Knowledge is adequately justified belief, whether or not it is true. — T Clark
If I wanted a lecture I'd visit the university. I came here for a discussion. If you can't even be bothered to justify your assertions, then there's no point continuing. Things are not the case simply because they seem that way to you. — Isaac
You are absolutely confusing them.I'm not 'confusing' them, I'm arguing that they amount to the same thing. — Isaac
But, using this analysis, "I know where my hat is", when used to describe a high degree of confidence in my belief about the whereabouts of my hat, is exactly the right use of the term, and so it is true that "I know where my hat is", because I used the term correctly. Even if my hat turns out not to be there. — Isaac
Ah, you've misunderstood my example (or I've been unclear). In your example, I couldn't possibly justify my statement because I'd never been to the city before. — Isaac
Consider, we are in a city we haven't been to in 10 years — hypericin
Given that Gettier Problems were presented to show that the JTB definition of knowledge is insufficient, having to add a fourth condition to overcome them shows that the JTB definition of knowledge is insufficient. — Michael
Hmm, maybe it is the fact that I have always been philosophically inclined that has made these kind of decisions nightmarishly hard for me!I've never found such decisions hard at all. — Tom Storm
n ordinary life, epistemology is of little consequence - in picking a partner, choosing a home or selecting a car, working out what university degree to do, or which job to take, what shopping to buy - we do not worry about the problem of induction, or the correspondence theory of truth, or philosophy in general. — Tom Storm
What if there isn't an 'underlying logic'? I mean there's no intrinsic reason why there need be. what if 'know' as in "I know my keys are around here somewhere!", is different in meaning to 'know' as in "she knew where her keys were". — Isaac
The word 'know' would never be used if used according only to the principle of true facts with true premises. — Isaac
When I claim "I know the pub is at the end of the road" I simply mean that if you walk to the end of the road, you will find the pub there. So if the pub I thought was there had been knocked down, but later replaced by another, I don't see a problem with saying that I 'knew' there was a pub at the end of the road, since, if you walk to the end of the road, you will, indeed, find a pub there. — Isaac
An analysis of knowledge is either an analysis of what the word 'knowledge' means - how we use the word, or an analysis of what the word ought to mean - how it would make most sense in some particular context, to use it. — Isaac
In every day use, knowledge is most often simply a category of belief we have a high confidence in — Isaac
You are proposing an equivalence between supported theory (the world is older than 5000 years) and an unsupportable theory (that men did not like hairy women). — god must be atheist
My counter point will be this: mutations occur randomly, and at times in groups. The more intelligent, more verbal, more sexy humans of today may have mutated from proto-humans all at once in these aspects: sexual features, sexual preferences for looks, intelligence, and verbal skills.
Who is to say this has not been one whopping mutation? — god must be atheist
Other than that, by describing them as MVHPHs, you nicely described half of the males of the currently surviving specimens of the human race. — god must be atheist
Clincher: Think about it another way: let's suppose that you were right. Therefore the "unsexy" gene ought to have been eliminated from the gene pool by now — god must be atheist
There is another logistics-related argument against "only the best-looking and sexiest" survive. Or humorous, intelligent, etc., as the case might be. — god must be atheist
The problem is that less funny guys dated less good looking girls, and Borons (boring morons) dated ugly girls. They all had children, who survived to adulthood. — god must be atheist
Don't think of wright and wrong. Think of how harmful it is. If one's moral view creates harm than good, then it is immoral. On a lesser intensity, it is offensive. — L'éléphant
Correlation is all that is required hereCorrelation is not causation would have been a better way of putting it — I like sushi
Except, they have studied both. Humor is more correlatedSo, my concern would be that it is the creative element in better humour rather than some underlying ‘sense of humour’. — I like sushi
Plus if some people have a bad sense of humour they still find each other funny and mate just as much. — I like sushi
Not to mention that ‘emotional/social intelligence’ is not actually ‘intelligence’ (as in the ‘g’ factor).
5h — I like sushi
There is no evidence that humour correlates with humour. It does have some relation to creativity though, but how significant that is is probably still a matter of research and investigation. — I like sushi
Do you know that, personally?
Are you able to have bodily feelings or emotions without also having some thoughts along with them? — baker
To feel fear, one must already have certain beliefs about the workings of the world and the meaning of life. — baker
I stipulate that he has lost the ability to think: to self talk, and to visualize.How do you know?
Is it because he merely can't speak or write, due to the stroke, or is he truly mentally disabled? — baker
If one measures oneself the way a not particularly compassionate external observer might judge one, then the result is going to be truly meagre. — baker
I am interested in the nature of self, and of sentience in general. Is the self fundamentally composed of all the sensations it feels, internal and external? Or is there something more?What one considers to be an acceptable reply to these questions depends on one's intention for asking them — baker
So, in objective idealism, ideas are still ontologically basic, but there is no question about them not being real when you aren't thinking about them. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Berkeley dedicates much time to illusions and hallucinations because these are the obvious objections to his system. — Count Timothy von Icarus
You are conflating realism and idealism as the same things. — Count Timothy von Icarus
When you take off the rose colored glasses in Berkeley, the world doesn't change, you just don't have tinted glasses on — Count Timothy von Icarus
The forum is presently dominated by fools with little to no grasp of basic philosophical or logical notions and yet with thoroughgoing confidence in their opinions; by those who have failed to learn how to learn. — Banno
he point about the rose colored glasses is particularly apt. That IS the argument against physicalism. Just reframe it: "if you assume you have an abstract thought model that explains reality, and you interpret all experience using that model, does that mean your model is actually a reflection of reality?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
If so and if, however, it doesn't make sense to say "perceiving is perceived", then "perceiving" cannot be; therefore "to be" has to be other (more) than "to be perceived". :eyes: — 180 Proof
There's a theory that Putin and Trump express obvious lies as a means of domination. The relentless bullshit creates a fog of abuse. — frank
One problem with this whole way of setting up the issue, however, is that it presupposes we can make sense of the very notion of a single, canonical, physicalist description of the world, which is highly doubtful, and that in arriving (or at any rate approaching) such a description, we are attaining a viewpoint that does not in any way presuppose our own cognition and lived experience. — Joshs
If it were uncontroversial then how us it you are questioning how it happens? I'm with you on the questioning it, just not with you in saying it's uncontroversial. — Harry Hindu
Consciousness is a word with Cartesian dualism baked into it. And that is why those who bang on about "consciousness" find that its usage leads to a feeling there is some unbridged explanatory gap. — apokrisis
we are riding in the back of a pickup truck, trying to guess where we are going by looking behind.Eyes in the back of your head is it? — unenlightened
Rather, from our perspective, we are moving forward while able only to look backward.Time does move backwards; or rather we move backwards through time. You can tell because we can see where we've been, but not where we're going. — unenlightened
we intellectually add in our minds more than is actually there? — TiredThinker