Are you saying that someone, in the real world, can know (with certainty) what the rules of a game are without ever being told what the rules are? — I like sushi
if one has a true belief then one has ascertained that one's belief is true.
The above is a meaningless tautology, yes?
So the only thing added is the justification.
Yet you say that it's not the justification which makes a belief true. — Isaac
OK, so
1. if one has a justifiedtruebelief then one has ascertained that one's belief is true
2. if one has ajustifiedtrue belief then one has ascertained that one's belief is true
You're saying that 1 is false, but 2 is just a tautology. — Isaac
So it is a justified belief NOT a justified true belief — I like sushi
But...
if one has a justified true belief then one has ascertained that one's belief is true.
...unarguably. — Isaac
And do we know the rules of the game of life? Chess is an abstracted and bounded category not an unknown quantity. There is a difference between abstracted truth and applying truth to reality right? — I like sushi
How would you ascertain I had toast for breakfast, other than by your justifications for believing I had toast for breakfast, — Isaac
Knowledge, according to JTB, requires more than just a justified belief; it requires that the justified belief is true. — Michael
John knows that it is raining if:
1) John believes that it is raining,
2) John is justified in believing that it is raining, and
3) it is raining
It would be a mistake to interpret this as saying that John knows that it is raining if:
1) John believes that it is raining,
2) John is justified in believing that it is raining, and
3) I believe that it is raining
This latter argument is obviously fallacious. — Michael
I asked how you ascertain whether I had toast this morning and your answer requires that you first know whether I had toast this morning. — Isaac
it is an independent fact that — Michael
No, not according to us. It's not according to anyone. It's about what actually is the case. I don't understand what's difficult about this. — Michael
In your view, is it possible to grasp the meaning of an assertion without understanding the cause of the assertion? — sime
Just because my assertion "it is raining" implies that I believe that it is raining, it doesn't then follow that "it is raining" means "I believe that it is raining." — Michael
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.