I do not agree with Sam regarding what counts as justified belief. It does not require being argued for(the act of justification) on my view.
— creativesoul
It has to arguable, but doesn't have to have been argued? — Cheshire
According to you, they are still knowledge. — creativesoul
According to you, they are still knowledge.
— creativesoul
Did you mean to say this the way you said it? — Cheshire
Yup. — creativesoul
...we cannot tell the difference between what we actually know and what we think we know until it's proven wrong. — Cheshire
Oh, I would say it was knowledge and had since been falsified. It doesn't make sense to have falsified knowledge... — Cheshire
... Knowledge intends to be true. — Cheshire
You have never known something and then later found out it was incorrect? — Cheshire
I do not agree with Sam regarding what counts as justified belief. It does not require being argued for(the act of justification) on my view. — creativesoul
...his idea that justification can happen to prelinguistic humans. — Sam26
When someone states that he or she knows that something is the case, as in JTB, someone else may come along and ask, "How do you know?" - and it's at this point that you demonstrate your knowledge. If it turns out that you cannot demonstrate, i.e., justify your claim, then it's not knowledge. — Sam26
I do not agree with Sam regarding what counts as justified belief. It does not require being argued for(the act of justification) on my view. — creativesoul
I greatly appreciate the charitable read and I agree. So long as JTB isn't meant to actually describe the real world and is only maintained for the purpose of an exercise I suppose I no longer object. Thank you for the reference to Gettier; I'm aware my arguments or causal assertions must appear quite naive.
Do you think you could produce an example of these two different types of knowledge? The general and the technical?
I suppose I'm agreeing with Gettier in a sense, but avoiding his objection. He's saying hey your system doesn't work because it can produce mistaken knowledge. I'm saying some knowledge is mistaken. — Cheshire
Set out the difference between belief and knowledge. — creativesoul
Like I said, if the goal was to just give an accurate account of how the word "knowledge" is used in the language, you probably can't do better than a good dictionary, together with an acknowledgement that such informal usage is imprecise and will almost inevitably run into difficulties with edge cases like Gettier's. — SophistiCat
If you don't understand this point, then you don't understand the difference between a claim to knowledge, and having knowledge. One's claim is not equivalent to, or amount to knowledge. So l don't follow your reaction. — Sam26
Set out the difference between belief and knowledge.
— creativesoul
Gladly, if you'll set out the difference between a belief of knowledge and knowledge. — Cheshire
creativesoul Then I don't know what you're talking about... — Sam26
I suppose the way to proceed is abandoning the notion there's a set of criteria which knowledge contains and disqualifies all else or change JTB, or change the philosophical definition of knowledge. It's a bit Gettierish, but saying all knowledge is JTB or Not would technically silence my objections. — Cheshire
I don't know what you're talking about, and I don't think anyone else does. — Sam26
I'm not so much interested as how its used 'in language', but rather how it's used in reality. — Cheshire
And before you object, I mean to say especially philosophers, when I say people. My primary reason for making JTB a target is just because it's so well guarded from criticism and taught as if were a law of thought; when as Gettier showed in nearly satirical fashion the emperor has no cloths. — Cheshire
Well, how familiar are you with contemporary epistemology? Even from a very superficial look, it is hard to see where you got this idea - see for instance SEP article The Analysis of Knowledge. — SophistiCat
All I'm saying is, and you've agreed with me before, that one need not provide their ground to another in order for the belief to be well-grounded. Being well-grounded is the criterion for being justified. It is not providing that ground to another. — creativesoul
Well, that is excellent news. Tell me, do you believe JTB is the best description for knowledge in a non-general sense? I know you can justify it, but I'm curious as to whether you believe it. — Cheshire
And before you object, I mean to say especially philosophers, when I say people. My primary reason for making JTB a target is just because it's so well guarded from criticism and taught as if were a law of thought; when as Gettier showed in nearly satirical fashion the emperor has no cloths — Cheshire
I think that how we're using the term "justify" is the root of our misunderstanding.
When one justifies his/her claims, they provide the ground(s) to another.
All I'm saying is, and you've agreed with me before, that one need not provide their ground to another in order for the belief to be well-grounded. Being well-grounded is the criterion for being justified. It is not providing that ground to another. — creativesoul
The confusion may be in the following: I learn through the language-game of epistemology, i.e., what it means to justify a belief. Once I learn it in the proper setting, then I'm able to apply it privately. I don't learn it privately, but I can apply it privately. Just as I learn mathematics within the language of mathematics (socially again), and then I can do it privately.
It's in the private setting, after I learn it in a social setting, that I don't have to state it. I know what it means to justify, so in this sense I don't need to state anything. Unless someone asks for the justification, then I can give it. The social, or the language part comes first though.
Are you saying that it can be done totally in private? Just trying to clarify. — 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.