Sound familiar? It's the same issue as the certainty of hinge propositions. Knowing how presupposes the stuff of our everyday world. Knowing how to use language is no different.
Now you seem to think there is a problem here for JTB. Please understand that from my reading, OC shows that it is illegitimate to say that we know hinge propositions. That's because they do not admit to justification, and hence are not subject to the JTB definition, and hence not examples of knowledge. No potential to be wrong, no knowledge.
So not only is certainty central to knowing how, it is central to knowing that. — Banno
Are you certain of that? — Banno
The mistake you are making consists in thinking that hinge propositions are beliefs. As I explain above they are not; they are know-how. "Proposition" is a bad choice of term here. — Janus
Same thing. Haven't you been reading the discussion? Beliefs are know-how. — Metaphysician Undercover
Knowing that is reducible to knowing how, but believing is not. — Janus
Believing that, with sufficient practice, you will be able to acquire the know-how necessary to ride a bike, or speak a language, is not itself know-how; although of course it presupposes other kinds of know-how that are necessary in order to be able to frame the belief. — Janus
So do you think that a person can believe without knowing how to believe? — Metaphysician Undercover
It doesn't follow from the fact that know-how is required to frame beliefs that particular beliefs are reducible to know-how. If you think it does then produce an argument. — Janus
I can say that knowing that, for example knowing that Paris is the capital of France, is reducible to knowing how to speak English, and knowing how to interpret maps, or travel to France or to do whatever I did to acquire the knowledge and represent it to myself. Believing has an extra element, which is the uncertainty inherent in the fallibility of a belief. — Janus
How can you reduce that uncertainty to know-how when it is on the contrary a not-knowing-how to achieve the certainty of knowledge? — Janus
Soon the rest of you will get to the point of recognizing that no belief, no matter how convicted one is of it, nor the description of one's belief, is beyond doubt. Then you'll have to revisit hinge-propositions and certainty all over again. — Metaphysician Undercover
What is the criterion for belief such that when it is met we have a case of belief? — creativesoul
And yet ALL doubt is belief based. Therefore, until one holds some belief doubting is itself humanly impossible. Until one has a baseline of belief to doubt, doubting cannot happen. The baseline is comprised of belief that hasn't been doubted for it cannot be... yet. — creativesoul
One cannot be thinking without drawing correlations... nor believing... nor doubting... nor imagining...
One can be considering while suspending one's judgment. In this case, it is described as thinking. I've no issue with that kind of talk. There is no thought without belief.
All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content, no matter how it is later qualified(imaginary, real, or otherwise)... — creativesoul
I'm not interested in quibbling over the differences between uses of "thought" and "belief". There are often times that those words mean different things. There are no cases of either that do not consist entirely of correlations. Ultimately, I draw and maintain a distinction between thinking(as just considering) and believing(as already considered and decided).
Memory is re-drawing and/or revisiting past correlations... and is notably error prone. — creativesoul
However, learning the names of things requires believing that something is there... One cannot doubt that that is(called) "a tree", while learning how to use the words... There is no just considering whether or not that is a tree during language acquisition. Rather, one first draws a correlation between the tree and the vocalization(the word)... and it's meaningful as a result. — creativesoul
If you doubt that that is a tree, then you simply do not know how to use the words... — creativesoul
So, the child has lost it's toy. S/he looks here and there. S/he obviously looks where s/he believes it will be found and no place where s/he does not believe it will be. — creativesoul
So the idea that we cannot doubt the "baseline" is just nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover
You'll need to clarify what you mean by "frame beliefs". I don't apprehend a difference between a belief and the frame of a belief. What could frame a belief, but another belief. And if this is the case, the framed belief, being supported by the frame, is just as fallible as the frame. — Metaphysician Undercover
The uncertainty, which you say is an extra element of belief, not found in knowing-how, is actually very evident in knowing-how as well. No matter how many times we've done the same thing over and over again, there is still the possibility we might fail in the next time. That is why those of us who work with machinery must be very careful every day, and never let down our guard, no matter how well we know how to do what we do, lest we be injured. — Metaphysician Undercover
As I argued earlier, the certainty of knowledge is only produced by separating knowing-that from knowing-how, and allowing that knowing-that obtains levels of certainty not obtained by knowing-how. If you reduce all knowledge to knowing-how, then all knowledge suffers from the fallibility of knowing-how. — Metaphysician Undercover
The same beliefs can be framed in different languages. Languages cannot be fallible or infallible they are just tools, just know-how. We cannot frame a belief without a language, but it doesn't follow from this that we cannot believe without a language. — Janus
Your 'operating machinery' example is not relevant; the kinds of failures you are referring to are failures of attention, not failures of know-how. — Janus
There is no fallibility in knowing-how, but only in believing that you know-how; if you know-how, then you know-how, end of story. — Janus
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.