you, or anyone else, cogently justify the occurence of an epistemic truth that does not claim to be or else intend to conform to an ontic truth?
If not, then it remains cogently justifiable that ontically occuring truths do occur. Conversely, it then becomes unjustifiable that ontically occurring truths do not occur. — javra
If there is no pole of knowledge then I don't see how one [inference to the best explanation] can be better than another (because no [inference to the best explanation] can better approach that pole). — Leontiskos
So, if we know p could be false, then we don't know that it's true, but we may well believe that it's true. — Janus
The phrase itself betrays its own bad faith intentions. A technical term that means something quite different from what it says. — Roke
In short, when a truth occurs, it occurs ontically—and that which ontically is is not subject to the possibility of being wrong, i.e. fallibility. But we can only appraise what ontically is epistemologically, which will always be to some extent fallible. — javra
When differentiating the ontological from the epistemological, ontically occurring truths (which are absolutely certain and not possible to be wrong) do occur all the time. But our epistemic appraisals of what are and are not ontic truths (the latter, again, do occur) will be fallible to some measure. — javra
If—as any fallibilist will maintain—all possible epistemological appraisals can only be fallible, then our appraisal of a belief being either true or not will always be liable to some possibility of being wrong (with the likelihood of this possibility varying by degrees). — javra
The counterargument could be phrased this way:
1. Truth is always known via justification, and ensured by justification
2. Justification can never overcome the possibility of the one-in-a-million anomaly
3. Therefore, truth is never certain
This form of skepticism is a bit like the claim that epistemology is like a game of pool and no matter how good you are, there is always a chance that your shot will not pocket the 9-ball. Accidental contingencies are always involved, and therefore the best one can hope for is a good probability (or an ↪inference to the best explanation). Such a skeptic would say, "The only way to guarantee that the 9-ball is pocketed would be to pick it up with your own hand and place it into the pocket directly, but that would be cheating." — Leontiskos
That's true (sorry!) — J
I don't follow this at all. Smith is not considering two propositions, but only one, and that proposition is false and so does not entail that the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket,... — Ludwig V
Regarding the "false grounds," the key to the Gettier case is the difference between a material conclusion and a formal conclusion...
...Taken further we might say that a valid conclusion is different from a sound conclusion, and therefore John and Ben have reached different conclusions. — Leontiskos
Yes, perhaps I was a bit hasty there. Though if someone tells me that the earth goes round the sun, I can demand their proof and they can, no doubt, provide it - the data exist and the interpretation can be explained to me. But I would have to trust the data, or, perhaps collect a fresh set of data. — Ludwig V
A. ((¬3 → ¬2) ^ 2) → 3
B. ((¬3 → ¬2) ^ 2)
C. ∴ 3
Premise B and conclusion C complete the modus tollens. — NotAristotle
A. ((¬3 → ¬2) ^ 2) → 3
B. ((¬3 → ¬2) ^ 2)
C. ∴ 3 — NotAristotle
A. ((¬[MP is not false] → ¬[RAA is not false]) ^ [RAA is not false]) → [MP is not false]
B. ((¬[MP is not false] → ¬[RAA is not false]) ^ [RAA is not false])
C. ∴ [MP is not false]
(1 ^ 2) → 3
(1 ^ 2)
∴ 3 — Leontiskos
([If MP could be false, then RAA could be false] ^ [RAA is not false]) → [MP is not false]
[If MP could be false, then RAA could be false] ^ [RAA is not false]
∴ [MP is not false]
Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about. It is stated on paper: you are free from everything, just do not violate the rights of others. Freedom lies in the fact that no one is responsible for you. In essence, at all times in liberal regimes there have always been other institutions of unfreedom: the church, morality, institutions of civil society. I wrote about this above: try to declare in a liberal society that you love Putin or Kim - you will immediately be attacked, but not by the state, but by civil society. Much has been said here about the prohibition of dissent in authoritarian regimes. And yes, the consequences of dissent in such regimes will be harsher. However, I see how many forum participants seem to have the firmware "Liberalism is good" pre-installed, and even if they themselves doubt it, they are not very willing to speak out about it. Isn't this another form of prohibition of dissent? More sophisticated? — Astorre
the content of hidden pillars was revealed to me — Astorre
My goal is to find “something else” that would be capable of self-organizing structures, and which previous ideologies do not allow to appear, constantly putting spokes in the wheels with their interventions. — Astorre
I would not say I misrepresented my own argument, I would say I miswrote your representation of my argument. — NotAristotle
1. If MP could be false, then RAA could be false.
2. But RAA is not false.
3. Therefore neither is MP. — NotAristotle
(1 ^ 2) → 3
(1 ^ 2)
∴ 3 — Leontiskos
[If] 1 and 2 then not 1.
1 and 2.
Therefore not 1. — NotAristotle
Would you agree that your representation of my argument:
...
could also be written as follows...
A. not-3 then not-2. And 2. Then 3.
B. not-3 then not-2. And 2.
C. Therefore 3. — NotAristotle
So maybe you are right that any argument can be written metalogically as a modus ponens, but I think it cannot be so written without the logical inferences that the argument require, in this case a modus tollens is necessary to the argument and cannot be written off as being a hidden modus ponens. — NotAristotle
Smith wrongly, but not without justification, believes that Jones is the man who will get the job, but the truth is that Smith will get the job. So Smith is using "the man who will get the job" to refer to Jones, but we (and Gettier) are using it to refer to Smith. — Ludwig V
JTB requires me to accept a claim to knowledge only if I know it is justified and true (and believed). But that means that I have to know p as well as the person claiming knowledge. — Ludwig V
"Optimize" how? This is a value-laden term, just like your earlier invocation of "Darwinian success." Now if there is no end being sought, and whatever is "adaptive" is just whatever just so happens to end up happening, all these value terms are simply equivocations. Indeed, "pragmatism" is itself an equivocation if there is no real end involved. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Or as the Catholic Encyclopedia of Social Theory puts it surprisingly polemically: — Count Timothy von Icarus
Perhaps herein lies the main metaphysical kernel of liberalism:
it is power without the master.
Not because the master no longer exists, but because he has become invisible, elusive, inaccessible to reproach.
He no longer commands — he regulates. He does not care — he provides platforms. He does not answer — he disconnects.
Are you free?
Then be responsible for everything.
But freedom that does not include structures of responsibility — this is not emancipation, but a form of finely crafted abandonment.
And if the slave, despite all his unfreedom, was once held by the master’s sleeve, today the free person — falls alone.
...
What is more important: to be free and nobody's, or unfree, but in a system where someone needs you? — Astorre
This discussion can go nowhere I believe because of a basic difference in our metaphysical logic. — apokrisis
Throughout there seems to be a kind of equivocation, where you eschew the terms "good" and "bad" by claiming that an optimal mixture of both is what is needed, but then you don't seem to notice that what is actually good on that account is the optimal mixture. Don't you agree that the optimal mixture or balance is good, and that the ordering is bad to the extent that it deviates from this optimal balance? This is why I think Count Timothy von Icarus' objection cuts deeper than you realize, for it applies also at this new level of good-as-balance. If I am right and you have your own conception of what is good and what is bad, then acknowledging this would help put us on the same page and would help us appreciate a common criterion. — Leontiskos
I also find that "balance" approaches tend to be almost indistinguishable from other robust approaches in practice. For example, I think you will end up appealing to the cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude, just in a roundabout way. The question is then whether the simplification is helpful: whether pragmatism prefers that humans conceive of an ur-cause or not. — Leontiskos
You are right that there is at least one sense in which justification and truth rise or fall together. But Gettier's argument assumes that they do not, that is, that it is possible to be justified in believing that p and for p to be false. — Ludwig V
But if I'm evaluating whether someone knows that p, I must make my own evaluation of the truth or falsity of p, — Ludwig V
This has the awkward consequence that I can never learn anything from anyone else. — Ludwig V
Q1. Do I have knowledge of X (a proposition)? — J
what use is JTB if it can't show us how to tell whether we know something or not? — J
I agree with Leon, but then, because of the possibility of error, what is happening when we think we know something but we do not? Wouldn’t we have to be able to separate J, T or B from the others to think we know something when in fact what we know is missing J, T or B? Or are all three destroyed, along with K, when we are in error? — Fire Ologist
JFB fails the test for knowledge, and we know P is F rather than T due to a "justification," namely a justification separate from the particular J in JFB. If someone offers a claim and we have no reason to believe it is false, then we cannot claim that it is false (i.e. not true). — Leontiskos
Or are all three destroyed, along with K, when we are in error? — Fire Ologist
how are we supposed to use JTB as a test for knowledge? — J
Is that what JTB is for? — Srap Tasmaner
"The T in JTB is dependent on P's being true" -- yes, but if we don't ask "How can I know this?" then I don't understand how we'd ever be able to use T in JTB. — J
JTB proposes that only true propositions can be known, AND that there is a way to determine truth apart from justifications. — J
So if we can't determine T in some way independent of J, how are we supposed to use JTB as a test for knowledge? — J
My point in these last few comments is just that MT is not an instance of MP metalogically. — NotAristotle
Yes, but I think that all arguments are, structurally, modus ponens. This goes back to the earlier point about whether all arguments are modus ponens, or whether all arguments utilize a material conditional. Tones is claiming that the metalogical inference uses a material conditional, and is not merely a modus ponens, and that this is why he thinks inconsistent premises automatically* make an argument valid [whereas I think a mere modus ponens is at play]. — Leontiskos
The initial argument I forwarded... — NotAristotle
1. If MP could be false, then RAA could be false.
2. But RAA is not false.
3. Therefore neither is MP. — NotAristotle
The initial argument I forwarded would, I think, be more like:
[If] 1 and 2 then not 1.
1 and 2.
Therefore not 1. — NotAristotle
So, if we know p could be false, then we don't know that it's true — Janus
A question remains though― what use is something's being true if we don't know it. — Janus
No. I said IBEs are usually the best we can do. — Relativist
Here are some questions about which rational answers can be given (IBEs), but the answers do not constitute knowledge:
...
Is my name actually "Fred"? — Relativist
But JTB is not about what makes something true, but how I can say I know it to be true. — J
I have to be able to be justified yet wrong. — J
The crux is that, following Sam26's thought, there needs to be some space between justification and truth in order for JTB to really be a three-legged tripod. — J
This is why I see the Gettier literature as a long detour. It multiplies refinements to patch a problem that dissolves once we keep the standard for justification strong. By “strong” I mean publicly checkable, defeater-sensitive, and free of false grounds. If a justification fails those checks, it does not count as justification. Once that is clear, Gettier’s cases lose their force: they are examples not of knowledge, but of its counterfeit—instances where someone takes themselves to know but does not in fact know. — Sam26
The so-called “Gettier problem” rests on a sleight of hand. It trades on the difference between thinking one is justified and actually being justified. — Sam26
That's what the J is meant to capture, and it leaves room for epistemic bad luck, where your belief turns out false but anyone would have formed the same belief, and it was a one in a million chance that in this case the evidence misled you. — Srap Tasmaner
namely whether the T in JTB is doing any useful work. — J
If one locks the subject within their own beliefs, then knowledge is impossible. — Leontiskos
The other question has to do with the modern move where the subject is cut off from reality by fiat of premise. For example, if we can never get beyond our attitudes and make truth- and knowledge-claims that are not merely belief- or attitude-claims, then of course a kind of Cartesian skepticism will obtain. If every knowledge-claim is rewritten as a matter of the subject's attitude or nominalistic beliefs, then realism has been denied a hearing. — Leontiskos
Argument by bogeyman, eh? — apokrisis
The ur-cause here is the evolutionary principle. What works is what survives. What can sustain itself over time through a capacity to repair and reproduce itself. — apokrisis
I was a climate change activist until about 2010. After that - seeing the reality of the politics and economics up close - I stop wasting my energy. It will be what it will be. And I make my own pragmatic plans within that. — apokrisis
So I see no problem of working within norms and then also challenging norms. The capacity to make this critical choice is central to being a pragmatist. You either play the game or change the game. And it is reason which tells you which way to go and any juncture.
So a climate change scientist can see the need to reduce emissions. But if society fails to heed, then the climate scientist has to think that either society feels it is OK that global collapse is OK - some will survive - or that society lacks the capacity to escape the world view that fossil fuel has constructed for it. — apokrisis
A trivial example is that I refused to be promoted to a Sixer in the Cub Scouts as I said I didn’t want to order the other kids around. The look of incomprehension from the adults made me realise what this para-military organisation was all about and I left soon after. — apokrisis
This is because you have the fixed normative habit of seeing dichotomies as unresolved monisms rather than the identification of the complementary limits on being - the complementary limits that then make an active choice of where to strike the useful balance. — apokrisis
So my systems perspectives says there can be local ends and global ends. These are measurably different in being selfish and collective. Or competitive and cooperative. So you have some general bounding contrast in play, and the system would want to balance those rival imperatives over all scales of its being. Hence the pragmatic understanding of society as a hierarchy of interest groups. The contrasting pulls of individuation and integration at every level of social order. — apokrisis
Happiness is probably a vague enough term to hide the difference between talking about seeking a life balance and pursuing a hedonic pole.
But if we are to understand eudaimonia properly, we have to dig into that exact difference in viewpoint. Do we mean what it feels like to be in balance with our life and world - a state of equanimity - or what it feels like to be madly ecstatic … just turned down to some low simmer that feels like the sustainable norm. A quiet content. A state of equanimity in short. Neither especially happy nor upset. Just ticking along nicely in the sense that sudden joy or sudden upset are adaptive states we could flip into as quick as circumstances might demand or justify. — apokrisis
So you keep saying that my position is the one that can’t say anything much about the good and the bad. But my reply is that you don’t even seem to have started to understand the dynamical nature of such things. You are treating the good as a fixed destination placed at some impossible distance from wherever we are. I make the argument for how it is all about the dynamical balance that can stabilise our sense of being a self in its world. The pragmatism of being as adapted as possible, both in the short term and the long term, to the game that is living a life as a social creature. — apokrisis
Meet the new boss… — Joshs