The proof is not a deduction, it is a definition. — Banno
Hence,In other words there's no reason why one cannot know a falsehood. — TheMadFool
If you claim to know a falsehood it is because you are not using "know" in the way specified. So you are on your own. See how you get on.Now that is a neat, reasonably coherent way to think about these terms. You are not obligated to think in this way, of course - you will do as you will. But if you keep this hierarchy in mind you will be able to follow the philosophical discussions around these issues with some clarity, and event to critique a few odd alternatives. — Banno
I, of course, defer to the better judgment of experienced and knowledgeable philosophers but I'm curious. Why can't we know a falsehood? — TheMadFool
Whether or not assent is warranted (foundherently, inferentially and/or experientially) seems to me the significant question.Belief, n. – An assent to an expression, narrative, idea, assumption, proposal, interpretation, proposition, commitment.
Or are you asking is it possible for us to know that something is untrue? For instance, I know that the English queen is not 40 years-old. — Tom Storm
I believe the ocean is blue, something is off because belief doesn't enter into it. You understand the ocean is blue, you see it. It's not an issue of belief. — Manuel
In other words there's no reason why one cannot know a falsehood.
— TheMadFool
Hence,
Now that is a neat, reasonably coherent way to think about these terms. You are not obligated to think in this way, of course - you will do as you will. But if you keep this hierarchy in mind you will be able to follow the philosophical discussions around these issues with some clarity, and event to critique a few odd alternatives.
— Banno
If you claim to know a falsehood it is because you are not using "know" in the way specified. So you are on your own. See how you get on — Banno
Or are you asking is it possible for us to know that something is untrue? — Tom Storm
Predicate =/= noun, no? — 180 Proof
It is possible – in more cases than not likely – to be wrong about 'knowing'. — 180 Proof
To know a falsehood =/= "false knowledge". To know a falsehood = illusion of knowledge (i.e. delusion). — 180 Proof
Stop. :shade: You're just abusing words again because you can. :point:That's right butconsiderhow knowledge is, ultimately, an assumption just like a belief. — TheMadFool
So ... for instance, 'the gravitational constant' or 'both your parents were born before you were born' are "illusions"? You're talking out of your bunghole again, Fool.In short, knowledge,true knowledgeis an illusion ...
In short, knowledge, true knowledge is an illusion; To put it in different words, I know P (a proposition assumed to be true or itself based on other unfounded assumptions) but P can be false. — TheMadFool
That's right but consider how knowledge is, ultimately, an assumption just like a belief.
— TheMadFool
Stop. :shade: You're just abusing words again because you can. :point:
In short, knowledge, true knowledge is an illusion ...
So ... for instance, 'the gravitational constant' or 'both your parents were born before you were born' are "illusions"? You're talking out of your bunghole again, Fool — 180 Proof
Knowledge is a subset of belief. — Nickolasgaspar
Same as the difference between having no car and having a car with an empty fuel tank ... having no body and having a dead body ... etc.What's the difference between having no hammer and having a broken hammer?
Equivocating "know" again. Just look: It's raining iff it's raining. Also, sound inferential arguments.How does oneknowwhether a proposition is factually true?
Foundherentism (S. Haack) works for me.Justification?
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.