More contradictory than tautological. — Garrett Travers

I agree that it would be a contradiction to assert the voluntary work is compulsory work. What I meant by tautological was that voluntary work is automatically not compulsory.

Epistemology is a minefield of a subject. — Tom Storm

It’s definitely not my favorite.

"starvation-wages" and "compulsory work" are not a thing when one volunteers to sign a labor contract. — Garrett Travers

It would seem somewhat incoherent to me if someone asserted that work could be compulsory, meaning involuntary, if you voluntarily agreed to work. Because in order for something to be voluntary it has to be free from compulsion. It’s almost tautological.

For me that will do given that I have no control about it. — Tom Storm

Fair enough.

okay I was just checking.

Compulsory labor requires that others force you to work. — Garrett Travers

Does this include mind control?

Or you could exploit its nature and introduce a twist. That would be something. — L'éléphant

Exploit the nature of what? What kind of twist do you have in mind?

bro I’m literally going blind trying to read your arguments. I apologize if I’m fucking it up but that is not my intention. I spend way too much time looking at screens.

Life feels like free choice, That'll do me. — Tom Storm

Idk. If you’re only interested in what “feels” true I don’t know why you decided to discuss the subject of what is actually true. I made it explicit that I was interested in how we know if we know something. I was not interested in feelings. I was interested in information and knowledge.

Somehow, I've gotten tired of discussing JTB (justified true belief). — L'éléphant

Well I suppose you can always discuss something else with someone else.

To assess familiarity, comfortability with (discussing, reading, hearing) the subject is the most telling sign — InvoluntaryDecorum

What do you mean?

I will.

You often ask questions and go on tangents when the answer has been given. Sorry bud. Done. — Tom Storm

Good riddance.

I explained my view of this re-read it. I won't explain it again. — Tom Storm

I read your view of this, explain it again. I won’t re-read it.

The fact that I can drive a car means I have knowledge of true and false when it comes to negotiating roads and traffic. If not, I would run into a bus or some other inconvenience. — Tom Storm

Based on our pragmatic common sense understanding of how driving works in a pragmatic world, a crash is always a possibility. So what? — Tom Storm

Correct me if I’m wrong but according to your own understanding of pragmatic truth a car accident would render your beliefs pragmatically false. That’s the only reason I said anything.

I don't generally measure anything in life, I go by common sense and inference. — Tom Storm

To each his own I suppose.

how do you measure whether or not it “works”? You gave me an example of driving but let’s say that at some point in the future you got into a tragic traffic accident. Would you still put your beliefs into the category of “pragmatically true”? At what point would something become pragmatically false? I suspect your answer would be if it worked or not but I’d still want to know how you measure that.

We couldn't interact with others, hold down a job, study or walk down the street safely if we didn't know pragmatically what is true or false. — Tom Storm

I don’t know a lot about pragmatism so I won’t be able to truly understand your argument until I take the time to investigate the subject.

to each his own I suppose.

If one were to take a radical view that everything is an illusion, all I can say to that is I have no choice but to believe it is real? What other plausible option do we have? — Tom Storm

I don’t think that everything is an illusion. But if you don’t have a choice when it comes to what you believe then it doesn’t seem like you have any freedom.

With this in mind, I assert that people who claim to have knowledge are always deceiving themselves or us, or both, and that they aren't very adventurous in their thought (and that that's a bad thing). Is this assertion informed by knowledge? Certainly! — SatmBopd

How am I supposed to take these sentences seriously? You say that have knowledge that informs your assertion but then you claim that anyone who claims to have knowledge is deceiving themselves or us, or both.

I would not be surprised if the whole apparatus of truth and knowledge was ultimately ONLY a rhetorical device. That's how everyone seems to use it anyway. — SatmBopd

I try to avoid using truth and knowledge as rhetorical devices.

What must be true if xyz argument is sound and valid. — L'éléphant

You’re not really referring to a specific argument. Also I’m not a logician. But from what I know about soundness in arguments it means that the premises are true and the argument is valid. My understanding of validity is that the conclusion can’t possibly be false if the premises are true. I’m not sure if I answered your question.

that’s a good question.

define what ought to be true. — L'éléphant

I don’t know what you mean by “ought”.

I’m not a platonist so idk. I don’t know how you could possibly sift through good and bad information if you don’t know what is true or false.

I don’t even know how to go about investigating those kinds of questions. I apologize if I’m coming across as some sort of pompous ass. I am genuinely curious about your conclusions.

but there has to be a reason why you believe that.

I don’t think it’s my job to edify anybody.

I don’t see any difference between diamonds and pebbles but maybe you’re right about there being no perfect answer to my question.

I don’t appreciate your belligerence but I will answer you. I don’t believe that knowledge is impossible because I believe that I have some.

That being because, such standards come from abstractions, which come from data accrued. — Garrett Travers

Why do you believe this?

The brain accrues sensory data of the world in manner of complexity so sophisticated that we can't comprehend it. — Garrett Travers

Sensory data is so vague it could include the so called “sixth sense”. What is a sense? What is nonsense? I’m just taking the piss by the way.

Circular only applies to our concepts, not our actual physical methods as living beings with an ever working brain that is collecting data ad infinitum. — Garrett Travers

Isn’t empiricism a concept?

Has any other system produced actionable knowledge? — Garrett Travers

Well, if you really think about it, there's not anything that you ever do for your entire life that doesn't fall into the realm of action. — Garrett Travers

That would make all knowledge “actionable” regardless of what “system” produced it.

The moment you introduce a scenarion like this, you are taking the person out of the empirical realm, and then asking them how they knew something when hallucinating. — Garrett Travers

I honestly don’t understand why this is problematic.

You're assuming fact is something that's readily available to the average person and comprehendible and not just popular beliefs. — MAYAEL

Maybe you’re right.

it's actually just a symbolic term we've ascribed to the objective phenomenon of accruing data — Garrett Travers

I’m not a nerd so don’t really know what data is. It sounds like a synonym for information and I’ve already outlined my thoughts on that in my previous response.

Information: facts provided or learned about something or someone. — Garrett Travers

But how do you discern fact from fiction? If it’s with more “information” then I’m sorry but I just can’t see how that isn’t circular.

I honestly don’t know how it’s possible.