That's the longest reply I've seen you write in quite some time. ;)
— creativesoul
Procrastination is a powerful motivator. — Banno
If the criterion for JTB includes that the believer offer an account...
— creativesoul
"If...", as the Spartans replied to the Macedonians.
Yes, I agree that in such circumstances Jack knows very little. But I don't see that this is problematic; all that is happening is that one sense of know differs from another. — Banno
The second is that Theaetetus ends inconclusively. — Banno
Such revolutions might be interesting and grab our attention, but they do so because they are extraordinary. Should you base your understanding of knowledge on the extremes rather than the mundane? — Banno
The hinge proposition was not that time is absolute, but that the laws of physics must be the same for all observers. — Banno
And the Copernican revolution came from the hinge proposition that the simples explanation of the orbits of the planets was to be preferred. — Banno
Are you saying that the hands you perceive every day doing all the kinds of things that hands do; preparing food, washing the dishes, swinging a hammer, typing on the key board, and so on, might not be hands at all but actually might be something else? Are you saying that they might be, for example, oranges, dogs, cars, feet, tennis racquets, pumpkins, snakes, rivers, boiled eggs, pin cushions...? — Janus
Unless you've changed your position, I suspect that your view regarding what it takes for a belief to be justified includes justification in the sense of offering one's grounds for said belief to another. — creativesoul
Moreover, on my view, a justified belief does not necessarily require justification(providing one's grounds to another). — creativesoul
Here is the question then. — Metaphysician Undercover
Have you read Einstein's special theory of relativity? — Metaphysician Undercover
Proceeding with the attitude that our eyes see the sun rise up in the east and go down in the west, and therefore this must be what is the case, because we ought not doubt what our senses show us, is not conducive to progress. — Metaphysician Undercover
This point, which Wittgenstein suggests, "whether it makes sense to doubt the statement", is just an arbitrary line, a division which Wittgenstein seeks to impose. In reality, "whether it makes sense to doubt", is just a decision which we all must make, and a decision which is specifically formulated for each particular instance of usage. There is no general principle, of this or that statement ought not be doubted, as Wittgenstein might appear to imply. In reality any statement might be reasonably doubted under the right circumstances. So your claim that there are foundational statements which are outside the epistemological language-games cannot be supported. Otherwise we would have to admit that there are statements which are "necessarily correct". But the correctness of statements is contingent on how the statements relate to the world, and this contingency denies the possibility of "necessarily correct" statements. If you go that route, toward necessarily correct statements you validate Platonic Realism.
— Metaphysician Undercover
(My italics)
I decided to quote this in full, since it shows not only the inoperability of Meta's position, but also the misunderstanding of Wittgenstein that underpins his criticism of Sam.
That the bishop moves only diagonally is, in the context, arbitrary. And it makes no sense to doubt it in that context - the playing of chess.
Nor is the movement of the bishop a decision that we all make. I never made that decision. But I did learn the rule. That rule is the general principle that underpins the absurdity of doubting that the bishop only moves diagonally!
And... saying that the bishop moves only diagonally is not playing chess. Similarly, saying "here is a hand" is not doing epistemology. It is a foundational statement that is outside of epistemology. It's not a necessary statement - necessary being a term that Meta uses in his own curious way - it is a foundational statement, in the same way that "the bishop moves only diagonally" is not necessary, but foundational. — Banno
But if there can be no coherent skepticism about our hands existence, then to say that we know that they exist is incoherent as well. If Moore gives perceptual evidence for the existence of hands, then he accepts skepticism as coherent. — Πετροκότσυφας
I agree that animals certainly hold beliefs. While Jack cannot believe that "the bowl is empty", he most certainly can look at the bowl and see that there is no food in it and hence believe that the bowl is empty. If that is not well-grounded and true belief(assuming it's empty) then nothing can be. Moreover, on my view, a justified belief does not necessarily require justification(providing one's grounds to another). So, with that in mind, Jack has formed and holds justified true belief. Jack knows that his bowl is empty, despite his not being able to justify his belief. That is a metacognitive endeavor. It requires thinking about one's own thought and belief. Metacognition requires language. Thus, Jack cannot justify his own belief to us, nor can he even be aware that he has such belief. — creativesoul
feel quite disrespected by such a trivial response. — Banno
Certain propositions have at their core something basic, foundational, or bedrock, which makes doubting them nonsensical. — Sam26
Correct usage can be seen in particular contexts, but it's not the context itself driving correct usage. If this were true (and I'm not necessarily suggesting that you think this), then any word would have an arbitrary meaning based on whatever context I choose to use it in. — Sam26
So if I use the word car to refer to the moon, then it would be correct, because meaning is driven by a context. However, this is not the case, it's the implicit rules of usage within a wide range of cultural driven language-games, that provides the logic behind correct usage. — Sam26
So is there a general principle that dictates whether some statement is doubtable? — Sam26
There are statements that are necessarily correct. For example, triangles have three sides, or bachelors are unmarried. There are many necessarily correct statements. And I would disagree that this would validate Platonic Realism. — Sam26
Must a belief be argued for in order for it to be well-grounded? Isn't a well-grounded belief exactly what justification shows? — creativesoul
I don't know about all of you, but it takes me a lot of time to respond to your remarks. I've been sitting at this computer for about 4 hrs. This is why I can't always respond to everything. It just takes too damn long. — Sam26
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.