He believes that it's 3 PM. And he came to believe that it's 3 PM by looking at a particular clock, a particular broken clock. — fiveredapples
The content of his belief included a particular broken clock. He believed that that particular broken clock was working, and hence used it to form the subsequent belief that it was 3PM. — creativesoul
The content of his belief included a particular broken clock. He believed that that particular broken clock was working, and hence used it to form the subsequent belief that it was 3PM.
— creativesoul
No, the content of his belief didn't include a broken clock. The content of his belief is capture by what he thought... — fiveredapples
For the sake of getting clear on this point, I'll just pretend he actually had this thought, but I don't concede that he actually thought this: "This clock is working." How you can you object to this analysis? He looked at the clock and thought, "This clock is working." The clock's not working is a fact about the clock. You can't include this fact as part of his belief, because he never thought that the clock wasn't working. So, you can't say that his thought was "This broken clock is working." — fiveredapples
I mean, someone already point it out, but doesn't the fact that you're attributing to him a self-contradictory belief give you pause? — fiveredapples
Right. Heidegger, indeed. But (and I hope you'll agree) not on his authority but rather on his successful unconcealment of the phenomenon. Since I've been exposed to Heidegger, I find myself discovering his insights in less explicit form in Hegel and Feuerbach. How does language exist? The basic insight seems to be that we are social on a deeper level than we are individual. So analyses that start from an isolated subject gazing at pure meanings, while possibly illuminating, are also trapped within a tradition obsessed with an epistemological problem while neglecting an ontological one.
What say you? — softwhere
Bob looks at the clock and forms the belief that it is 3pm. That's a basic or rudimentary belief with no implication that he needed another belief prior to forming that belief, which would just result in an infinite regress. — Andrew M
However we can nonetheless investigate the premises of Bob's belief. Those premises emerge as part of our analysis, not something we need to suppose were Bob's beliefs at that time.
Right. So how do you know that you or someone else is using the term, "knowledge" correctly, so say things like, "I/You are using the term, "knowledge" correctly."? — Harry Hindu
Fiveredapples has given an eloquent defense of his position, but my position is much simpler. I'm sticking to JTB as the definition of knowledge. I don't see any good reason to give it up. The clock was broke, therefore the person wasn't justified in their belief that the time was X. If they weren't justified, then they failed to meet the definition of knowledge under JTB. Gettier fails for similar reasons. — Sam26
Can we ever confidently label something knowledge, by this definition? We can certainly evaluate justifications, but how do we evaluate 'true' if not via justification? — Coben
I don't think indefeasible and infallible are synonymous, but I get your objection.
Well, of course I have discovered many times that what I thought I knew was not in fact knowledge. That's just to say I didn't really know back then, so of course it wasn't knowledge that got defeated. — fiveredapples
We're working from different notions of what counts as a basic or rudimentary belief. Our exchange led us into the notion of whether or not a language less creature's belief could possible count as being well grounded. If it requires being based upon other beliefs, then we arrive at the notion of infinite regress... Somewhere along the line, some belief or other is not based upon prior belief.
Can those be identified and/or isolated, and can they count as being well grounded true ones? — creativesoul
It also seems clear to me that there are a plethora of pre-existing belief underwriting the very ability to participate in time telling practices such as looking at clocks, so... To say that there is no implication that he needed another belief prior to forming that belief is most certainly wrong. — creativesoul
But... when we're offering an account of Bob's belief, they must be Bob's beliefs... right? — creativesoul
We're working from different notions of what counts as a basic or rudimentary belief. Our exchange led us into the notion of whether or not a language less creature's belief could possible count as being well grounded. If it requires being based upon other beliefs, then we arrive at the notion of infinite regress... Somewhere along the line, some belief or other is not based upon prior belief.
Can those be identified and/or isolated, and can they count as being well grounded true ones?
— creativesoul
I think so, at least in principle. — Andrew M
But... when we're offering an account of Bob's belief, they must be Bob's beliefs... right?
— creativesoul
We're asking whether Bob's belief that it is 3pm counts as knowledge (and why or why not). It doesn't really matter if Bob simply believes that space aliens implanted his mind with the correct time. We only care that Bob believed the time that the clock showed and that the clock was working correctly. — Andrew M
I have a model for what knowledge is. For example, my model says that knowledge is always true. So if Alice says that she knows it is raining, but it's not raining, then Alice's claim doesn't satisfy that model. So she didn't use the term correctly (in the veridical sense - her claim may still have been justifiable).
Whereas her claim may be satisfied on your model (that doesn't include a truth condition for knowledge). — Andrew M
This isn't anything different than what you've already said. Your model is useless if you can never know when it's appropriate to use. Knowledge would be this state-of-affairs that we'd never know about because we can never know that knowledge is true because we only have justifications and justifications are not truths. They might be, but we'd never know. — Harry Hindu
Bingo! You finally got it! So if this is common knowledge - that there is no getting around the fact that no-one has an infallible guarantee that any specific claim is true, then that means people use the term, "knowledge" in the way I have described it, not you. People understand that their knowledge is fallible and so don't use the term in a way that implies truth - only justification.There is no getting around the fact that no-one has an infallible guarantee that any specific claim is true — Andrew M
We seem to be in essential agreement. — Andrew M
My main point about prior beliefs is that Bob would presumably just glance at the clock and automatically form a belief about the time. He's not consciously reflecting on it, weighing up evidence, or making inferences from one belief to another. How he forms his belief happens "under the hood", so to speak, as part of the brain's internal processing. — Andrew M
there is no getting around the fact that no-one has an infallible guarantee that any specific claim is true... — Harry Hindu
This is false. It all depends upon the claim under consideration. — creativesoul
Depends on the claim, yes, which we may say depends on the domain of discourse. Empirical knowledge is always contingent, so there is no infallible guarantee that some claim is true; pure rational knowledge is always apodeictic, which is its own infallible guarantee that some claim is true. — Mww
the truth is some state-of-affairs — Harry Hindu
That's one way of putting it. Although I agree with the description as a commonly understood one, I'm very hesitant to employ the terminology as an explanation of his belief. I think we can do better, with less verbiage. — creativesoul
Bingo! You finally got it! — Harry Hindu
So if this is common knowledge - that there is no getting around the fact that no-one has an infallible guarantee that any specific claim is true, then that means people use the term, "knowledge" in the way I have described it, not you. People understand that their knowledge is fallible and so don't use the term in a way that implies truth - only justification. — Harry Hindu
Not only does your version of "knowledge" not fit how people use it, it relegates truth into meaninglessness as well. If there is no infallible guarantee that any specific claim is true, what does it mean to be "true"? — Harry Hindu
That's nice. I reject your rejection. Now what?I reject this notion of truth... — creativesoul
Why do they claim to know things that they don't? If they claim to understand what knowledge and knowing is, then how can they misuse the terms?That people are fallible means that they sometimes misuse the term "knowledge" or "know". They sometimes claim to know things that they don't. — Andrew M
What is it that we are trying to accomplish or achieve in deploying words and sentences? What caused words and sentences to appear on this screen for me to read?Here's the definition of use from Lexico: "Take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing or achieving something; employ." In the context of our discussion what are being deployed are words and sentences. — Andrew M
This means that a claim is accurate or inaccurate.Not only does your version of "knowledge" not fit how people use it, it relegates truth into meaninglessness as well. If there is no infallible guarantee that any specific claim is true, what does it mean to be "true"?
— Harry Hindu
It means that a claim describes a state of affairs as it has been defined. For example, we understand what the phrase "it is raining" means. So if Alice claims it is raining when it is raining then her claim is true. That is a correct use. Whereas if she claims it is raining when it is not raining, then her claim is false. That is an incorrect use (or misuse). — Andrew M
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.