• Solution to the Gettier problem
    How do we distinguish the difference between reality and a perfect
    simulation of reality that has no distinguishable difference?

    We Don't !!!
    — PL Olcott

    Good guess, but it is actually possible. :nerd:     — chiknsld

    I only want to be fair and accurate in my assessment yet
    it seems that you are saying something like 5 - 0 = 5 is not true.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim
    Otherwise you say we know nothing, which is again, the abandonment of epistemology.
    — Philosophim[/quote]

    I changed my view to this on the basis of the above:
    You can "know" empirical things to a reasonably plausible degree that is less than logically justified complete certainty.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪PhilosophyRunner Great analysis. — Philosophim
    You can "know" empirical things to a reasonably plausible degree that is less than logically justified complete certainty.

    The key empirical thing is mapping a set of physical sensations to their corresponding element in the verbal model of the actual world.

    The model of the world is construed as an axiomatic system. We know that {cats} are {animals} by looking this up in the knowledge tree model of the world.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪PhilosophyRunner

    When JTB is augmented such that the justification guarantees the truth of the belief then this makes Gettier cases impossible. Although this seems intuitively reasonable for analytic truth, it also seems to make synthetic knowledge impossible.

    It is self-evidently true that within the hypothesis that a space alien can be perfectly disguised as a duck such as it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays eggs and does everything else just like a duck. Then we can know that empirical knowledge is impossible when we require this knowledge to be true.

    It seems to make no sense to have false knowledge.

    When we simply assume away all of the counter-examples we can say that (for all practical purposes) synthetic knowledge is when a set of physical sensations matches an element in the model of the actual world then we can (reasonably plausibly) know that we are experiencing this element of the model of the world.

    We can do this at least up until the element demonstrates properties contradicting its model in the world. As soon as we see a pig extend its wings and fly away we know it was never a conventional pig.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    Removed by author
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    If you are telling a difference when it is stipulated that there is no difference
    to tell then you cannot possibly be telling the truth.
    — PL Olcott

    You have conceded your point! :snicker:     — chiknsld

    I am reaffirming my point.
    I use self-evident truths as the basis of my reasoning.

    Self-evidence
    In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

    The meaning of my words prove that they are true.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    How do we distinguish the difference between reality and a perfect
    simulation of reality that has no distinguishable difference?

    We Don't !!!
    — PL Olcott

    Good guess, but it is actually possible.     — chiknsld

    If you are telling a difference when it is stipulated that there is no difference
    to tell then you cannot possibly be telling the truth.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    Once again, you're jumping past the question, "How do we know we have actual truth?" — Philosophim

    We cannot possibly know that we have actual truth on the synthetic side of the analytic synthetic distinction. If we assume that we can we are deceiving ourselves.

    When we see a cat in our living room we can act as if it is a cat until it proves to not be a cat. The same applies to the rest of what appears to be empirical knowledge.

    When every lymph node of my body was jam packed with cancer last Summer I acted as if this was true and got chemo therapy that brought me back to no detectable cancer anywhere in my body.

    The Apple Computer guy Steve Job's figured that orange juice would do the same thing and this killed him.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim

    Without the qualified mapping that I propose Buddhist enlightenment is impossible
    because societal conditioning is construed as actual truth rather than possible truth.
    This closes the mind so that when evidence is presented of the actual truth it is never noticed.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    That means you can never know anything. — Philosophim
    Within the model of the actual world we can know the stipulated relations between elements because the model of the actual world is an axiomatic system.

    When we attempt to map things in the world based on what appear to be sense data from the sense organs we cannot possibly tell the difference between a duck and a space alien perfectly disguised as a duck.

    This seems to indicate that we cannot possibly know that any mapping from what appears to be physical sensations to their element in the model of the actual world is a correct mapping.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    But for them, they've never encountered or heard of a green apple. An apple being red is part of the definition of being an apple. — Philosophim

    If they assume that all apples are red without seeing all apples
    then they are wrong even if their assumption is correct.

    I will count on gravity as long as it continues to function. I will not
    assume that it is an immutable law of nature.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    I'm noting that swans by definition were known as white at the time. The house by definition is not white, it has the attribute of white. The swan by definition was white. It was part of its identity. — Philosophim

    To conclude that all swans are white on the basis of some swans are
    white is flat out incorrect and there cannot possibly be two ways about this.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    No. At the time it was just understood that swans were white. — Philosophim

    Fair Witness
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fair%20Witness

    That house on the hilltop--can you see what color they've painted it?"
    Anne looked, then answered, "It's white on this side."
    Jubal went on to Jill: "You see? It doesn't occur to Anne to infer that the other side is white, too. All the King's horses couldn't force her to commit herself...unless she went there and looked--and even then she wouldn't assume that it stayed white after she left."
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    My old saying is if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck lays
    eggs and everything else just like a duck it could be a space
    alien perfectly disguised as a duck.
    — PL Olcott

    Here inductive logic works wonders.     — jgill

    Inductive logic would simply (possibly incorrectly) guess that it is a duck.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    A more reasonable solution IMO is falsifiability: — hypericin

    A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable (or refutable) if
    it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

    This does not work with the analytic side of the analytic synthetic
    distinction. How do we know that ducks are animals empirically?
    This seems to be mostly a paraphrase of verifiability.

    I do agree that the notion of Falsifiability is very excellent. I
    don't see how it diverges from my own notion of verifiability.

    If when looking at a duck we are actually looking at a space
    alien perfectly disguised as a duck (including duck DNA)
    then the distinction between duck and space alien could only
    be made if it does something that ducks cannot do.

    Falsifiability seems to be saying that while looking at a duck
    we cannot be sure that it is a duck because it not being a duck
    cannot be empirically validated.

    My old saying is if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck lays
    eggs and everything else just like a duck it could be a space
    alien perfectly disguised as a duck.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    I mentioned an example earlier. Over 2000 years ago people used to know that the Sun circled in the sky around the Earth. — Philosophim

    From their frame-of-reference they could see the Sun cross the sky
    thus saying they they see the Sun cross the sky is accurate.

    This seems to preclude falsehoods:
    facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience
    or education; the theoretical or practical understanding.
    https://docs.elevio.help/en/articles/81626-knowledge

    At one time swans were known to be white. Later, someone discovered that swans were black on another continent. — Philosophim

    The correct thing to do at the time is to say all the swans that they know about are white.
    To say that all swans are white is incorrect reasoning.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim

    It is like the statement that people that are very much overweight
    are never way too thin.

    The meaning of the word "knowledge" requires that it be true.

    Try and find any false statement that counts as knowledge that is
    not merely knowledge of its falsity.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    I simply noted that truth cannot be a necessary requirement for synthetic knowledge. — Philosophim

    This shows that the T aspect of JTB is required.
    — PL Olcott
    This is not in dispute     — hypericin

    You are disputing this.
    Most everyone knows that ALL knowledge must be true or instead of
    knowledge we have false presumptions.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    My apologies, but I have places to go this evening. I'll carry on our conversation tomorrow. — Philosophim

    That is great
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    This shows that the T aspect of JTB is required.
    — PL Olcott
    This is not in dispute     — hypericin
    It was the key thing that was in dispute with
    — Philosophim
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    And yet, if you see the kitten, and it is really there, then you know it is there. — hypericin

    Another respondent provided a simpler example. You see what you
    believe is a cat yet it is actually a space alien perfectly disguised
    as a cat, it even has cat DNA.

    In this case your justification is as complete as it possibly can be
    within the synthetic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction and
    yet the belief that it is a cat is still false.

    You believe it is a cat you have DNA evidence that it is a cat and
    yet it is not a cat. This shows that the T aspect of JTB is required.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    Too deep for me. — jgill

    ↪jgill


    If you "know" something that turns out to be false, then
    you never knew it and only incorrectly presumed it.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪jgill
    I drive down a forest road and see a bear beside it in the distance. No, as I approach it I see it is merely a small tree. What is so profound about this sort of thing? — jgill

    It was not a justified true belief such that the belief is a necessary consquence of its justification until you know it is a tree. Prior to that it was an incorrect guess.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    If you define knowledge as something like certain true belief, as you seem to, then it would be immune to Gettier problems, but as a consequence much of what we think of as knowledge isn’t actually knowledge, and that might be an untenable consequence. — Michael

    ↪Michael

    If it is true that much of what we think of as knowledge isn’t actually knowledge
    then we must accept that as it is.

    We are free to create an alternative to knowledge {reasonably plausible assertions}
    that can be applied to the synthetic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction.

    A verbal model of the actual world can be construed as axioms. Within this model
    we can know with absolute perfect certainty that {kittens} are not any type of {fifteen
    story office building}.

    What we cannot know with absolute certainty is that a kitten that we are looking at
    right now physically exists, or is not a mere figment of the solipsist's imagination.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪wonderer1

    Because of the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment and that it is
    understood that solipsism cannot be definitely refuted any
    "knowledge" obtained from what appears to be sense data
    from the sense organs is possibly fake thus cannot possibly
    be perfectly relied upon as definitely true.

    The alternative proof is anchored in the problem of induction.
    https://iep.utm.edu/problem-of-induction/
    We cannot rely on past experience as a perfect predictor
    of future events.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪wonderer1

    Within my augmentation of JTB that requires the belief to be a
    necessary consequence of its justification Gettier is abolished.

    This causes all synthetic expressions of language to be rejected
    as knowledge. My augmentation of JTB rejects inductive inference
    because it is less than 100% reliable.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim


    "The trick then is how do we construct this system of reasoning
    to be more rational and the best chance to be as close to truth as possible?"

    Yes that is very good.
    Realizing that synthetic knowledge is impossible yet also understanding
    that a close approximation of synthetic knowledge has proven to be very
    reliable how do these things fit within the Gettier cases?

    Gettier cases prove that a reasonable approximation of knowledge
    sometimes diverges from actual knowledge.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim

    I went back through what you said and your position seems to be
    that because there are cases where we cannot possibly confirm
    that a belief is definitely true we should construe these cases as
    knowledge even when they might be false.

    Maybe this paraphrase of your words will enable you to see
    that this position is untenable.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim


    It seems to be the exact same position that the {alternative facts}
    people push so that they can get away with disinformation.

    --- Conway's use of the phrase "alternative facts" for demonstrable
    --- falsehoods was widely mocked on social media and sharply criticized
    --- by journalists and media organizations ...
    --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim

    "Truth cannot be a necessary component of knowledge."
    How so?

    That seems to me to be perfectly analogous to saying that
    "not being dead" is not a necessary aspect of being alive.

    If what is taken to be knowledge turns out to be false then
    it never was actual knowledge it was only mere presumption.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim

    You did not bother to notice that an argument can be valid even if
    its premsies are false.

    Validity and Soundness
    A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

    I rephrase this as whenever a conclusion is a necessary consequence of its premises
    then the argument is valid.

    If the Moon is made from green cheese then the Moon is made from cheese.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim

    The solipsism argument (whether it is accepted or not) proves that it is
    possible that reality is nothing more than our thoughts, thus the synthetic
    side of the analytic / synthetic distinction cannot be perfectly relied upon
    as necessary true.

    It seems that the most reasonable way around these two issues seems
    to be to build a model of reality that takes it is a possibly false premise
    that solipsism is false and we are not living in a simulation.

    The the Gettier issues would seem to only involve making sure that
    our physical sensations actually do correctly map to the correct elements
    in the model of the actual world.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim


    "You haven't proven your premises as true, therefore you're argument is not deductive."
    As long as the conclusion is a necessary consequence of its premises then the reasoning
    is deductively valid even if the premises are false. This is common knowledge across
    everyone that understands the deductive inference model.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim

    If we are living in a perfect simulation of reality like the brain-in-a-vat
    thought experiment then all of our knowledge of physical realty is false
    because physical reality does not exist.

    The synthetic side of the analytic / synthetic distinction simply assumes
    that physical reality exists. Because it is possible that this is false then
    there cannot be 100% certain knowledge of physical reality.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim


    Validity and Soundness
    A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

    A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
    https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim

    "No, that's not progress at all."

    You did not pay close enough attention to the exact words that I said.
    With valid reasoning the premises are assumed to be true even if they
    are false.

    Premises:
    (1) It is definitely true that synthetic knowledge actually does not exist.
    (2) I have shown that (1) is true
    (3) I have corrected the mere presumptions to the contrary
    Thus I have made progress by correcting false presumptions.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim


    If synthetic knowledge does not actually exist and I have correctly
    shown that it does not, then this corrects mere presumptions to the
    contrary, thus objectively is progress.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim


    We know that every element of the set of semantic tautologies is true.
    AKA self-evident truth.

    In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a
    proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

    Everything else is at best a reasonably plausible estimate of knowledge.
    Or we could say that it functions as if it was true.

    Even though we might actually be a brain-in-a-vat it does really seem
    like we can get up off the couch and make a sandwich. Getting up off
    the couch and making a sandwich is in the model of the actual world.
    This remains true even if couches and sandwiches never physically
    existed.
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim

    How do we distinguish the difference between reality and a perfect
    simulation of reality that has no distinguishable difference?

    We Don't !!!
  • Solution to the Gettier problem
    ↪Philosophim

    Reviewing some of the Gettier cases it seems that they involve
    an incorrect mapping from a set of physical sensations to their
    corresponding elements in the model of the actual world.

    Because of this incorrect mapping the justification for the belief
    does not necessitate that the belief is true.

    When we require that the justification for the belief necessitates
    that the belief is true, then the incorrect mapping is excluded
    from justification.

    When a set of physical sensations correctly map to elements
    of the model of the actual world and the semantic connections
    within this model of the world necessitate the truth of the belief
    then we have knowledge.

    This gets rid of the problem of a space alien perfectly disguised
    as a cat. If it is not an actual cat then the mapping is incorrect then
    we do not have knowledge.
Home » PL Olcott