Emotions are part of your thinking brain. They are absolutely essential as you grow when you are just learning about the world. As you age emotions are still important, but they are no longer your sole motivator for action.

I view emotions as a digest or summary of your instincts and experience when you encounter a situation that is different from your current state. When a child first falls when trying to walk, they may cry out of fear. But after falling a few times, that fear goes away as they have new knowledge that a fall isn't damaging.

If you want to break down why you have a particular feeling, it requires rationality to get the full story. You might be angry at a person, but not know why. At that point you start breaking down the person's actions and mannerisms, and might be able to figure it out. Rationality is detective mode, while emotions are your daily impetus and first reactions. Sometimes emotions are all you need, especially if you've learned to temper and hone them with good experiences and a rational foundation over the years.

https://www.livescience.com/26914-why-we-are-all-above-average.html

A great livescience article explaining why we all believe we are better than average.

Well, unless you have depression, anxiety, or you're incredibly capable. It turns out having confidence in yourself is an important measure in asserting yourself to attempt that action, even if you're not very good at it.

Me personally? Give me the truth. The scalding unyielding truth. This is not an armchair ideal either. Early in my life, I could have avoided some seriously life impeding situations had people not lied to my face about certain things. They did it so they wouldn't hurt me, or they were afraid. That hurt me more than anything else when I found out years later.

Of course, what type of truth though? It should be truth that helps you grow. Yes, you might find out something terrible about yourself, but then you can attempt to fix it. If of course you're told a truth with the idea that you should jump off a cliff and end it all, that's no good either.

Lies can be comforting to yourself and those around you, but they simply put a rug over the issue. The truth is still there, and no lie will ever deal with it properly. So we should speak truth, but we should be gentle and understanding about it. It should be seen as giving another person an opportunity to pull the rug away and clean house. We should also understand that some people will hear the truth, recognize it, and put a rug over it anyway. Its their life to manage; let them do it as long as they aren't hurting others.

1. We often say that those who commit suicide are selfish for taking themselves out of others' lives and I wonder if sometimes we are the selfish ones for wanting them to continue living for us? — Anthony Kennedy

I've always felt this is a guilt trip strategy more than anything given careful thought. I believe it is honestly selfish of us to want another person to continue on when they truly do not want to.

2. If someone has decided to make the rational decision to commit suicide, does people trying to deter them from their rationality take away from their person? — Anthony Kennedy

We could replace the action "commit suicide" with any other X, and I don't think it takes away from the person. People like to challenge other people's conclusions. I think it is healthy because we introduce a perspective that might not have been considered. A person might also believe their decision is rational, but might be found to be irrational if new information is considered.

I'm going to second Pop here. Its a very nice paper. I would quickly add I do not believe language is required for consciousness. There are animals besides human beings that do not use language (at least in our sense), but seem to have a consciousness. I think consciousness might be necessary for language, though I'm quite sure our heavy emphasis on it has impacted our consciousness as well.

I really enjoyed your post! But Pop would likely be a better person to continue your discussion with.

Lets make the implicit explicit.

"Is this sentence of the post referring to itself"?

Yes.

We have completely opposing world views. — Megarian

I honestly think its not that different. Lets see if I can demonstrate this.

This is the rationale; genetically encoded in life long before there were any humans to use it to create logical systems. — Megarian

No disagreement. This does not counter my theory. I am observing the rules that result from our biological abilities and limitations, which does not require us to know how those come about. You'll notice in part one I mention that we do not need to understand why we discretely experience, only observe that we do.

The example of the toddler is not an philosophical abstraction created to illustrate a point. It's a real world phenomena to which I am giving explanation and I don't see that process in your paper. There are no real world testable conclusions in your paper. — Megarian

There is are plenty of tests in the paper. The reason why I like the theory is all of these tests can be done yourself. In fact, they have to be applied, otherwise they are only distinctive knowledge, and not applicable knowledge. The toddler is a real world occurrence, and we can abstract that occurrence into a methodology. For example, I can see a few blades of grass. I can then abstract each blade of grass as a number. My abstraction of the baby's actions do not deny the babies actions, only explain it in a logical methodology. I gave you a breakdown, is my breakdown incorrect? If not, why?

No, logic is a creation of rational thinking. — Megarian

That is perfectly fine, it does not change anything claimed here. If you are referring to logic as the formalized linguistic expression of rational thinking, then yes, I fully agree. When I am using logic here, I am only talking about rational thinking, minus the need for language. To me, linguistic logic would be formalized logic, but that is completely unnecessary here. Distinctive knowledge does not require any language. Same with applicable knowledge. Language is a result of distinctive knowledge. Useful language is a result of applicable knowledge. But language is not necessary for distinctive or applicable knowledge.

Encountering information, associating information and testing the association. — Megarian

This is mirroring my theory here. Create distinctive knowledge, and apply distinctive knowledge. Testing is an option within distinctive knowledge, but not a necessity.

But one problem in epistemology is determining the validity of different types of irrational thinking.
- Philosophim
 
I disagree, real irrational thinking is dysfunction, brain damage or chemical imbalance. — Megarian

I will clarify, as I am speaking within the context of the paper again. You'll notice that I summarize the theory of knowledge here as "subjective deduction". This leads into an analysis of induction. The "irrationality" is using induction at all. Using this theory, I am able to address the problems with induction, showcasing 4 levels of inductive thought, and demonstrating a tier system of cogency. One difficulty with knowledge is being able to demonstrate why is is more rational to use certain types of inductions over others. For example, intuitively why is it more rational to believe the sun will rise tomorrow then to believe that it will not rise tomorrow? A breakdown of the terms and logic can identify why.

A foundation for epistemology needs to produce testable claims about the phylogenic, ontogenic and cultural environments. — Megarian

Not a problem. Once we dissect the logic, we can easily go to any of these subjects. Have you read the paper fully yet? Please actually answer this in your next answer so I can know if I can start heavily pulling terms and referencing parts of the text. It will make our conversations go much easier.

On its utility in problem solving. (Does it work?) 
Yes. I use it in my daily life.

On its internal coherence.  (Is it self-contradictory?)
No, it does not contain any self-contradictions. At least, none that I've seen. Feel free to add your own insight on the paper.  

On its external consistency.  (Does it 'fit' in a framework of other claims about the world?) 
Yes. It is the base for all types of contextual knowledge theories. I am able to explain why a baby can know that the wet spot on the floor was caused by its actions. I can explain away the Gettier theory. (I had it in the paper at one time, but it was more like a book then. I mean, I can barely get people to read the 20 pages as it is). I can explain why a family has knowledge that is specific to themselves, but if taken in the greater context of the world, would not be considered applicable knowledge.
On its semenality.  (Does it/can it lead to new/more precise claims?) — Megarian

Absolutely. I can answer the riddle of Theseus' ship. I can give a logical evaluation of inductive claims. Its pretty darn useful.

I find no utility in the system you propose. — Megarian

Considering I can tell you still haven't read the paper, that's really not a solid claim. Read the paper, then get back to me showing why the system has no utility. All you are making is an opinion claim, you are not referencing the actual material.

The paper gives us no information promoting an understanding of the general nature of knowledge or the species-specific human nature of knowledge creation and use — Megarian

You obviously did not read part 3 or 4. Again, why make claims like this without reading it? I'm really scratching my head over here. Are you just wanting to argue for arguing's sake, or do you want to actually analyze the paper, do some fun thinking, and come to a reasonable conclusion? I mean, I might be wrong. I'm open to that. But you have to actually read the paper. I don't think this is unreasonable in the slightest.

So go read it! Its not a waste of your time. If we can spend posts here here discussing when you're not even talking about what's in the paper, and instead some imaginary idea you've come up with, imagine what we could generate if you read it and we can actually discuss about the real idea!

I'm floating a theory that philosophy, like all optional human activity, is primarily an emotional experience and that the intellectual content of philosophy is more of a cover story. — Hippyhead

Human beings are not rational beings with emotions. We are emotional beings with rationalizations. When someone is first learning philosophy, emotions often guide their actions more than rationality. Many first learn to type big words and start throwing them in your writing to make you look like you fit in with the rest of the group. Sometimes newer philosophers will read others and tend to look for the easy emotional highs.

If they have a mind for self-improvement, they are hopefully learning how to think better. Rationalizations soon start to give way to rationality. They begin to realize they don't have to use a lot of big words, but that simple, clear, and modern day language is often best. Soon they start looking for the greater joy, which is mastering a difficult problem. Not for status or recognition, but for the joy of solving the problem itself.

Being a good philosopher is an ideal good people strive for. Some of us are just starting this journey, while others are near the end. Has anyone ever reached the ideal? Perhaps in the history of mankind someone has, but I doubt it. Still it is better to be the person that strives for the ideal but falls short, then the person who does not strive at all.

My claim is that philosophers have to do better than mere subjectivity, otherwise their entire program turns to dust. — JerseyFlight

Then why are you insisting that your own subjectivity has any philosophical value? Objectively you know you cannot make a blanket statement that analytic philosophy is harmful to society. You have no statistics, no control and variable that has been tested. There is nothing objective in this thread. Your definitions are moot, because the entire premise of this argument from the beginning is a subjective opinion.

And that has been my entire point. You are the one who is continuing this. JerseyFlight, you got a lot going for you, but you seem completely unaware that this criticism you keep levying at others is the very thing you are doing. Many posters have tried to tell you this, and you keep focusing on the way they've crafted the message, instead of the message itself. Granted, it could be crafted better, but people expect you to be BETTER than a hypocrite, and often get mad that you would continue to insist on being one.

At this point, I have enough respect for your intelligence that I am going to assume that you must see this. It is your call what you do from this point. I would hope you take the path of someone who accepts they have made mistakes in the pursuit of their ideals and moves on to the next problem, and not the path of an intellectual narcissist.

I don't know, personally, if the entirety of analytic philosophy is useless to society - probably not, but a lot of it is. — BitconnectCarlos

As long as you don't pretend to claim you have the authority to blanket an entire history of thought process as useless to society, that's fine. To a person who cares about such things, analytic philosophy might provide some use to them as a tool. What an individual finds useful can vary from person to person, and it is not for us to judge if something we find personally meaningless provides another fulfillment.

I feel bad sometimes for studying philosophy. — BitconnectCarlos

True, the history of philosophy is often a study of its failures. Not everyone is interested in seeing how thought processes have evolved. Still, Karl Popper's contribution to the scientific method of today can be a nice read if you're interested in such things. The Gettier paper is a nice starting point for people interested in tackling epistemology as well.

Some philosophers are interested in the history of philosophy for its own sake. It is a hobby of puzzles to themselves. That is fine. We all entertain ourselves in our own particular way, and taken objectively, they're all frivolous in the face of the big questions in life. Sometimes people study it to improve their own and others lives. It sounds like you are interested in philosophy to tackle questions of today and the future. Then use that as your guide. Don't concern yourself with what others find meaningful, if it inhibits what you find meaningful.

JerseyFlight, you profess to be a man that wishes to foster thought that benefits human kind. Look at the replies to your responses in this thread. Are you meeting your goals? If you are to rise to the ideals you set, you must be the example of this.

Currently this thread is no longer discussing philosophy. It is an opinion pissing contest. Several people have remarked that you do not have the evidence to attribute the entirety of analytic philosophy as useless to society. It is useless to YOU. And that is fine. That is the only thing which can be logically concluded from this discussion.

So will you continue to partake in this pissing contest? Because this conversation is not furthering thought, or good will in mankind. Will you rise to your ideals, are are they simply words you put forth to make people think you are better than you are?

YOLO — Hippyhead

You Only Live Once

I respect your religion. :-) — Hippyhead

If a religion is an ideal that you live your life by in regards to what is beyond it, I suppose it IS a religion. We can call it the YOLO religion. What do you think?

They taught me so well that I find I'm an outsider in any social group as I'm always jumping to the opposite of the agreed upon consensus of that group, which tends to make me, um, extremely popular. :-) — Hippyhead

Ha ha! Hippyhead, you always strike me as the archtype of the Jester. Not the fool, but the clever pretender who mocks reality with a wink. We may have had some disagreements in past posts, but I do enjoy your presence here.

But I think it we're honest we'll agree there's also a lot more to it, and that emotional agendas are very often driving the phenomena. If we find that we're speed reading the post in search of something we can Gotcha! then emotional agendas are most likely at play. — Hippyhead

I agree. Motivation behind what we are trying to prove is just as important as the thing we are trying to prove. Or in other words, "Its not what you say, its how you say it". There are two general ways of breaking down how people view their own empowerment. Some feel empowered by their own accomplishments in life. Such people point out criticisms because they want other people to grow and become better. They are not afraid of bringing people up.

Then there are those who gain self empowerment by bringing others down. Instead of pride in their own accomplishments, they take pride that they are not as much of a failure as another person. While one can be confused for the other, often times this intent comes through. Ideally, we would all like to the be the former person, and not the latter.

It's interesting that so many of us are so sure we know such things. — Hippyhead

We can only know what is available to us. We know that the brain is where our ability to think comes from. Take some brain damage, and you're not going to be the same person. Loads of science backs this. We know that when you die, the brain stops working. Anything else is something from the imagination.

You and I will cease to exist Hippyhead. We are no different from the matter that is all around us. It too will change forms, break apart, and join into something new. But you are only "you" when matter organizes into a human being with your particular working brain. The glow from my screen only happens when matter organizes in that particular way. There is no heaven for your brain. There is no heaven for my monitor.

That being said, can we postulate that there is something underlying all of matter on Earth? Perhaps that we are part of some greater living consciousness, or that there is something beyond our observation? Absolutely. But that is not what we can know. Generally, we make decisions about how to live on what we know, not on what we imagine. For all you know, you have one chance at being you before you meet your permanent end. It is best you live your life according to this knowledge, as it would be a terrible tragedy for a person to live on the prediction of a fantasy.

Coben, I had accidently submitted my reply before it was finished. If you don't mind, feel free to re-examine it and see if it further answers your question.

There is an extra bit here though I think I should address as well.

The sentence preceding my particular sentence on belief is, "Knowledge expects a consistency.". I then explain that knowledge it the pairing of two beliefs together. The following sentence notes "Yet how can one be certain one’s belief is co-existent with reality?" The intent I was hoping to convey here was "Knowledge is a set of beliefs that people feel with certainty, but then we must be able to demonstrate that this "claim to knowledge" is correct.

So it appears my writing is poor and does not convey this. If I changed this section to identify what a "knowledge claim" was, would this make it more clear? As a rough draft, "So what can we call knowledge? At first glance, knowledge appears to be a claim that It is both the belief in something, and a further belief that “the something” is co-existent with reality"... and then continue on with a bit of the rewrite I've mentioned in the previous post. Essentially really emphasizing that at this point in the thought process that knowledge is a claim one's belief cannot be contradicted by reality, and that to do so, there must be some application of that belief to reality.

Though perhaps you meant 'cannot be contradicted now as far as we know.' — Coben

To clarify, it is not "as far as we know now", it is, "We cannot be contradicted." That can only be done, "now", as the future cannot contradict you. So yes, I could know one thing now, then later find that knowledge is invalided by a contradiction.

And another portion of your earlier reply:

So, pick a belief you consider false: an Abrahamic God, alien abductions, whatever you considera false belief. It is clear that believers in alien aductions believe in alien abducutions and consider these to be coexistant with reality. Or real. So this would mean it is knowledge. Or perhaps he is saying they consider it knowledge, which is often also true. Since most people conflate belief and knowledge or don't have any extra criteria except degree of certainty not based on thought out criteria. — Coben

Yes, this is good. What the paper will show is how we identify if something is not contradicted by reality. And yes, depending on your context of definitions, you can know that the God of Abraham is not contradicted by reality. We can also create another context in which you cannot know the God of Abraham, because such a context is contradicted by reality. How we tackle different contexts, and which contexts we should strive for is commented on in chapter 3, and would be a great discussion once you read that section. If I could explain all of the possible topics and consequences of a one sentence proposal on knowledge, I would. Alas, I had to write about 20 pages to do so. =P

Thanks for the feedback!

Then what does the “further belief that ‘the something’ is co-existent with reality” add here? — Jarmo

A good question. Lets look at the second portion of the definition.

roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.

Being co-existent with reality is an assertion of your belief "being the case", or yourself regarding it as true. What I've done is define what "being the case" is. If you have a belief that you can pick up a ball , then you believe reality will not contradict you when you go to pick up the ball. You believe it is the case that you will be able to pick up the ball. You believe that it is true that you will be able to pick up the ball.

The point of stating "not contradict reality", is to spell out what "being the case" is in a less clearly abstract manner. Basically, what is true is what cannot be contradicted.

I believe these to be two separate beliefs. For me, belief is more atomic. I can contain in my head different types of beliefs that I do not hold as "being the case". They "might" be the case. So if I go outside, it might be sunny, or rainy. These beliefs could be contradicted by reality. I don't know for certain, but I don't believe that if I go outside I'm going to warp to another dimension. This is a claim that I believe will not be contradicted by reality.

So to me, having a belief does not necessitate that it must be the case. Beliefs can be inductive, and doubted in one's mind. That does not mean they are not beliefs. A particular type of belief in which one also believes the belief is not contradicted by reality, is an attempt at a knowledge claim. If I believed that when I stepped outside it would be sunny, and not any other state, I am making a knowledge claim that could be contradicted by reality, but I believe will not be.

In the introduction, I am trying to use the most basic language and build up from there, but it seems this needs greater explanation at the beginning. If I added an explanation like the one I gave above, would that help clarify the issue? Do you think a better example or word can be given for what I am trying to describe? I appreciate the feedback!

Absolutely. Fear of death is an emotional motivation to stay alive. Death is game over. No do overs. No more accomplishments. Fear of death can be why you decide to do something with your life instead of sit on the couch all day and live a menial existence.

Does that mean we should be consumed by it or base all of our decisions off of it? No. Emotions are quick judgements that give us an over all digest of the situation. They are very useful when a bear is intending to maul you, but you need rationality to figure out the best way to handle the situation.

Emotions are an integral part of your thinking brain. In trying to conquer them, some believe we should pretend we do not feel them, ignore them, or crush them. Embrace them. Rationality alone or emotion alone leave you in a much more confused state in life, while marrying them together will leave you able to manage life at your most capable.

I think Jersey does want to claim worthlessness for the whole tradition, and even negative social value. Surely he couldn't be concerned about the negligible negative social value of just poor ole Davidson could he!? — Janus

I think he initially did, but realized his error later on and stated

I think it's best just to stick with Davidson. Just tell me about the value of his essay? This is all I really care about. — JerseyFlight

JerseyFlight is passionate and opinionated, but he also claims to value logical thinking. Philosophical arguments can get heated, and it is easy to push too far. I think when someone states they are willing to bring the scope of the argument back down to a reasonable and philosophical level, it is respectable to take it. If you are expecting any person in philosophy to come out and state, "I was wrong," you might be waiting until the heat death of the universe. Its not the point. The refocus is on a real philosophical question, and that is whether Davidson's particular paper had a point of value.

I do not know what the previous conversation on Davidson was, but if you want to salvage this thread from a PC vs. Apple argument, you could try presenting the positives that we can glean out of Davidson's argument, and JersyFlight can present his negatives. As long as it is understood this cannot be a judgement on analytic philosophy as a whole, there might be an actual conversation here worth salvaging.

My apologies then, I stepped out of line. I suppose I will weigh in then.

While we can criticize individual philosophy writings "style", noting one paper being of little use is not enough to criticize all papers using this style. Further, what can be attributed to analytic philosophy is broad and varied. It is a shed word that we shove a bunch of other tools of thinking into.

And tools are how we should approach methods of thinking. Sometimes one approach to analysis is successful where another tool would be better. Stating one tool is "worthless in all cases" requires a great amount of citation and logical critique, which is not being offered here. Without this, it is merely an opinion war. A screwdriver may be worthless when one wants to hammer nails, but its pretty effective when they want to use screws instead.

Unless someone can point out very real negative value to society caused by the countless analytic philosophy papers that have been released over the centuries, continuing to assert that analytic philosophy is harmful as a whole would not be a philosophical conversation.

Reading further replies, it appears JerserFlight realizes this and want to focus on Davidson again in particular. JerseyFlight, since you've read the paper, what did you find worthless about Davidson's argument? While we cannot say all of analytic philosophy is worthless, it may be the case for this particular paper.

The information is being tested. — Megarian

What is the information? Lets be generous and simplify it to "The wet spot on the ground and the liquid in the bottle."

What is a "hunch"? A belief that the liquid in the bottle caused the wet spot on the ground.

I think we're having a semantics issue. Part 3 covers this. We are speaking about the same thing, we're just using different words to represent those things. Lets not get caught up in that.

Logical systems are human creations based on the instinctual rationality formed by evolving in a rationale world. — Megarian

I agree. Part of the paper goes into the question of limiting one's context versus expanding one's context for knowledge. It notes that for some people, limiting their context might be more helpful for them. Like the example I use in part 3 with the biologist, the group of friends, and the "tree".

Rational thinking does not require a formal logical. — Megarian

I would disagree. Rational thinking requires logic. Now most of our thinking is not rational, because rational thinking would take too much time. But one problem in epistemology is determining the validity of different types of irrational thinking. This can also be called, "The problem of induction". Part of the theories purpose is to give a rational way of evaluating which forms of "irrational thinking" are most valuable. However, we must first understand what rational thinking is, and rationally evaluate which inductions are more cogent then others. That is covered in part 4.

If you wish to have this statement be more than an opinion, you'll need to point out in the paper why I am incorrect in making this conclusion.

Then you should be able unpack your conclusions from the system and return to the field where you encountered a sheep and apply them to the sheep (or any animal you're familiar with) to explain its knowledge system. (Non-human learning and knowledge) — Megarian

Ha ha! You need to read part 2. I do exactly that. It is a nod to the famous epistemological argument of course. And yes, my system can be used from an animal's context as well. I can show how a dog or a child can know. Of course, in the dog's case they would need to understand what a contradiction is. I believe they do at a basic level.

How would your conclusions explain people holding and acting on beliefs that they admit have no actuality to support them; in some case admitting that those beliefs are disproved? (Belief as emotional attachment to a social group.) How does it apply to Scientific Methodology's creating knowledge claims as a social activity? — Megarian

Part 3 and Part 4. Science is a context. As for holding beliefs that are not knowledge, I go over in part 4 what plausible and irrational beliefs are, and demonstrate that they are on the lower tier of beliefs when we have higher tiers available to consider. I give plenty of examples there, feel free to pull one out to discuss.

Well yeah, of course. You've carefully designed an enclosed abstract logical system where the design insures the premises support the conclusions. The only lines of criticism open are the premises. — Megarian

This is quite possibly the biggest compliment I could receive as a philosopher.

However, I believe you are drawing conclusions that are not being made from these premises in your criticism. You are thinking about where I'm going to go, instead of seeing where I am actually going. In essence, one cannot critique a conclusion or its premises in isolation from one another. Criticizing one or the other must take the other into account to be valid criticism.

an abstract formal logical system, no matter how carefully constructed, cannot be imposed on the world as foundation for an epistemology. — Megarian

All this translates to is, "I believe before I've read and understood your argument, that its wrong, because I believe it cannot be right".

Perhaps I have failed in my construction. You need to show me this. I would like to think you are a bit more charitable than that. But if you simply think I'm wrong, so wrong in fact that you won't even bother reading and understanding it, then further discussion will not get us anywhere. I understand that a lot of these questions are to feel out whether its worth your time to read it. But at this point, I think I've given plenty of reasons that are pertinent to your interest.

All of these questions you've pointed out are addressed in some fashion in the paper, and its no longer than a philosophy journal article. Keep your questions in mind while you read it. Read the whole thing through once. Then feel free to point out where I have failed so we can get to the meat of these questions. Thanks!

1. Sound Logical thinking

This is probably the pillar of professional philosophy.

2. Clear Communication

Language is a tool to convey our ideas. You should use the most simple and clear terms to convey your idea. The less time people spend trying to figure out what you are saying, the more time you get to discuss about the idea itself.

3. Relatability

You may be using clear and logical language, but if you do not relate to your audience, you will be ignored or misunderstood.

4. Premises grounded in reality

You may have a very interesting and logical theory, but if it is not grounded in reality, it is pointless. See Leibniz' Monad theory versus atomic theory.

5. Humbleness

This means knowing your limitations, acceptance of criticism by others, and the willingness to admit when one is wrong. These are the people who become masters at the craft, and never stop improving and learning.

There are almost certainly more attributes to add. But for myself, every philosopher I have read and spoken with who I respect and value has had these five attributes.

Why not message the moderators directly about this? This is unnecessarily dramatic. Talk to moderators if you wish to give feedback on moderation. Talk to the rest of us if you want to discuss philosophy.

Janus, if you wish to have a discussion, that is fine. But we should not call other members out on the board like this. If you wish to have a discussion with the people you are citing, then private message them. Calling them out, out of context publicly is not what we're here for.

Thank you again for contributing your thoughts! They are clear, concise, and seem sound.

Very nice! I did a quick skim over the theory and think this has a very sound basis. Consciousness is basically the part of us that manages other parts of the brain, and puts it all together. Its kind of like a gas pedal, break, and a steering wheel that sometimes likes to do its own thing.

Just a quick alternative look at emotions, I've always believed emotions are a digest, or quick summary of the mind's state that alerts the consciousness. Rationality is a tool that lets us take time to break down emotions into more cogent parts when we have time. As is often said, we are not rational creatures, we are rationalizing creatures.

Definitely look into neuroscience. Philosophies time in the sun on matters of mind is outdated and quickly becoming obsolete as we learn more.

Fantastic post.

Tested information is knowledge. The knowledge claim is knowledge plus belief in the validity of the claim. Starting with belief ignores the fact that a belief can be held without any validity. Knowledge proceeds belief. — Megarian

What am I testing if I have no belief? After combining the first two bits of information, the child had a hunch, or a belief that the drink and the wet spot had a link. Otherwise, why would the child purposefully shake the bottle and then immediately feel it?

This is also what science does. There is a hypothesis, a belief, then that belief is tested. My knowledge theory will support, but also explain at a level beyond simple observation and opinion, that yes, the child knows that wet spot came from the water in the bottle. This is a creation of a formal theory of knowledge that can be used to explain why that child knows in terms that can be reapplied to any case.

Again though, read part 2 at least. Part 1 is about distinctive knowledge, or "the knowledge of identities". Part 2 is applicable knowledge, or how I apply the knowledge of identities without contradiction. Once you understand this, I can go back to the child argument and show how the child has applicable knowledge that the spot on the floor came from the bottle.

A formal logic system is itself a knowledge claim.
A formal logic system can validate logically proofs that have no actuality.
A formal logic system creates logical proofs that only prove the system and only within that system. — Megarian

Heh, yes, I am well aware of this. A good summation of the theory is called, "Subjective deduction" What I do conclude is that this methodology of knowledge is our best bet at creating conclusions that match to reality. Knowledge is a tool of measurement. But it is clearly different from simple beliefs. I conclude nothing different from your points above. That does not invalidate it, because the alternative to logical thinking, is illogical thinking. In part 4, I demonstrate why illogical thinking is sometimes necessary, but why using probability, logical thinking is usually the smarter choice if one wants to understand reality.

Logic is one of the best tools we've created to refine information into ever more precise knowledge-claims. Like all knowledge-claims it has limitations, particularly when comes to creating knowledge-claims. — Megarian

Yes, I show that in part 2 with applicable knowledge, later in part 3 with contextual knowledge, and finally in part 4 where I cover the tiers of cogency with induction. Part 1 is only the primer. Think of it as the "I think therefore I am" portion of many epistemology arguments. Every tool has its limits. But limits do not mean it is invalid. Part 4 takes the limitations of knowledge, then says, "What do we do when we reach those limits?" and then uses the lessons learned prior to identify levels of induction that are more cogent than others.

While you may have trouble with the premises, you seem to not be arriving at my conclusions. You are drawing your own conclusions first, without reading my own. Find my conclusions, then see if the premises fit the conclusion. Otherwise, you're only critiquing half of the argument, and seem to be thinking I'm not going to be drawing conclusions that I do, and drawing conclusions that I do not.

I really should try to understand part 1 first. — Jarmo

Not a worry! As long as you are referencing the paper, we can have a great conversation.

Contemporary Anglophone philosophers of mind generally use the term ‘belief’ to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.

This is also a great way of defining a belief. A wish or desire is one of the attitudes we can have. A "certain way" implies a match with reality, or "what is", or "truth".

Feel free to point out if I've made an error in the argument if we use the encyclopedia definition.

You are being snide again with a side of petulance. It is imperative to ask for clarification when you begin to see that the terms you are using seem to differ from the other persons. Of course you start with assumptions, then ask for clarification when you start to realize there are underlying differences. People who are honest do this with regards to getting to the bottom of the issue. People who are dishonest will use it as a delaying tactic, and ask absurd questions that both parties know is unneeded.

But dishonest people will also shy away from clarifying their position when they aren't sure themselves, or they think it will open them up to countering what they want to believe.

I only asked clarification on what you meant by religion when it was obvious you and I had two very different underlying meanings. This is very simple Jersey. You chose the path of a dishonest dialectician.

I wasn't aware that a masters degree gives one the ability to read minds? — JerseyFlight

Nope, but I also have a bachelor's of science. It allows me to identify BS. (Lame joke, we don't have voice tone here unfortunately) One technique you learn to quickly identify is an inconsistent ideology or stance. A dishonest dialectician will often try to defend their reasoning at any cost, and this is a typical pattern they fall into. I only point it out so you will be honest in the future. I don't begrudge your attempt to defend yourself, but if you feel you have to fall to such tactics, it is very ok to just say, "I need to think on it".

Best of luck to you. :smile: — JerseyFlight

And you as well. I hope our future posts on topics fair better. Less troll, more droll eh?

Because it is a philosophy forum, I believe we should vote up or down with our discussions. We are here to say why we disagree. I think an up or down arrow might discourage people from voicing the "why", when the "why" is key in philosophy.

That being said, my feelings may not pan out in reality. Perhaps a study exists somewhere showing this. So not a bad proposal, but my first thought is, "No".

When did I say I was better? I just don't have time for it. — JerseyFlight

Yes, you are saying you are better, because that person is beneath your time. That's what thinking you are better than other people who reply to you means. Of course, you seem to have the time to give a lengthy reply after I called you out on it. Your claim to carefully measuring posts that are worth replying to doesn't hold water in my case. Let me remind you of the post that you didn't need to reply to, but did anyway.

Without defining what a religion is, I'm not sure we can come to any meaningful discussion comparing it to technology. Each of us would just use our own subjective interpretations at that point, and we would each be in our own opinionated world. If that is the type of topic you would like this to be, I will bow out and let others continue. — Philosophim

If you are carefully measuring your time/value here, why bother replying to a post that is politely telling you if you did not wish to define your terms, I couldn't see being a contributor to the conversation. I'm indicating I'm leaving, but to please continue on. I did not insult your thread, or your argument, and I thought the conversation had gone nicely.

There is no time/value in leaving a snide comment about me being a "novice".

Lets also put your approach on another foot and see if it holds water.

Lets say you enter a Christian thread and ask them to define God after you're not sure what they mean by God. They tell you,

I have purposely bypassed this approach. This leads to a dead end. — JerseyFlight

Deciding to leave because you see you can't discuss with his approach, you say as such, and take your leave. They then reply:

What I have learned, having had many exchanges, is that the act of formally defining things is often the mark of a novice dialectician. — JerseyFlight

Do you think, "Oh, that person must be so wise and experienced in discussing! I guess I have a lot to learn by asking him to clarify what he meant by God! They aren't being snide, its just a time/value evaluation obviously!"

Or do you think that the person realized they couldn't or didn't want to answer a question because they didn't like where it might go? And because they were insecure about it, they decided to throw a parting shot as you left? Come now Jersey, we know which one you would think.

If mine or your own words still don't convince you, notice others are asking you to clarify what in the world you mean by "religion" as well? Its not a bunch of "novices" asking you to waste your time Jersey. Its people asking a basic question because the topic doesn't make any sense without it. If you want to make your posts take less of your time defending, work on answering questions clearly that ask clarification for on what you're actually trying to say. You'll get far less blow back on what you're defending, and maybe you'll find clarity in the discussion that you didn't realize you were missing.

This claim seems to be that you were born with a set of beliefs that you that you've tested to create knowledge. — Megarian

No, I am not claiming you are born with beliefs. I state in the paper that beliefs are things you make. Knowledge is an attempt to figure out which beliefs match reality without contradiction. The beginning is a thought process to a particular conclusion. That sentence is not a conclusion, only a first premise I consider.

Experience leads him to associate wet-spot with bottle contents. He tested this idea and confirmed its’ correctness. — Megarian

Fantastic, I think you will like my conclusions within the paper then. I would indeed conclude that within the child's context, they had knowledge. While the described process is a witness to this behavior, my paper breaks down the process into a repeatable and verifiable process.

knowledge-claims are not created by belief-claims. — Megarian

I believe you are incorrect on this. A belief is an assertion of some kind. Knowledge occurs after you run a belief through a process. We can have very certain beliefs, but they are not knowledge. I go over this in the paper.

Belief-claims can be tied to objective proofs (Certainty), subjective proofs (Certitude) or no proofs at all. It's knowledge-claims that require an objective justification to be valid. — Megarian

Right, this can be broken down even simpler into having inductive beliefs, and deductive beliefs. What entails objective? What entails a deductive versus inductive belief? Are there certain inductive beliefs that are more reasonable to hold then others? The paper covers all of this, and I think you will be pleased at many of my conclusions.

The main problem is logic as Justified True Belief (JTB). — Megarian

In one of the many iterations of this paper, I used the Gettier problem as a starting point. I removed it because it makes the paper too long, the average person is unfamiliar with the Gettier problem, and it is ultimately unneeded to start the process. Once you read it and understand that I am not proposing JTB, feel free to use the Gettier argument as a method of refutation. I would love it if a person who has some familiarity with common epistemological theories would critique the theory after reading it.

I appreciate your contribution!

This means you arrived at this conclusion via some rigorous process. — Coben

Yes, and what was that rigorous process? I lay that out in the paper.

I should add also that you are using a phrase that indicates less certainty that what one usually means when one uses the term knowledge: "had knowledge of." You also shifted to predictive knowledge, rather than, say knowledge about the world or some facet of it. — Coben

I am using knowledge as I defined in the paper. Distinctive, and applicable. Statistical knowledge would be distinctive, and its predictive claim would be an induction.

This is proven quite easily, when two knowledgeable philosophers come together to discourse they do not define every term, because they are not coming to the conversation without any prior understanding. — JerseyFlight

Jersey, I have a master's in philosophy. You have no idea what you're talking about. Feel free to show other wise. What are your credentials? Do you have a source that backs your claim?
See my reply to Judaka to understand why defining terms in discussion is a fundamental of logical discourse.

unless I'm mistaken and you define every conjunction? — JerseyFlight

No, that's not what I stated, and you know this. I asked you to clarify the a key word in your topic so I could better understand the context you were speaking in. You retreated.

It's the same way with more advanced dialectics, this act of presupposing, of shared meaning, is how knowledge unfolds through dialectic. — JerseyFlight

Yes, like when a person asks you, "So when your topic is religion, what do you mean by religion?" you clarify. Its called having a conversation.

I usually do not discourse with novice dialecticians. — JerseyFlight

Jersey, man, you might want to examine yourself first. Your "proof" of two philosophers conversing is nothing solid. You retreat from an incredibly basic request to clarify the term you were using and attack my character instead of attacking the argument. These are all novice moves bud.

Further, I have a masters degree with a focus on epistemology. Do you see me going around with my nose in the air thinking that "I'm better than all of these novices"? No. That's not what a professional does. When you gain skills and knowledge, you do not suddenly become a person in the clouds. That's egocentric, and irresponsible. You're still a human like everyone else, you just happen to know a few more things. That knowledge is to be spread, shared, and engaged with by others, not hoarded like some treasure of personal superiority.

You are not a dense person, so I leaning on the assumption you are using this as an excuse to avoid conversation when it becomes difficult for you. That is being an intellectual coward, and a hypocrite. You'll be a polemicist and yell at people all day, but when someone asks you to rise to clarify your point, you retreat. Didn't you say thought thrived on conflict? Don't you constantly lament that philosopher's are not willing to engage you on points you find important? Yet here you are retreating with a poor excuse when you have all of that in front of you.

I've lost all faith in sarcasm over the internet. — Judaka

Ha ha! Its hard to know what is serious, and what is not without tone. I've made the mistake of not taking people seriously before, and accidently offended them. Oh well, I would rather err on the side of me taking something too seriously instead of not enough. =P

Wrong, I am incompetent at using formal logic and therefore it is useless, I refuse to see it any other way. — Judaka

Hi Judaka, I stated the unwillingness to define one's definitions is the mark of a novice, or those who cannot arise to the occasion. There is nothing wrong with this at all. That doesn't really counter my point.

But I do want to clarify, it does not require formal logic. It is merely taking the time to clarify what people mean when they mention a word. A common problem among even intermediate thinkers is not clarifying their positions, leaving certain things implicit in the argument that they expect the other person to know. This is not necessarily malicious, but can lead to unintentional straw man arguments, which basically means talking past one another.

I'll give a little formal logic to show what I mean, but don't worry, its nothing crazy.

Lets say you use a term like religion that we'll call, "A".

Now when I mean religion, it means as a base that it is an organized structure in which one or more people look to an authority figure for guidance in how to live their life.

That entire definition of "authority figure yada yada..." can equal "B".

So when I speak about religion, you know that A = B.

But someone might have a different definition of religion. Lets say another poster believed that religion meant, "One or more people who have a cultural awe of some thing". We can call this, C. In their mind, A = C.

Now if these two people talk but do not clarify what each means by "A" (religion), then they will each be implicitly talking about something different. I would be talking implicitly about B, and the other person would be talking implicitly about C even though we are both using the same word, A.

If these implicit differences never come up, both people will likely be confused and angry at the other person's reasoning. If I'm talking about B, it may not apply to C. If they're talking about C, it might not apply to B.

While I stated that intermediates sometimes neglect this, people new to philosophy struggle with expressing the implicit definitions tied to their statement. Its like an ice berg. Often times general language will be used by a novice with the expectation that the listener can see under the water, and observe the rest of the ice berg. Either that or people will intentionally use obtuse or complex language in the hopes that they will sound smarter than they are, and attempt to avoid the need for clarity. More experienced debaters and philosophers, who are honestly trying to get to the truth of the matter, understand that the rest of the ice berg needs to be revealed, and try to tighten and clarify their language.

Again, there is nothing wrong with being a novice, and I am not claiming you need to study formal logic. But if you want to improve your arguments and discussions, a solid fundamental you can work on is to work on communicating the lower half of your iceberg in your argument. Once you've gained some experience here, also try to be generous with the person you are discussing with in too. Try to look for their lower half of the iceberg, and see if you can get them to voice the implicit arguments they may not realize they are doing as well.

Though one would also believe it was true. Knowledge is a kind of belief. — Coben

No, just because you have knowledge of something does not mean that you believe it to be true. I have knowledge of a meeting scheduled tomorrow at 5 pm. Is it true that the meeting will happen tomorrow at 5pm? It turns out someone cancels earlier in the day, and the meeting does not happen.

Further, you may get into discussions that seem to make perfect sense. You know what the premises and the conclusions are, but you just don't believe it to be true.

Knowledge is not a claim to truth. It is a subjective deductive process. Now if we are to have a belief that something is true, it is more likely to be truth if we use deduction, than induction. This is the way science functions. Science does not claim truth. It claims that certain theories have not been proven false yet.

And yes, knowledge is a kind of belief. As I've written here, it is a subjectively deduced belief. The paper is a quest to identify what knowledge and epistemology is. Currently within philosophy, there is no agreement. This is why it is probably best that you read the paper before continuing. Would you critique a plumber on how they are putting the sink together without first reading the instructions? If you are going to put forth the effort to have a discussion, which is a great positive btw, it would make the conversation go much smoother if you understood the terms we are discussing.

It's an incomplete description at best. I can believe X and not X, though — Coben

In a logical sense, you cannot believe both X and not X. When discussing logic, X = X 100%. If its X = 99.999999999% of X, that's not the same thing. So (Not) X = X is impossible. (Not) X = 99.999999999% of X is possible.

I can believe that I will graduate college, that since I am managing my courses well, have been complimented by my professors, but also have a belief that I am a failure and won't manage — Coben

So your following example is not a contradictory belief. You believe that you could either pass, or fail. You don't have a 100% belief that you will pass, and a 100% belief that you will fail. Believing either could occur is just fine.

Deduction being one process but not the only one, even within science say. — Coben

Now this is outside of the paper. What other form of knowledge do we have besides deduction? This may also help me bring the paper terms into some other context. After all, I don't want to write the whole thing again in our discussion. =P

Yes, I am not critiquing your theory in the sense that I am not critiquing your papers. — Coben

Again, you are critiquing how I am building a sink, telling me "the pipes don't go that way" when you don't have the instructions in front of you. Now if you read the instructions and inform me I am incorrect, that can work just fine.

It would be nice too. I have a slight burden here. I've never been able to find anyone who can prove my theory wrong. Trust me, this is not through lack of trying. If I could prove it wrong, then I would be done with it. I have tried to attack it every which way I can think of, but I just can't invalidate it. It would be of immense help if someone else would try, and perhaps point out something I'm missing.

Since you're already invested this far in the conversation, would you help me out? All told, its about as long as a philosophy journal article.

We are composed of matter, and matter tends to like to stay at a state of equilibrium. When someone is super happy, and you aren't, you can feel pressure to become super happy. That takes effort though. If everyone around you is not willing to put forward that energy, they'll likely let the happy person know.

Likewise, if everyone is super happy and one person isn't. The group will try to pressure that person to put in the effort to become super happy, like everyone else. Its peer group energy equilibrium! =P

This is a good topic. I was a high school math teacher for 5 years, so its something that I've had time to think on. There are a few things I tried over the years, and there are quite a few factors that can help learning.

1. Removing the road blocks

One of the biggest road blocks to learning is fear. And fear, is often the fear of failing, and having other people be aware of it. When you fail, you are in a vulnerable position. No one wants to be ragged on or attacked in a vulnerable position. The best students are the humble one's that are open to failure. The worst are those who are full of themselves and think they know it all. Dunning Kruger to the extreme, they are always the most difficult people to teach.

A second roadblock is unclear teaching material. If you cannot communicate the lesson in a clear and easy to follow manner, it is not the student's fault. It is YOUR fault (mine in this case).

2. Showing a person the value of learning what you are teaching

I can teach a person how to weave a basket underwater, but why would they want to learn? Demonstrating the value of the skill is essential as well. This is done by demonstrating a positive feeling to the particular student. Some love a challenge, some don't. Some like it when you work with them, some don't. I'm a big fan of giving different options of learning. I used to give my homework and the lesson plan page every morning. You were not required to listen to my lecture, only have the homework finished, and not to disturb others during the lecture. If you were found not completing the homework or doing poorly, only then were you required to listen.

3. As an educator, removing low expectations, but respecting the results of effort given.

If you give your students expectations, most will try to rise to it to some level. If you have expectations of your students that they are dumb or foolish, they will happily sink to that as well. That being said, if a person genuinely tries and comes up short of your expectation, respect that 100%. While sadly school require a timeframe of learning, that really shouldn't be the emphasis. Some things take longer for people to learn than others, and we should not punish those who are genuinely trying because of some arbitrary time frame.

What I have learned, having had many exchanges, is that the act of formally defining things is often the mark of a novice dialectician. — JerseyFlight

You are incorrect. Logical thinking requires solid definitions. It is often the novice who needs to be coached into formally defining their terms. Logic is deductive thinking, and requires the elimination of as much inductive influence as possible. Ill defined terms are inductive thinking, and lead to muddled arguments. They are usually arguments to defend emotional thinking.

That being said, it is not novice to not want to define your terms if you are merely asking for some inductive fun thinking. But if you've been telling yourself people who are trying to have a logical conversation with you that they are a novice for wanting to define their terms? That is either novice thinking, or a lame excuse when you are not clever or capable enough to answer their request JerseyFlight.