But who can judge what is or isn't a Fact? — I like sushi
'Bachelor' is a term given to people who the user believes are unmarried and the who the user believes is a man. That is how 'bachelor's used. It is not reserved for use only when we have managed to obtain some sort of objective fact about a person's sex or marital status. — Isaac
You're labelling it as a wrong use of the word, but I'm calling it a correct use of the word, just a wrong belief. It's correct to use the word 'bachelor' of someone you believe to be unmarried and believe to be a man, it's how everyone uses the word and it would be perverse to suggest it wasn't correct (ie everyone is wrong).
You might later come to believe that he is married, or a woman (or both), so now, believing this, it would no longer be correct to use the word 'bachelor'. — Isaac
Well then, as I've asked before, if circumstances of felicitous use don't give us the meaning of terms, what does? — Isaac
There's no debate about what it means to be dead (or not much anyway). There's debate about what it means to know.
No-one is arguing that your position is incoherent (at least I'm not). It's a perfectly coherent possibility, it's just not the possibility which actually pertains.
'To know' could mean what you say it does. It just doesn't happen to. — Isaac
...that is part 1.It coveys a belief about a weather condition, — Isaac
...that's part 2.not the actual weather condition — Isaac
...and that is part 3.(which is composed of atmospheric molecules). — Isaac
The focus is different, and what I said was distinct. A major difference is that what you said is consistent with manipulative behavior; I don't want you to eat my lunch so I say "that is a poisonous lab experiment". In this case, I'm not informing the listener; I'm attempting to manipulate the listener. Another difference is that I might inform the listener even if I have no reason to think the listener would believe me as a result (IOW, the answer to your question is "not really"). The point isn't so much that we don't tell people things to get them to believe it; but rather, that telling people things to get them to believe it isn't the point; beliefs aren't the ends you're making them out to be.You seem to have just repeated what I said. Does a listener, sucessfully informed that it's raining, not now believe that it's raining? — Isaac
where I still take issue is that the 'standard' can be no more than a set of justifications — Isaac
A 'bachelor' is not a thing outside of language community declaring it to be a thing - felicitous use of the term 'bachelor', that's all I'm saying there. — Isaac
if John isn’t an unmarried man (i.e your belief is wrong) then your assertion that John is a bachelor is false. — Michael
That it’s appropriate to say what you say isn’t that what you say is true. Your assertion that John is a bachelor can be appropriate, given what you believe, but false given the actual facts. And your assertion that you have knowledge can be appropriate, given what you believe, but false given the actual facts. — Michael
Part 1 is a belief; I believe with my mind, which is a product of my brain, which is in my skull; so part 1 is something going on in my skull. — InPitzotl
"it's raining" does indeed talk about what's "outside my window", — InPitzotl
The point isn't so much that we don't tell people things to get them to believe it; but rather, that telling people things to get them to believe it isn't the point; beliefs aren't the ends you're making them out to be. — InPitzotl
The father's information helps the mother prevent herself from actual wetness caused by the actual rain. — InPitzotl
we're agents navigating a world. — InPitzotl
Let me know if you want a response to the rest. — InPitzotl
being a bachelor means that you have not gone through various processes, at the very least, being wed, whether in a church or a civil ceremony or a registry office. — Janus
Which of these is true?
1. John is wet if he is standing in the rain
2. John is wet if I believe that he is standing in the rain
...
— Michael
What makes no sense is to talk about me using the term 'bachelor' to describe John and just being wrong, absent of anyone believing I'm wrong. It's not a state we can access, we can't act on it, it can never form part of our lives, none of our language or concepts can be based on it... — Isaac
The definitional equivalent would be...
1. John is wet if he is covered in water
2. John is wet if I believe that he is covered in water
That's not the same use of 'means' as in "bachelor means and unmarried man" where 'means' is telling us how to use the word. — Isaac
This is my takeaway from the above paragraph:Already you're mixing up the mode of identity being used. "part 1 is something going on in my skull". No it isn't. part 1 is a statement, what's going on in your skull is firing neurons and neurotransmitters. What you mean to say is that part 1 is about what's going on in your skull. — Isaac
Your argument does nothing for me, because I disagree with the postulate that to talk about x, I must have "direct access" to x, whatever "direct access" means.It cannot. It attempts to talk about what's happening outside of your window, it intends to talk about what's happening outside of your window. It cannot actually do so directly because you do not have direct access to what's going on outside your window. — Isaac
I have no idea what the antecedent to the underlined "it" is supposed to be.It's of no consequence in normal conversation, but it's clearly what we actually do when we say "it's raining". — Isaac
What's an "end point"? The terms "means" and "ends" are used as pairs to refer to a main goal you're trying to achieve (the end) and a thing you're just using to get there (the means). In this case the end is obviously being able to eat my lunch. The attempt to induce false belief was a means.Beliefs still seem to be the end point, — Isaac
...which would make "getting her to believe it's raining" a means to the end of helping her prevent herself from getting wet by actual rain....by getting her to believe it's raining. — Isaac
By beliefs (see below), but also by attending, observing, modeling, reasoning, testing, reacting, and so on.How do we navigate the world? — Isaac
Wrong question... the accusation here was that you were tunnel visioned, not blind.How do you even put one foot in front of another without a belief that doing so is an appropriate next step for you? — Isaac
Ooookay. As for the delays, I'm a very patient little piggy. I'd prefer you take time to read what I write... it's not a speed contest for me."Let me know if you want a response to the rest. — InPitzotl"
It's what I'm here for, though I've hardly any time in the week at the moment, so responses may be few and far between. — Isaac
So regarding "true" and "know", you've named a criteria for the definition of "know" being proposed being wrong:I'm quite clear now on what it is you believe to be the case, repeating it isn't necessary. What I'm pursuing is why you believe it to be the case. — Isaac
...but your argument begs the question. You haven't actually met your criteria, or even used it; you just claimed you did, then used that non-established non-fact to make your non-point. But the criteria you're applying is a linguistic criteria; it's used by people who actually do the work of looking at language usage (lexicographers) to write dictionaries. So what do they say? Here's a sampling:It must be correct to use the word of something which you have strong justification to believe (particularly if that justification is the agreement of your epistemic peers) because that is how the language community uses the word, it would be perverse to saythey're all wrong. — Isaac
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/know1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/know#English1. (transitive) To perceive the truth or factuality of; to be certain of or that.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/know2 a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/true1. being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/true#English1. (of a statement) Conforming to the actual state of reality or fact; factually correct.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/true1 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs
Definition time again. Ascertain:"we can (aka "can ever") ascertain truth using justification. — InPitzotl"
Great. How? — Isaac
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ascertain1 : to find out or learn with certainty
// ascertain the truth
// trying to ascertain the cause of the fire
// information that can be easily ascertained on the Internet
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ascertain1. To find out definitely; to discover or establish.
...
"As soon as we ascertain what the situation is, we can plan how to proceed."
1905, Baroness Emmuska Orczy [see link for full ref]:
"There the cause of death was soon ascertained ;"
Not sure what football being part of a game has to do with an option both not being about anything and being about something.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"
No. A football is part of a game, it's not itself a game. — Isaac
According to the JTB theory of knowledge,
1. If p is true then, there is proof of p (justification is necessary for truth) — Agent Smith
The JTB theory doesn’t say this. — Michael
You're joking, right? What does it say then?
If I believe p (B) and p is true (T) but have no justification (no J), do I have knowledge? — Agent Smith
It says that justification (and truth) are necessary for knowledge.
It doesn't say that justification is necessary for truth — Michael
That implies whatever statement Gödel is talking about isn't knowledge. What's happening? — Agent Smith
It's the same. "Bachelor' means an unmarried man' is the same as "Bachelor' means a man who has not been wed' since — Janus
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.