Agreed.

Bullshit. — Frank Apisa

The reason why you are so arrogant, is the same as ever: runaway ignorance. Maybe you first want to read up on the theory of justification:

The theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief. — Wikipedia on the Theory of Justification

You do not seem to be familiar even with the very, very basics of epistemology, i.e. the theory of knowledge.

I agree with you when it comes to questions about the unknown. I don't use the word believe, for the same reasons you give. However I have no issue with the philosophy of epistemology. Jtb is appropriate for philosophies which address human issues, humanities, politics etc.

But this thread is not about that, it is about certainty, the certainty of reality. So jtb is irrelevant and we both have to rely on logic and a kind of thinking which ignores human issues, beliefs and ways of thinking.

This leaves me at the position expressed in this phrase. "I know, therefore there is something"

Thank you for your considerations of my intelligence and knowledge. I disagree with you about that, but I stand by what I have posted thus far.

Punshhh
1.4k
↪Frank Apisa I agree with you when it comes to questions about the unknown. I don't use the word believe, for the same reasons you give. However I have no issue with the philosophy of epistemology. Jtb is appropriate for philosophies which address human issues, humanities, politics etc.

But this thread is not about that, it is about certainty, the certainty of reality. So jtb is irrelevant and we both have to rely on logic and a kind of thinking which ignores human issues, beliefs and ways of thinking. — Punshhh

Thank you, Punshhh.

The indiscriminate and careless use of "believe/belief" is annoying in most forums (fora), but in a forum devoted to philosophy, it goes way beyond annoying for me. That is the reason I raised the issue. Apparently the point is lost on those who prefer not to see it.

This leaves me at the position expressed in this phrase. "I know, therefore there is something" — Punshhh

That is also where I am with regard to the Cogito, ergo sum suggestion, P. I am astonished it is not seen and acknowledged as readily and as widespread as it should be.

Thank you for your considerations of my intelligence and knowledge. I disagree with you about that, but I stand by what I have posted thus far. — Frank Apisa

That puts you in conflict with very basic, standard epistemology.

It is certainly possible to criticize the JtB doctrine, like e.g. Gettier successfully did, but you cannot achieve that by merely calling it "bullshit". Alternatives to JtB are possible but the existence of such alternatives still does not turn standard epistemology into "bullshit".

So, yes, I also repeat my assessment of the remarks you have made on the standard foundations of epistemology: both arrogant and ignorant.

Fair enough!

And I will repeat my assessment of your assessment. It is BULLSHIT. All of it!

(Except perhaps for the second "the" in your first sentence.)

Fair enough! And I will repeat my assessment of your assessment. It is BULLSHIT. All of it! — Frank Apisa

That does not diminish in any way that calling the JtB doctrine "bullshit", makes you arrogant and ignorant. Furthermore, JtB is not my doctrine. Therefore, anybody with even just moderate knowledge on epistemology will simply have to objectively conclude the same as I did about you: arrogant and ignorant.

In the context of JtB, the term "knowledge" is linked to the term "belief", i.e. knowledge is a particular type of belief. — alcontali

Exactly! This is pretty standard stuff since Gettier. But even Gettier pointed out that JTB was insufficient to establish knowledge; hence, Gettier cases.

That does not diminish in any way that calling the JtB doctrine "bullshit", makes you arrogant and ignorant. Furthermore, JtB is not my doctrine. Therefore, anybody with even just moderate knowledge on epistemology will simply have to objectively conclude the same as I did about you: arrogant and ignorant. — alcontali

If you want to think that I am arrogant and ignorant...

...and further want to think that others will agree with you...

...be my guest. I am sure it helps you cope with something...and I am all for you coping with whatever you have bothering you.

If you want to think that I am arrogant and ignorant... — Frank Apisa

The world of documented knowledge has ended up with at least three standard knowledge-justification methods that all hark back to the JtB doctrine (there may be more methods):

• axiomatic method: mathematics and other formal systems
• scientific method: science and engineering
• historical method: history and investigative reporting on facts

What all documented knowledge has in common, is that its beliefs are justified from other beliefs. That is the gist of the JtB doctrine, which in all practical terms gets elaborated through standard knowledge-justification methods. Epistemology, i.e. the theory of knowledge, is therefore a critical thread throughout all documented knowledge.

So, yes, you are arrogant and ignorant in claiming that the JtB doctrine would be "bullshit".

So, yes, you are arrogant and ignorant in claiming that the JtB doctrine would be "bullshit". — alcontali

As I said, if considering me to be arrogant and ignorant helps make your life more livable and enjoyable...please continue. I want you to be as happy and content as you can manage.

Why is it apparently never enough simply to say that I cannot doubt the occurrence of certain experiences? We can build our knowledge up from our own experiences.

I believe the point of JTB is not to arrive at certainty, but merely to filter out bad or unreasonable beliefs. Even if the justification criterion were modified to only allow true propositions for justification, I don’t think that would entail certainty. So it’s a practical definition of knowledge.

"Justified true 'belief'"...IS BELIEF.

And "belief" is nothing more than accepting something without sufficient, unambiguous evidence. Any supposed JtB that enters a conversation about whether or not gods or ghosts or invisible things exist or not...is just plain blind guessing.

One can say, "I 'believe..." or "I truly 'believe'... or "I firmly 'believe'..."...

...and all one is doing is making guesses and refusing to acknowledge them as guesses.

The greater, more adamant the modification...the less willing the person making it is to acknowledge the "belief" is just a blind guess.

our only hope of escaping this dilemma is if there is someone out there with the powers of God; a divine being who has the reality-making power to go beyond the limits of the human condition. — rikes

Well said. Existentially, ( see the book of Ecclesiastes) there are obvious limits to understanding things. Same with Cosmological paradox (and other phenomenon).

Since you sort of broad-brushed your OP, I will do the same by suggesting faith, hope and love.

Why is it apparently never enough simply to say that I cannot doubt the occurrence of certain experiences? We can build our knowledge up from our own experiences.

Normally I would agree with you, but this thread is about certainty. So when you have certainty about an experience, what is it you are certain of?

If i am having an occurrence of a perception of a red object, I am certain that the perception is of red.

A big part of the problem we are dealing with here...is the seeming reluctance of so many people who just will not utter or write the words "I do not know" in any meaningful form.

It may be the result of a common gene that I just do not possess...or it may be that I am an idiot. But there are many things that I do not know for sure...and have no problem acknowledging that I do not know.

Posting on the Internet often leads to comments being made that look like certainty, but for the most part, they are not.

A big part of the problem we are dealing with here...is the seeming reluctance of so many people who just will not utter or write the words "I do not know" in any meaningful form. — Frank Apisa

Well said Frank. It's pretty simple, yet seems esoteric to some if not many. Of course, that's one thing Existential philosophy taught us...among other things. Perhaps the so-called sin of pride rears its ugly head here.

The assumption here is that the external world is the same for all of us. That we see the same colours as each other, and we are in the same physical world. This is not necessarily so. The is no certainty of anything unless it is from within you.

Trying reading this by Plato... Allegory of the cave

As a sentient being you cannot know the truth, but one can be inferred; that conscious thought is an illusion evolved to invoke purpose to avoid disillusionment.

Everyone seems to be going along with the Cartesian assumption that knowledge requires certainty; that the edifice of knowledge must be built on a foundation of absolute certainty. While this assumption is accepted, then we're forced to conclude that we can't really know anything beyond the tautologies of logic and mathematics and the solipsistic phenomena of one's own mental states. But tautologies are uninformative and we should ask ourselves whether it makes any sense at all to think of one's own mental states as objects of knowledge. If they were, then that "knowledge" would be incommunicable, since, in so far as they are logically private, any terms used to refer to them would be meaningless. (Wittgenstein's private language argument - a logically private language is not possible because its terms would be cut off from the possibility of any objective criteria for their warranted use). So the foundation of certainty that Descartes seeks in the privacy of his own mind is really just a meaningless chimera.

The upshot of this is that it's a mistake to think that knowledge consists in immunity to error. In fact immunity to error only guarantees the absence of knowledge. Hence, the nature of knowledge is such that it always contains the logical possibility of error. A proposition that happens to be true could, in principle, have been false. A major theme of Wittgenstein's On Certainty is the kind of global scepticism implied by Hume's empiricism (which takes Cartesian assumptions to their logical and absurd conclusion), and central to his critique of that scepticism is KILPOD - knowledge implies the logical possibility of doubt.

The only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure.

The only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure. — Tree

Well, maybe one thing, yes? And from that maybe two, and three,..., and,....

The only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure. — Tree

We would also have to know what knowing is to say that there are things that we know and things that we don't. We must also know how to use language in order to represent the state-of-affairs of knowing that we know nothing for sure with scribbles on a screen.

You also know how to type and use a computer for you to be able to post this on an internet philosophy forum.

Both myself and G. E. Moore know that you will not submerge your naked hand into a pot of boiling oil. This is because it would severely burn your hand. I know this for sure. You are free to prove me wrong.

:smirk: