Are you familiar with the idea of a family resemblance? How much success would you have if you set out to define your family by listing their attributes? Blonde hair and a hooked nose, maybe, except for cousin Philippa, with their less aquiline features and mousy hair. Or all descended from Grandpa Jerome, except the adopted twins. Supose that for whatever feature you choose, there are exceptions, or you include folk that you would not want included.

The idea is that we can talk about our family, despite not being able to give a strict and explicit definition that includes all and only those members we want; and this can be generalised to claim that for some terms there is no explicit definition that sets out all and only those things that are to be included. The other example is "game" - without resorting to mere stipulation, can we provide a rule that includes all and only those things that we have described as a "game"? Not all games involve winning, nor competition, nor amusement. And yet despite this we make good use of the word.

Point being that we do not need to be able to present a definition as a prerequisite for using the word.

We use the word "knowledge" quite adequately, and widely, and yet when we try to tie it down we end up in these interminable philosophical meanderings.

So, do we need to provide a definition of knowledge at all? Perhaps it would be better to just map out the different ways we use the word, as you have begun to do.

One thing we can do is to mark the difference between knowing an believing. We can believe something that is not true. We can't know something that is not true. If you thought you knew something, but it turns out you were mistaken, then you didn't know it at all.

.........
We don't always find it easy to have a clear definition yes. We teach kids what a tree and a car is by showing them pictures of different trees and cars. And then of toy cars and so on.
So we intuitively understand the pattern but it's much more difficult to explain it. However suppose someone called Jack says to his daughter: ''I'll give you a present next year and it will be a car''. Then since he means a car in GTA 6, he'd better mention to his daughter that he means a car in GTA 6. Otherwise she might assume from context that he meant an actual car. Similarly we use the word 'knowledge' in similar ways. Hence sometimes it's better to move beyond the word.

(Although the family description example begs to be vague. I would say a family is a descendant (or we can say descendant until x generations). Trying to define family by their attributes is pointless as mutations probably happen and culture effects individuals and so on. And for game. One could choose to only include games where one can win and have a different name for the others such as recreational activity that isn't a game. but I get your point and I did fairly address it above)

And I agree. We can map out different ways the word can be reasonably used. So we all are more aware that we are arguing on definitions to attach to a word rather than over what the actual thing is.

Although one pattern arises across them all. ''Knowledge is something assumed to be true by an individual or by a group''. And the something for some is JTB or it can be true information. Or something other. So it's the most likely descriptive candidate.

There is a philosopher who claims that Mary gains a new ability, not new knowledge. I bet ChatGPT knows...

"The philosopher you're thinking of is David Lewis.

In response to Frank Jackson’s knowledge argument (the "Mary's Room" thought experiment), Lewis argued that what Mary gains when she sees color for the first time isn’t new propositional knowledge (knowledge-that), but rather knowledge-how—specifically, the ability to recognize, imagine, and remember colors. This position is called the ability hypothesis.

Lewis laid out this view in his 1988 paper "What Experience Teaches". According to him, Mary doesn't learn a new fact when she leaves the room; she acquires new abilities, like the ability to recognize red by sight. This way, he tries to preserve physicalism by denying that Mary learns any non-physical fact upon seeing color."

- Interesting. :up:

Earlier you said something is made true by direct experience.
— Jack2848
Not that much earlier, and not quite as you put it. The experiencer of a sensation knows that sensation to be true, without making any statement. It's not made true and it's not information; it's true because it's inside of the experiencer. It's not true for anyone else. It can be communicated to others and they may believe it, but they cannot know it.

The experience of being on the forum the first time can be put into information via a thought. It's equivalent enough. I agree that I have direct experience but it might be my memory is incorrect so it's not necessarily the case that me having the experience

a. The experience makes it true in my experience unless I don't have that critical thought so I can't necessarily know. As I said earlier (if that final statement is true depends on how you'd define "know")
B. It may be so that it isn't true in the perception of everyone else , but as I said earlier that doesn't make it actually true or not true

Whether or not you believe that a cat is on the mat. It is or isn't there.. or in other words it is true regardless of your or anyone's perception. Because it refers to a part of the universe that is a way that is different from the rest at some level of that universe.

Hence "the cat is on the mat is true" not if you believe or not believe it but if the cat is on the mat.

P if p

Truth-maker? No, I never referred to any such thing. What I said was that a statement may be true and we can believe it, which makes it our belief. But information doesn't become knowledge until it's been verified and incorporated with our data base.

Well if you say :

it's true because it's inside of the experiencer. It's not true for anyone else

It's true BECAUSE it is in the experiencer and not true for anyone else.
Then hopefully you mean that it is true regardless of anyone. And it is perceived of true or not true depending on a subject

I'm all too keenly aware of that. If it gets much more lax, we might as well give up on verbal communication, since any word can mean whatever anyone chooses

How do we know if a word necessarily means what you say it means? How do we know this? Do we look at instances of knowledge? Because if so turns out as I said. That those instances are more "akin to information assumed to be true" or "beliefs assumed to justified and assumed to be true"

Definitely not justified true belief.
At least not if we are to take a purely descriptive account.

Truth-maker? No, I never referred to any such thing. What I said was that a statement may be true and we can believe it, which makes it our belief. But information doesn't become knowledge until it's been verified and incorporated with our data base.

Sez you, who made it true by Direct experience

You did. I've tried as best I can to clearly layout what I mean when I use words like knowledge. (Even if implied this is problematic.
And I have stayed clear from mixing truth perception and actual truth).

That’s why belief and justification were part of the traditional definition: not because they’re philosophically tidy, but because they reflected what it means to know in actual life. We’re not passive containers of truths—we’re engaged agents who must assess, trust, challenge, and risk loss in the pursuit of knowledge.

That’s why Gettier cases are troubling. They show that something can check the boxes—justified, true, believed—and still feel wrong. The problem isn’t just with the definition; it’s with how knowledge is entangled with our perspective, our stakes, and our vulnerability to error.

Gettier cases show not that we can have "justified true belief" and still don't have knowledge.
If so define me the word you assume we don't have when we have a gettier case.

Ofcourse what we really intuitively grasp is that the gettier cases show us that having knowledge (having justified true belief) doesn't mean that you know you have knowledge (doesn't mean you know you have justified true belief.

Whereas if you said knowledge is true information.
Then in a gettier case. You'd have someone have true information. And of they then say that they know they have true Information. We could say you don't know even if you have a strongly justified belief.

It is not that the gettier cases show us that

A.
we can't have knowledge (justified true belief)
nor that

B. we can't have knowledge (true information) and know (have good justifications for it) we have knowledge (true information).

Gettier cases show us that even with extremely good justifications and true believe or true Information. Our claim that we -know- could still be false. If -know- means to have good justifications and true believe/information. It humbles our ability to know regardless of how you define knowledge as true information and add the requirement for justification to the act of knowing or of you add that requirement to both knowing and knowledge as with JTB.

This obvious since we don't have direct awareness which would be required for ultimate rather than practical knowing.

However I do agree with you that it wouldn't be practical to change the definition. And it seems more accurate to include justification requirement in the act of knowing AND knowledge assumptions. Even if one could easily separate the act of knowing from a piece of true information.

The experience of being on the forum the first time can be put into information via a thought. It's equivalent enough. I agree that I have direct experience but it might be my memory is incorrect so it's not necessarily the case that me having the experience — Jack2848

Why should I care how true it is for you? You made the statement and I had no reason to disbelieve it. That's where its importance begins and ends.

Hence that [the cat] is on the mat is true not if you believe or not believe it but if the cat is on the mat. — Jack2848

I don't see a cat or a mat. I have only your word. I have no reason to doubt your statement and, since its truth or unrtuth doesn't matter to me, I am not motivated to investigate further. Whether it's true or false, I don't know. However true the information may be, it is not part of my knowledge.

It's true BECAUSE it is in the experiencer and not true for anyone else.
Then hopefully you mean that it is true regardless of anyone. And it is perceived of true or not true depending on a subject — Jack2848

Yes, it's true for the experiencer. It may be absolutely true in the universe. I just can't know whether it is.
There is an infinite number of facts in the universe outside our direct experience that are absolutely true regardless of our apprehension of them. These facts include the experience of other sentient beings. When we receive information about one of these external facts - cats, stomach aches, the speed of trains or supernovae - we can interpret it, we can accept or reject it, we can use it to base further investigation on, we can compare untested information what we already believe, we can commit it to memory - but we cannot know it until all that has been done and the new information integrated with our body of knowledge. Even then, it is provisional; any 'fact' we know today may have to be discarded or revised later, in the light of fresh evidence.

How do we know if a word necessarily means what you say it means? — Jack2848

We don't. Word meaning are by convention and consensus. If we wish to communicate, we must have a strong enough belief in our current understanding of words to use them.

The experience of being on the forum the first time can be put into information via a thought. It's equivalent enough. I agree that I have direct experience but it might be my memory is incorrect so it's not necessarily the case that me having the experience
— Jack2848
Why should I care how true it is for you? You made the statement and I had no reason to disbelieve it. That's where its importance begins and ends.

Hence the cat is on the mat is true not if you believe or not believe it but if the cat is on the mat.
— Jack2848
I don't see a cat or a mat. I have only your word. I have no reason to doubt your statement and, since its truth or unrtuth doesn't matter to me, I am not motivated to investigate further. Whether it's true or false, I don't know.

The experience of being on the forum the first time can be put into information via a thought. It's equivalent enough. I agree that I have direct experience but it might be my memory is incorrect so it's not necessarily the case that me having the experience
— Jack2848
Why should I care how true it is for you? You made the statement and I had no reason to disbelieve it. That's where its importance begins and ends.

I'm not arguing for the importance of whether I was on this forum before or whether you should care. That would be a strawman of my intent.I was arguing your idea that my proposition regarding me being new was "made true by direct experience"

To which I said that it isn't.

Whatever is the case is the case. Regardless of direct experience or justifications. That is what I was arguing for. And that was I brought up the example of the cat on the mat. Not to assume that you can know whether I am new or not.

The experience of being on the forum the first time can be put into information via a thought.

Whether it's true or not, it's still your internal knowledge, unless and until you are convinced otherwise. You cannot communicate it by thought: you have to say it, write it, type it or send it as some kind of code. Correct or not, true or not, but it doesn't become anyone else's knowledge without belief, verification and processing by another intelligence.

I was arguing your idea that my proposition regarding me being new was "made true by direct experience" — Jack2848

If it is true, it was made true by taking place in your consciousness. It still your knowledge, and no one else's, so stop dancing around that mulberry bush.

We don't always find it easy to have a clear definition yes. — Jack2848

That's not the argument. The argument is that there is no "clear definition".

With the exception of merely stipulated technical terms, the way we use words precedes any definition. The word is used before it is defined. It follows that definitions are post hoc, with all the issues that involves.

Certainly this is true of "know", with it's etymology going back at least to the PIE root *gno- "to know."

Justified true belief was never going to be the whole of how we use "knowledge".

And even worse for knowledge as true information.

I was arguing your idea that my proposition regarding me being new was "made true by direct experience"
— Jack2848
If it is true, it was made true by taking place in your consciousness. It still your knowledge, and no one else's, so stop dancing around that mulberry bush.

So you meant it like this then?

Me:
"I rode a bicycle"

You:
Sez you who made it true by direct experience. For all I know. You didn't ride a bycicle. (Added: I can have no knowledge of it even if it is true)

So you meant that if I rode a bycicle the riding (experience) made it true but it doesn't mean you can know.

If that is what you meant form the start, honestly. Then I misunderstood you. (To be frank there are those that would conflate truth perception with separate truth value) I thought that was you

I agree. We see something. We coin a new word. People ask us to define it and it will fall short. Over time we use the word in different ways. And we give different definitions. And the different definitions help us bridge some of the imaginary boundaries we create in our sense of reality.

So yes I agree it's useful to see different ways words are used then to argue about a definition being the absolute king. One definition won't describe everything the word game or knowledge is used to describe.

Cool.

What we can do is map out the interrelations between our words, though. So we differentiate knowing and believing. We can say "I believed it was raining but I was wrong" but not "I knew it was raining but I was wrong". We can believe things and be wrong, but if we know something we are not wrong.

But what can we say about the difference between these and justice? Or information?

But what can we say about the difference between these and justice? Or information?

Justice initially arose as a feeling reflecting a sense of retribution. But later we started to feel that maybe retribution isn't so fair. Definitely if our will is not free or could be not free.

So some will say justice is an eye for an eye or an eye for a lifelong prison sentence or a humane death penalty or something like that.

And some will say justice is whatever you say it is (but does seems to forget the initial foundation completely)

And some might say justice is trying to find a middle path between humane retribution, avoiding future immoralities, teaching better beliefs and skills to change harmful beliefs (if said immoral behavior comes from habits that are engrained and we aren't so free than that is more just than mere retribution).

So I think there's an essence that we should respect. Not sure what it is. I sense I am on the right track going from the foundation to the more advanced notion of justice. "Solving problems related to morality in order to get a better society while doing so fairly and taking into account a lot of data and understanding"

Maybe that's the essence.
So how is justice different from knowing?

Knowing is an experience of conceptually being in line with reality in a minimalist way (p if p). And having good reasons for claiming you are and being certain you are beyond any serious doubt.

Whereas justice starts as an experience. But is more of an ideal to strive for.

(Sidenote. May I ask. Are you a professional philosopher or student or professor or autodidact?)

You said knowledge is true information. I said it is not: unless and until it's been tested, reviewed, classified, stored and incorporated into a data base, information may be believed and understood, but not known.
I distinguished kinds of knowledge as 1. what I can know from direct experience and 2. what I can know from learning and remembering. The second kind is always incomplete provisional, because new information can always be added and old information may be re-evaluated in light of new.
The first kind may also be questioned for validity, but can't be altered. Whether I did something or just imagined that I was doing it, the experience remains the same.

Who says you can know a true belief just because it is deemed justified? But not know true information if one has good justifications for believing the true information is true?

Anyway. That rethorical question makes it clear that we are just arguing on how to use words. And what to paste to those words. Sure it's helpful to have some stability. And I am for practical reasons leaning back towards JTB. However one can't prove that the way you use the word is the only correct one.

If we point to a book with knowledge.

We won't find justified true beliefs. We will find justified beliefs assumed to be true
Nor would you find in the book of knowledge true information for which they had justifications.
But rather information assumed to be true for which it was assumed they had good justifications.

Anyway this won't be productive beyond this. I recognize the common usage.ninhave already shifted back the common one. However I recognize its constructed nature. And the non objective nature of the current description. Which this nuanced view I have all I need and more.

Who says you can know a true belief just because it is deemed justified? But not know true information if one has good justifications for believing the true information is true? — Jack2848

What?
I wasn't concerned with the difference between belief and true belief or justification and justification, or even truth; I was concerned with the distinction between belief and knowledge. I see no reason to belabour the issue any more than it already is.

That rethorical question makes it clear that we are just arguing on how to use words. — Jack2848

Since words are our only means of communication, I consider their use significant.

If we point to a book with knowledge. — Jack2848

We can't; there is no such book. You can point to a book full of information on some subject, if you like, or an encyclopedia that contains information on many subjects. I believe that the contributors to such a book had knowledge of their subjects. But they didn't pour the contents of their minds into the book; they wrote words that convey information.

We won't find justified true beliefs. We will find justified beliefs assumed to be true — Jack2848

That's what belief is, yes.

Anyway this won't be productive beyond this. — Jack2848

Right.

We can't; there is no such book. You can point to a book full of information on some subject, if you like, or an encyclopedia that contains information on many subjects. I believe that the contributors to such a book had knowledge of their subjects. But they didn't pour the contents of their minds into the book; they wrote words that convey information.

In order to answer the question what is knowledge. We could point to "books of knowledge" and check what most aligns with how the word knowledge was used. To get closer to a more essential definition.

You can go such a book. You claim the sentence "I, John, think therefore I, John experience thinking" if written down is no longer knowledge, it seems. (No longer JTB). But just becomes information. And so a book filled with such sentences you say isn't a book of knowledge to begin with.

If that was so then the information "I, John, think therefore, I, John experience thinking" wouldn't also be a justified true belief. And yet it is. Now such a book would also contain. Justified false beliefs and non justified true beliefs.

And yet if the beliefs would be assumed to be true. Then that is the kind of book we would have to look at in order to see what essentially knowledge is. But because "belief assumed to be true and assumed to be justified" would cause trouble as a definition. We choose JTB.

"I, John, think therefore I, John experience thinking" if written down is no longer knowledge, — Jack2848

It's your knowledge, nobody else's. To a reader, it's words that may be true, but they can't test, so they either believe it or not; they don't know it.

And yet if the beliefs would be assumed to be true. — Jack2848

Then they would be beliefs, whether objectively true or not; information not assumed to be true is not a belief.

We choose JTB — Jack2848

A great many choose to believe the Book of Genesis. They know that God created the wold in 6 days, because it's in their big book of all necessary knowledge and doesn't need justification. I know that people do believe those words; I know what they mean, but I don't believe them.

I don't want to be rude or mean, but this was the final time I go around I go around this circle: there is no finish line.