For the sake of this discussion we must take some form of realism for granted. — Michael
The concept 'true' is an artefact of human language and it (mostly) means something like 'everyone clever enough would agree'. I argue it means this on the grounds that this is the use context in which we find the term. — Isaac
I'm arguing that 'true' just means the same as 'justified belief' and so adds nothing. — Isaac
By being about it? I honestly have no clue what you're trying to ask here.How can an expression convey a weather condition? — Isaac
Most of the time, it's used to inform the listener that it's raining (by which I mean to convey information necessary for the listener to adapt to the rain - put a coat on to avoid getting wet, carry an umbrella to avoid getting wet, write a historically accurate poem about it...).Most of the time, it's used to get the listener to believe it's raining (by which I mean have a tendency to act as if it's raining - put a coat on, carry an umbrella, write a poem about it...). — Isaac
We don't add the T. The T is a relationship between the meaning of the claim and the state of affairs. The claim's meaning implies some truth conditions. The claim is true if the described state of affairs meet the truth conditions. A claim can be true even if nobody has any justifications for it.We've gathered more justifications for believing it, but in JTB, we already have justifications and beliefs, the question is how to add the T. — Isaac
But "could be wrong" does not entail "being wrong". Assuming it's justified and believed, "being wrong" about its truth implies the claim is not true; that would make it a JFB. "Being right" implies the claim is true; that would make it a JTB.But we haven't ascertained its veracity, you admit yourself, we could still be wrong. — Isaac
More specifically I said that in response to this:You said
"I don't see what's stopping us from looking out windows. — InPitzotl"
in response to my reductio of "I know..." requiring the subject to be 'true'. — Isaac
...we can (aka "can ever") ascertain truth using justification.Either that or this ludicrous situation where a word refers to something we can't ever ascertain... — Isaac
You apparently mean to talk about certainty (in a mathematical sense; philosophical sense?) that a thing is true, not "finding out". It's either raining or it's not raining. I "find out" whether it's raining or not raining by looking out the window.We just gain more justification for our belief that it's raining. At no point do we find out that 'it's raining' is true, — Isaac
Isn't that a contradiction?Option (2) isn't about anything. It's part of a whole expression-act which is about the language game of quizzes. — Isaac
It doesn't change the meaning of 'true' in JTB. I'm arguing that 'true' just means the same as 'justified belief' and so adds nothing. — Isaac
I think "justified" just means "with good reason", not "retrospectively justified". — Kenosha Kid
It's supposed to distinguish from beliefs that are reached erroneously, but may also be true. — Kenosha Kid
How can an expression convey a weather condition? — Isaac
By being about it? I honestly have no clue what you're trying to ask here. — InPitzotl
Most of the time, it's used to get the listener to believe it's raining (by which I mean have a tendency to act as if it's raining - put a coat on, carry an umbrella, write a poem about it...). — Isaac
Most of the time, it's used to inform the listener that it's raining — InPitzotl
The T is a relationship between the meaning of the claim and the state of affairs. The claim's meaning implies some truth conditions. The claim is true if the described state of affairs meet the truth conditions. A claim can be true even if nobody has any justifications for it.
Justifications are what you use to figure out what things are true. — InPitzotl
we can (aka "can ever") ascertain truth using justification. — InPitzotl
Option (2) isn't about anything. It's part of a whole expression-act which is about the language game of quizzes. — Isaac
Isn't that a contradiction? — InPitzotl
We don’t need to use the term “true”. We can say that:
John knows that it is raining iff:
1. John believes that it is raining,
2. John is justified in believing that it is raining, and
3. It is raining — Michael
3. is to to be understood as the propositional content of John’s belief, i.e what his belief is about. — Michael
just letting you know you are not insane) — I like sushi
What JTB is is a formal set of rules set up in abstraction and then extended to ‘reality’. Such ‘knowledge’ is S-Knowledge only and cannot be confirmed as U-Knowledge. — I like sushi
Indeed, but 'true' is the ultimate post hoc justification (at least, that's the case I'm arguing). — Isaac
the usual demonstrations are about someone who has a justified belief that then proves true but for the wrong reason — Kenosha Kid
It can't be 'what his belief is about' because 'what his belief is about' is the actual weather and a proposition is not the weather. — Isaac
The third condition is saying that the actual weather has to be as the person believes it to be. — Michael
the above isn’t the same as the below, which is false:
John knows what the weather is like iff he is justified in believing what he does about the weather. — Michael
“X is true” is just saying that the actual facts obtain? — Michael
No, they sound quite different to me, not sure how you got there from what I said. — Isaac
You're still ignoring context and trying to pin me down to one single meaning for expressions which clearly have different meanings in different contexts. — Isaac
When the JTB definition of knowledge states that John knows that it is raining iff 1) he believes that it is raining and 2) he is justified in believing that it is raining and 3) it is raining, it is simply stating in specific terms the more general definition that John knows what the weather is like iff it actually is as he justifiably believes it to be. — Michael
Yep. And as such the JTB definition of knowledge is wrong, because that's not how anyone ever actually uses the word 'knowledge' in any actual context because in all actual contexts people replace "actually is" with their own strong belief that it actually is. — Isaac
There's a difference between saying "a bachelor is an unmarried man because the language community uses the term 'bachelor' to refer to people they believe to be unmarried men" and saying "John is a bachelor because the language community believes that John is an unmarried man."
The former is true, the latter is not. The language community can be wrong about John.
And in the same vein, there's a difference between saying "things that are known are true and justified because the language community uses the term 'known' to refer to things they believe to be true and justified" and saying "X is known because the language community believes that X is true and justified."
The former is true, the latter is not. The language community can be wrong about X. — Michael
When the JTB definition of knowledge states that John knows that it is raining iff 1) he believes that it is raining and 2) he is justified in believing that it is raining and 3) it is raining, it is simply stating in specific terms the more general definition that John knows what the weather is like iff it actually is as he justifiably believes it to be. — Michael
Number 3 'it is raining' is a Fact by what judgement? Abstract judgement. — I like sushi
Wouldn't it proving to be true but for the wrong reason just be better justifications? — Isaac
Here's another example:
John will die if:
1) John drinks the potion, and
2) the potion is toxic
Do we interpret this claim as the below?
John will die if:
1) I believe that John drinks the potion, and
2) I believe that the potion is toxic
Of course not. That would be ridiculous. My beliefs will not kill John. The actual facts will kill John. The exact same principle applies to:
John knows that it is raining iff:
1) John believes that it is raining,
2) John is justified in believing that it is raining, and
3) it is raining — Michael
I clarified the mistake you're making here:... — Michael
Let's say you know that the answer to some question is X not Y, i.e. you have whatever standard of truth is necessary, but I don't. I have to figure out the answer from clues, and come to the belief that the answer is X but I could be wrong, that is I might have made a mistake as I have only clues (a WYSIATI error or some such). I tell you what I believe the answer is and why. You agree that my reasoning is sound and that I hold a JTB. — Kenosha Kid
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.