Most of the things that are regarded as being known for certain (outside of mathematical conventions) are probably not known for certain. — Frank Apisa
As for "belief"...mostly that is bullshit. "Belief" and "believe" are words people use to disguise "guess"...especially in the area of "the true nature of the REALITY of existence." — Frank Apisa
Justified true belief is a definition of knowledge that gained approval during the Enlightenment. The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, an agent S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
* P is true
* S believes that P P is true, and
* S is justified in believing that P is true — Wikipedia on 'Justified true belief' (JTB)
We can't claim to know what it is that exists. Our experience and knowledge of conscious minds may be naive, mistaken, or a fabrication.The only thing we know for certain is there is at least one conscious mind. Everything else is speculation with no justifiable foundation.
We can't claim to know what it is that exists. Our experience and knowledge of conscious minds may be naive, mistaken, or a fabrication.
I’d say you don’t have true knowledge unless there’s absolutely no way for that belief to be false. — rikes
Yes I agree that one, apparently, can't be mistaken that one is conscious and has a mind and that as an explanation it is generally sufficient. But this thread is about certainty.You can't be mistaken that you're conscious and have a mind. You could be wrong about the properties of your own mind, or about what, exactly, consciousness is, but you can't be wrong about the salient points: you have a conscious mind.
Yes I agree that one, apparently, can't be mistaken that one is conscious and has a mind and that as an explanation it is generally sufficient. But this thread is about certainty.
So when it comes to certainty, one has to consider alternatives to that certainty, however irrational they may be. Merely their possibility means they negate that certainty.
In reality the human mind finds itself existing in a place surrounded and built upon impenetrable unknowns, including circumstances where logic fails us too. This being the case your assumption that consciousness and mind exist as we experience them and that this is certainly the case is vulnerable to criticism of the extent and relevance of human knowledge to reality.
The undoubted truth is that if you think now you are "something" that thinks now. What happened before and what will come after are no longer undoubted truths.Being a thinking thing is not necessarily an absolute truth because when you die you will cease to think. — rikes
Descartes’ Cogito ergo sum — rikes
However, if you try to logically build on those truths to extend certainty any further, you will fail... after all, once you’ve proved something to yourself, how can you be sure that your memory that you just proved it is accurate? Were you completely rational? This universal skepticism leaves all further philosophical inquiry moot. — rikes
According to its standard definition, knowledge is itself also a belief:
Justified true belief is a definition of knowledge that gained approval during the Enlightenment. The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, an agent S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
* P is true
* S believes that P P is true, and
* S is justified in believing that P is true — alcontali
If you suppose me to be wrong...we can discuss it. — Frank Apisa
alcontali
1.3k
If you suppose me to be wrong...we can discuss it.
— Frank Apisa
JtB -- knowledge as a Justified (true) Belief -- is a long story. Epistemology in general, i.e. the theory of knowledge, is a long story ... — alcontali
Oh...that justified true belief shit is so 19th and 20th century. — Frank Apisa
In the Theaetetus, Socrates considers a number of theories as to what knowledge is, the last being that knowledge is true belief "with an account" (meaning explained or defined in some way). According to the theory that knowledge is justified true belief, to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have a good reason for doing so.[17] — Wikipedia on where JtB comes from
The Theaetetus (/ˌθiːɪˈtiːtəs/; Greek: Θεαίτητος) is one of Plato's dialogues concerning the nature of knowledge, written circa 369 BCE. — Wikipedia on the Theaetetus dialogue
alcontali
1.3k
Oh...that justified true belief shit is so 19th and 20th century.
— Frank Apisa
It is much older than that:
In the Theaetetus, Socrates considers a number of theories as to what knowledge is, the last being that knowledge is true belief "with an account" (meaning explained or defined in some way). According to the theory that knowledge is justified true belief, to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have a good reason for doing so.[17]
— Wikipedia on where JtB comes from
The more precise date is 369 BCE:
The Theaetetus (/ˌθiːɪˈtiːtəs/; Greek: Θεαίτητος) is one of Plato's dialogues concerning the nature of knowledge, written circa 369 BCE.
— Wikipedia on the Theaetetus dialogue — alcontali
I don't know, you wanna get rid of people using the word belief, but you write a lot of absolutely certain seeming textIn the context of a discussion about the unknown...the word "belief" is used to disguise a blind guess.
The more honest version of "I 'believe' (in) God"...is, "It is my blind guess that at least one god exists...and that god is the GOD I worship."
The more honest version of "I believe there are no gods"...is, "It is my blind guess that no gods exist.
Really think about it...and you will see I am correct. — Frank Apisa
Yeah...the people of the 19th and 20th century still bought into the teachings of people who, for the most part, thought the Earth was a pancake flat object at the very center of the universe. — Frank Apisa
and here we have, it seems, a kind of dismissal of people's thinking in two decades. Like, well, that means we can dismiss their thinking, case closed. Her implied.Yeah...the people of the 19th and 20th century still bought into the teachings of people who, for the most part, thought the Earth was a pancake flat object at the very center of the universe. — Frank Apisa
I don't know, you wanna get rid of people using the word belief, but you write a lot of absolutely certain seeming text
Yeah...the people of the 19th and 20th century still bought into the teachings of people who, for the most part, — Coben
, that is without qualitifications. — Coben
So another strategy is, don't use 'I believe', but rather imply an argument and dismiss a couple of hundred years of thinking.
So, the two strategies, here at least, to avoid using the potentially misleading I believe, is to just state things are the case and to imply vast swathes of conclusions without supporting them.
In both strategies we avoid the word believe, so all is peachy.
Of course, people are often quite correct. They believe what they are saying, whether it is based on guesses or a significant batch of evidence. And they are kind enough, those who know the distinction, to be making it clear they do not 'know' what they are asserting is the case. But, yes, it is what they think is the case. And this correct use of the word is bad, since people have different epistemologies for arriving at beliefs, for some reason.
So they start off a conversation with what is likely a true statement: a belief they have about some facet or purported facet of reality. From there one can ask them 'on what grounds'? We all know that people believe things that are not the case or are believed in on what we consider the wrong grounds. But now we know their position.
Is there anyone who hears the phrase 'I believe' and assume that what comes next must be strongly supported information? I don't think so. I am never misled by this beginning, unless they are lying about what they believe - but that would hold for 'guesses' also, as a possibility. I don't feel like I have been told the slightest bit about the rigor of their epistemology in general or in this particular case. I do feel informed about what they believe. What they think is the case. And this is useful information. Or, if it isn't, it doesn't become more useful if they use the suggested alternative phrases.
I certainly don't feel compelled to bow down to the solidity of their epistemology because they used the word 'believe'. And they don't when encountering other beliefs, positions, opinions. It's letting us know what they have decided is the case. If I want to know the grounds, well, now we have a conversation on that. — Coben
In the context of a discussion about the unknown...the word "belief" is used to disguise a blind guess. — Frank Apisa
alcontali
1.3k
In the context of a discussion about the unknown...the word "belief" is used to disguise a blind guess.
— Frank Apisa
Well, you would first have to be familiar with the discussion that has been going on for at least since 369 BCE. Socrates was certainly asking all the right questions. He became even famous for that. In the context of JtB, the term "knowledge" is linked to the term "belief", i.e. knowledge is a particular type of belief. — alcontali
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.