Knowledge, as we know it, is made up of two inseparable parts: pure knowledge and impure knowledge. — Unlimiter

And yet here you are separating them...

Change my mind — Unlimiter

A bit of a disclaimer speech... the degree to which a belief is warranted is equivalent to the strength of the justification of the belief. Justifications could possibly be a bit difficult; one's not always aware of why they believe what they believe. But that should the focus. Do you agree?

Besides that, I have a few questions. You are using terms "unconsciously acquired" and "consciously made"... can you give me a slightly more formal definition of these terms... something to where if I were to point to a type of knowledge acquisition, we can categorize it as one or the other? Would it be fair to say that your proposal is wrong if I can point to knowledge acquisition that is unconscious? Also, it's a bit strange to me to talk just of acquisition, especially in terms of consciousness. How would your proposal relate to knowledge retrieval? For example (and to point to the oddity), suppose I acquired knowledge of X, but every time I retrieve that knowledge it looks like Y... is there a sense in which we can say the knowledge acquired really is X, not Y... even though every time I retrieve it, it's Y not X?

I don't think anyone has any propositional knowledge if you define knowledge as justified true belief (I can add to that to avoid Gettier) All justification is going to require an inference and you cannot know that your reasoning is reliable without relying on your reasoning which would be begging the question.

I don't think anyone has any propositional knowledge if you define knowledge as justified true belief (I can add to that to avoid Gettier) All justification is going to require an inference and you cannot know that your reasoning is reliable without relying on your reasoning which would be begging the question. — GodlessGirl

So, if a tree falls on me, and I think "I was just hit by a tree," how does my justification (that I was hit by a tree) require me to make an inference?

Well in a bunch of different ways. For one you are inferring from past experiences that cause and effect is the case and everything that occurs isn't just random. You see the tree move forward and then feel pain you are inferring that the tree caused it.

A bit of a disclaimer speech... the degree to which a belief is warranted is equivalent to the strength of the justification of the belief. Justifications could possibly be a bit difficult; one's not always aware of why they believe what they believe. But that should the focus. Do you agree? — InPitzotl

I don't.

"Belief" for the most part, is nothing more than a guess or an opinion. But it is never, ever, under any circumstances KNOWLEDGE. (This is not to say it is not correct. Some guesses and opinions are correct, but they are never knowledge.)

On issues of importance to most philosophical discussions, a "belief" is nothing more than an opinion. Anyone can justify an opinion...and the strength of the justification is almost always strong to the person doing the justification.

On issue of importance to most "religious" discussions, a "belief" is most often nothing more than a blind guess. Anyone attempting justification of a blind guess deserves a smile...unless they insist. At that point they deserve a loud laugh.

It is my OPINION that one way to improve philosophical discussions would be to insist that the words "believe" and "belief" not be used except to comment on the absurdity of using them.

Anyone can justify an opinion...and the strength of the justification is almost always strong to the person doing the justification. — Frank Apisa

But that's a false front... people with "opinions" like this don't generally hold the opinions because of the justifications they give; rather, they give justifications for the opinions because they hold the opinions. The primary error people commit here is the high burden they place on discarding their opinions and the low burden they place on keeping them. So they tip the scales of the strength of justification, generally, to the highest degree possible; they require no justification to keep the opinion; but they require the highest burden to discard it. That's what's conveyed with "change my mind"... it's the notion of "I don't need to justify my belief to keep it... rather, you need to make it impossible to believe it before I discard it". That is the opposite of belief warranted based on the strength of justification; it is, rather, belief warranted for its own sake.

It is my OPINION that one way to improve philosophical discussions would be to insist that the words "believe" and "belief" not be used except to comment on the absurdity of using them. — Frank Apisa

Maybe there's something to this. But I'm not necessarily convinced this would thwart the problem I see above. I would like to see this principle applied in practice to see how effective it is in disarming people of belief for its own sake.

InPitzotl
220
Anyone can justify an opinion...and the strength of the justification is almost always strong to the person doing the justification.
— Frank Apisa
But that's a false front... people with "opinions" like this don't generally hold the opinions because of the justifications they give; rather, they give justifications for the opinions because they hold the opinions. The primary error people commit here is the high burden they place on discarding their opinions and the low burden they place on keeping them. So they tip the scales of the strength of justification, generally, to the highest degree possible; they require no justification to keep the opinion; but they require the highest burden to discard it. That's what's conveyed with "change my mind"... it's the notion of "I don't need to justify my belief to keep it... rather, you need to make it impossible to believe it before I discard it". That is the opposite of belief warranted based on the strength of justification; it is, rather, belief warranted for its own sake. — InPitzotl

You sounded as though you were going to challenge the statement of mine that you quoted...

...but you didn't. Your commentary comes across like, "They don't do that...and the reason they do is..."

It is my OPINION that one way to improve philosophical discussions would be to insist that the words "believe" and "belief" not be used except to comment on the absurdity of using them.
— Frank Apisa
Maybe there's something to this. But I'm not necessarily convinced this would thwart the problem I see above. I would like to see this principle applied in practice to see how effective it is in disarming people of belief for its own sake. — InPitzoti

I am not aiming to "thwart" the problem...I am aiming to improve the discussion.

In any case, in your response you the expression "of belief for its own sake."


How does your thought sound expressed this way: I would like to see this principle applied in practice to see how effective it is in disarming people who make blind guesses about things just for the sake of making blind guesses about them.

I would like to see this principle applied in practice to see how effective it is in disarming people who make blind guesses about things just for the sake of making blind guesses about them. — Frank Apisa

It just sounds interesting. :smile: I think we wind up at the same spot. You're correct IMO... I don't think we disagree... I think we're seeing the same thing, just expressing two perspectives of it.