I don’t believe that she’s married to someone else, I believe that she’s married to a postman. — Michael
I believe that you will punch me because I believe that you know that I slept with your wife. — Michael
My belief that you will punch me... — Michael
That's an oversimplification of what you believe. An accounting malpractice. It is the malpractice that is the problem here.
You do not believe just that she's married to a postman. Rather, you believe - in strict accordance to the argument you've offered - that the postman she is married to is you. Moreover, you believe that the reason she's married to a postman is because she is married to you and you are a postman. — creativesoul
I believe that you will punch me because I believe that you know that I slept with your wife.
— Michael
The above is a good account. The below is inadequate.
My belief that you will punch me...
— Michael — creativesoul
Beliefs aren't just some single monolithic thing... — Michael
If I believe that my friend is moving to London because I believe that she has found a job at law firm there then my belief that my friend is moving to London is true even if it turns out that her new job is at a marketing firm. — Michael
If you believe that your friend is moving to London because she has a job at a law firm, then the proposition "my friend is moving to London" does not take proper account of your belief. — creativesoul
If you believe that your friend is moving to London because she has a job at a law firm, then the proposition "my friend is moving to London" does not take proper account of your belief.
— creativesoul
Yes it does. — Michael
I might have lots of beliefs related to the issue. She’s moving to London because she has a new job at a law firm after passing an interview she went to on Thursday, and her motive from doing so is to earn more money and distance herself from an abusive ex-boyfriend.
It’s just wrong to say that this is a single belief — Michael
"My friend is moving to London because she got a new job at a law firm." is not equivalent to "My friend is moving to London." — creativesoul
"My friend is moving to London because she got a new job at a law firm." is not equivalent to "My friend is moving to London."
— creativesoul
I didn't say they mean the same thing. — Michael
I'm saying that if you believe that X because Y then you (also) believe X (and believe Y). — Michael
Smith does not believe that his wife is married to someone else.
We're looking at Smith's belief.
Smith believes that he is the only one married to his wife. — creativesoul
So you opted to ignore the bulk of my post. Comforting and facile; I suppose, for you.You're attempting to dismiss, discard, and/or discount truth. That will not go unchallenged.
— creativesoul
Nope, I am not.
— Coben
This coming from one who said "Truth is for the Pope"...
Yes, you are. — creativesoul
So you opted to ignore the bulk of my post. — Coben
I am looking at the specific model or definition of knowledge, JTB, and given the way it is used being critical of using the two adjectives justified and true. It is in that specfiic context, the way justification is used in contexts with JTB, that I think using true is problematic. There are other contexts where I have no problem with true and truth. — Coben
There's nothing wrong with discussing jtb. I am discussing jtb. My problem with jtb I explainedWhat's wrong with discussing justified true belief? — creativesoul
True is a perfectly good adjective, but in jtb it is redundant. I use true and truth in other contexts... — Coben
Such as? — creativesoul
Note the part I bolded above.1.1 The Truth Condition
Most epistemologists have found it overwhelmingly plausible that what is false cannot be known. For example, Hillary Clinton did not win the 2016 US Presidential election. Consequently, nobody knows that Hillary Clinton won the election. One can only know things that are true.
Sometimes when people are very confident of something that turns out to be wrong, we use the word “knows” to describe their situation. Many people expected Clinton to win the election. Speaking loosely, one might even say that many people “knew” that Clinton would win the election—until she lost. Hazlett (2010) argues on the basis of data like this that “knows” is not a factive verb.[2] Hazlett’s diagnosis is deeply controversial; most epistemologists will treat sentences like “I knew that Clinton was going to win” as a kind of exaggeration—as not literally true.
Something’s truth does not require that anyone can know or prove that it is true. Not all truths are established truths. If you flip a coin and never check how it landed, it may be true that it landed heads, even if nobody has any way to tell. Truth is a metaphysical, as opposed to epistemological, notion: truth is a matter of how things are, not how they can be shown to be. So when we say that only true things can be known, we’re not (yet) saying anything about how anyone can access the truth. As we’ll see, the other conditions have important roles to play here. Knowledge is a kind of relationship with the truth—to know something is to have a certain kind of access to a fact.[3] — Stanford Philosophy Encyc
There should not be two adjectives. If it was false, then it would not be well justified. — Coben
We do not have some separate other access to truth.... — Coben
True is a perfectly good adjective, but in jtb it is redundant. — Coben
Paradigm shift happens — creativesoul
One need not argue for a belief in order for it to be true. — creativesoul
You're being unusually conducive here. Something wrong? — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.