Like what?Dualistic thinking is the solution to most problems. Most (everyday/philosophical) problems are dualistic by nature. — ovdtogt
We can say unreasonable things about reality using words and numbers. — Harry Hindu
Dualistic thinking is the solution to most problems. Most (everyday/philosophical) problems are dualistic by nature.
— ovdtogt
Like what? — Harry Hindu
What we need is a theory that joins the theory of the micro with the theory of the macro. The dualism is a result of our ignorance and skewed perspectiveWhat we need here is quantum physics and getting past dualistic thinking — Athena
Dualistic thinking is the solution to most problems. Most (everyday/philosophical) problems are dualistic by nature. — ovdtogt
You said that dualistic thinking is the solution and that the problem is dualistic by nature.The most obvious one that comes to mind would be nurture vs nature argument. But I can think of many: Freedom vs responsibility, private vs public... too many to mention all. Yin and Yang, Day and night, winter and summer, high tide and low tide. cold and warm, light and dark is a common thread in all philosophical pursuits. The pendulum of time sways to and fro. Even DNA is are 2 interconnected sinuses. Up and down like a spiral staircase they wind their way to the top. — ovdtogt
All I have done so far is offer some examples of knowing-how reducing to knowing-that. I don't know if I'd say all of them do.So are you claiming that all knowing-how reduces to knowing-that? — Banno
This claim:
Reason asserts, requires, demands, bids, favours, values
is 'true'. — Bartricks
What makes it so? — creativesoul
This is so inconsistent, it can't be philosophy. — Harry Hindu
If knowledge is "an attitude Reason adopts towards some true beliefs", then people have knowledge when they have an "attitude Reason adopts towards some true beliefs". — Harry Hindu
The second question is not distinct because you can tell when someone has knowledge because you have defined it. — Harry Hindu
So people have it when they fit the definition that you have proposed, which is a dumb way of explaining it, IMO. — Harry Hindu
Truth is a property that we shouldn't be attributing to knowledge. Truth and knowledge are distinct, not what knowledge is and how to know whether someone has it or not. — Harry Hindu
Thinking of it as nature VS nurture is the problem. To imply that they work against each other is the problem — Harry Hindu
Nothing is 'the truth'. Everything is contains a degree of truth. — ovdtogt
They both work in unison to define your being. — Harry Hindu
Nothing is 'the truth'. Everything is contains a degree of truth.
— ovdtogt
Oooo, someone's been on the Krishnamurti again. Truth is one but many. Love is truth. Truth is a tapeworm peeking out the bum of the cat of reality. — Bartricks
How else do you find out what something is, except empirically? — Harry Hindu
Can a human actor or a mechanical robot lay an egg like a duck? No. Of course not. So you can distinguish between human actors or mechanical robots and ducks because human actors or mechanical robots can't behave (and look) exactly like a duck, or else how would you be able to distinguish between the them to be able to use different terms to refer to them? — Harry Hindu
Yes, so either something else is interfering with Mercury's orbit, or we need to posit a different theory, in which case our knowledge would change. Is knowledge something that can change, or is it a black and white case of either you have it or you don't, and if whether you have it or not is dependent upon whether it is true or not? — Harry Hindu
I don't see anything to be puzzled over here. — Janus
No, because now we can recognise that there are two distinct questions here - "what is knowledge?" and "when do we have knowledge?" — Bartricks
sometimes we can have knowledge without a justification — Bartricks
(I mean, philosophers are and have been puzzled by these cases, so the fact you're not should give you pause - you shouldn't assume the philosophical community is not up to where you are, you should assume you're not up to where they are). — Bartricks
Now, in fact Terry did do the crime and the hair is, in fact, good evidence that he did it (as DNA testing on it confirms it is from Terry's head). — Bartricks
It was by pure fluke that they looked at the one working clock and although they were perfectly well justified in believing it was working, their true belief seems not to qualify as knowledge. — Bartricks
No, I should assume neither until I have good evidence to do so. — Janus
Yes, but you obviously did not have good evidence on the basis of the red hair alone. It is the DNA testing of the red hear that constitutes good evidence. — Janus
sometimes we can have knowledge without a justification — Bartricks
What is an example of that, on your view? — Andrew M
sometimes we can have knowledge without a justification — Bartricks
I use 'justified' to mean 'has a normative reason to believe' — Bartricks
That means you do have to have a justification for your knowledge. Knowledge without justification does not exist. If you believe something, you will have a justification for it. — ovdtogt
And it does not at all follow that if one believes something, one has a justification for believing it. Unjustified beliefs exist (most of yours are of this kind, for instance). — Bartricks
No-one holds a belief they would not justify to you, if you asked them to. They might not (yet) have formulated their justification but they do believe they have a justification for that belief. — ovdtogt
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.