Right, so truth is a condition of observations. — Harry Hindu
Right. And you can then know that you reflected by reflecting upon the reflection, ad infinitum. — Harry Hindu
Is knowledge an infinite regress of aboutness? Or is knowledge some kind of set of rules for interpreting sensory impressions? To know that you reflected upon what you reflected seems to just be applying the same set of rules to some sensory impression or thought process. Sometimes the rules we have don't work and we have to come up with new ones. — Harry Hindu
The connection with language use is just that this is how we ordinarily use terms like "observe" and "know". But, of course, we can be sometimes be mistaken about what we think we know (such as when reading the time of a stopped clock).
— Andrew M
Right, so mistaken, or false, is a condition of knowledge. — Harry Hindu
It is true that the clock says 3:00. You assume from experience (knowledge, or your rules that you have learned about what clocks do) that it is 3:00, until you observe another clock that says something different. Observations check our knowledge. — Harry Hindu
We don't have different ideas about what the definition of a duck can include. Acting like a duck entails all the acts of a duck, which includes laying eggs. Looking like a duck entails all the appearances of a duck. There is also the taste and sound of ducks. All of these things together make one a duck. Cherry-picking among them doesn't make one a duck. — Harry Hindu
We don't even have to use words to define what it is to be a duck. We just observe, over time, the similarities and differences between different organisms and group them in our minds without the use of language. — Harry Hindu
If we can only know what something is (like knowledge) by empiricism, then knowledge doesn't fall into your category of propositional knowledge. It isn't something pre-defined like who won the World Series in 2004. — Harry Hindu
"1. Having or showing knowledge of a subject or situation." — informed - Lexico
Yes crying is a form of communication and may be considered a primitive language. — ovdtogt
Language is anything that vocalizes information.
— ovdtogt
Okay, how do you figure that? — Athena
But people use the term, "know", to refer things that aren't so. They don't know that they don't know. They think they do, which is why they use the word. We used to know that the Earth was flat until we learned that it wasn't. We can only know that we didn't know after the fact of saying that we did. So how people use the word isn't always about what is so. Knowing is only the belief that you have the proper information to form a conclusion, when you might not.OK. Another way to put it is that 'observe' and 'know' are achievement verbs (Gilbert Ryle's term). You can't observe what isn't there or know what isn't so. — Andrew M
But what if I mistook someone washing the roof and seeing water running down the window for rain? I would claim to know that it is raining, and it would take another observation (moving outside of the house) to prove that I was wrong. If the prior observation was wrong, then what makes us so confident in observations? We used to think the Earth was flat based on observations. It took a more objective observation to show that we were wrong (looking at the Earth from space). How do we know when we have reached the most objective observation to say that we then possess knowledge?Justification (or warrant) comprises the rules that warrant someone making a knowledge claim. For example, your looking out the window warrants your claim that it is raining (or not raining). If the claim is true then knowledge has been acquired. (Gettier counterexamples aside which imply a further condition.) — Andrew M
Which isn't any different from saying that you know you know. You can know false things. You might say that people in the 14th century didn't know the Earth wasn't flat, but the way they used the word, they did. Saying that you know doesn't cut the cake, which is why my claim that how people use the term isn't good evidence for what knowledge is still stands. Observations aren't good evidence of knowledge because we can show how observations can be skewed or biased. So how do you go about determining the truth condition of some statement?No. Note that I said "think we know". You can't know false things. So if a mistake is discovered then any claim to knowledge is retroactively retracted. For example, if I later find out that the clock was stopped then I also realize that I didn't know that it was 3:00 earlier despite my claim back then being warranted. — Andrew M
Knowledge claims are just sounds or scribbles that symbolize our knowledge that is made-up of visuals, sounds, feelings, etc. Observations check our knowledge - the beliefs that aren't composed of words, but are composed of visuals and actions in our minds that are merely communicated via claims.Observations check our knowledge claims. A knowledge claim (or justified belief) can be false, knowledge can't. You can be warranted in making a knowledge claim (such as with the 3:00 example) but such warrant doesn't guarantee that the claim is true. — Andrew M
"Duck" is a word, not an animal. There were species before words. There are similarities and differences before words. These similarities are what we group under the symbol, "duck". The only reason we need the word, "duck" is to communicate all those things together. It's much easier to say "duck" rather than all those things that make a duck that we can observe. We don't need the word "duck" to observe that there are organisms that share more features and behaviors with others, and others that don't.Correct and that's important. But to say that a duck is all those things together that make a duck leaves us none the wiser about what a duck is. Neither does saying that a duck is whatever acts and looks like a duck. Both those definitions instead rely on a prior intuition (or definition) about what ducks are. For a definition to be useful, it needs a genus and differentia. — Andrew M
When you ask a 14th century person what they mean when they know that the Earth is flat, they will point to the Earth and show that they know by observation, and point to how others are saying the same thing.So differentiating and grouping (categorizing) just is the activity of defining noted above. Language is not fundamentally about arbitrary word symbols and sounds, but about the objects and activities they pick out. So we can ask about what people are doing when they use the word "know" or "observe". How are they using the term and what can we learn from an analysis of that use? — Andrew M
Like I said, if people say that they know that it is raining, when it isn't, then how are they using the word that is meaningful? How is how people use the term evidence that they know how to use it?Knowing that it is raining outside is an example of propositional knowledge (the proposition being, "it is raining outside"). If you look out the window and see what looks like rain then you can justifiably claim it is raining. If it is raining (the truth condition), then you know that it is raining. Whereas if someone was hosing the window while watering the garden, then you don't know it is raining (even though you may think you do).
The principle is the same whether talking about rain or the Red Sox. People can be informed (knowledgeable) or mistaken about either. — Andrew M
When something irritates our nose we sneeze, — Athena
In Russell's case, a clock has stopped and is reporting a time of 3pm. Someone ignorant of the fact the clock has stopped but desirous to know the time looks at the clock and forms the belief that it is 3pm. By pure coincidence it is, in fact, 3pm. This person has a justified true belief. They belief that it is 3pm, and it is 3pm - so their belief is true. And their belief is justified because they have formed it in an epistemically responsible manner - they looked at a clock, a clock it was reasonble to assume was working. However, though they have a justified true belief that it is 3pm, it seems equally clear to our reason (the reason of most of us, anyway) that they do not 'know' that it is 3pm.
Why doesn't that person's justified true belief qualify as knowledge? It is tempting to say that it doesn't qualify becasue it was just by luck that it was true. The method adopted - looking at clockfaces - was not reliable in this kind of context .
But there are counterexamples to this modified 'no luck' analysis as well. For example, imagine that you want to know what the time is and so you look at a clock tower and form the belief that it is 3pm. This clock is working and it really is 3pm. However, unbeknownst to you, the area you are in is one in which most public clocks are stopped. This is the one exception. Well, it still seems true to say that you know it is 3pm, even though it was just by luck that the clock you looked at was the one working one.
Here, I think you're introducing an idea, or notion, that isn't necessary to the conversation; namely, the notion of luck. — fiveredapples
Believing a broken clock is working is a false belief. False belief is never good justificatory ground...
That's the simple account already given that fiveredapples just elaborately echoed... — creativesoul
The false belief that the clock is working does provide the agent with a justification for believing it is 3 o clock. — Bartricks
we both know that false premisses cannot validly lead to true conclusions. — creativesoul
False premisses cannot lead(validly/logically) to true conclusions. — creativesoul
This idea that Gettier somehow showed that JTB is flawed is just not the case. It's as if Gettier performed a slight of hand and people think it refutes JTB. When examined closely the cases are not really justified. All Gettier pointed out is the difference between a claim to knowledge (for e.g., thinking one is justifed when you're not), as opposed to actual knowledge. So, if I make a claim, and that claim appears to be JTB, but in the end it lacks proper justification, then it's simply not knowledge. There is nothing difficult here. No amount of thinking something is JTB, amounts to something actually being JTB. — Sam26
False premisses cannot lead(validly/logically) to true conclusions.
— creativesoul
Yes. THey. Can. Christ!! — Bartricks
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.