If you ask English-speakers which of these count as knowledge, almost all will say only the first.

1. John knows that it is raining if the weather is as he justifiably believes it to be
2. John knows that it is raining if the weather isn't as he justifiably believes it to be

If you want to know what words mean, it's best to ask the people who use them.

If you ask English-speakers which of these count as knowledge, almost all will say only the first.

1. John knows that it is raining if the weather is as he justifiably believes it to be — Michael

And if we want to know what they mean by "the weather is..."?

You ask them, and they tell you that they're referring to whether or not it's raining, or is sunny, or is cloudy, or is snowing, and so on.

they tell you that they're referring to whether or not it's raining — Michael

And if you want to know what they mean by "whether or not it's raining..."?

You've just given a circular definition.

The question was what people mean by "it's raining", the answer can't contain the expression "it's raining".

And if you want to know what they mean by "whether or not it's raining..."? — Isaac

Again, ask them. They'll say it's when water falls from the clouds.

I'm not going to continue this game forever.

I'm not going to continue this game forever. — Michael

Well then you could address the point instead of avoiding it.

When people say things like "it's raining", they mean that they have a belief that it's raining (in this case, one they're very confident in ,one with good justifications.

You arguments are circular because you keep defining what people mean when they say "X is..." in term of "Y is...". You haven't addressed the general case of what a statement that something 'is' actually means.

When people say things like "it's raining", they mean that they have a belief that it's raining (in this case, one they're very confident in ,one with good justifications. — Isaac

No, when people say things like "it's raining" they mean that it's raining. We've gone over this so many times.

I can say "it's raining" even if I believe that it's not raining. I can say "it's raining" as a guess. I can say "it's raining" as a response to someone asking me what John believes. In each and every case, "it's raining" means the same thing; that it's raining. These aren't three different expressions that mean three different things.

when people say things like "it's raining" they mean that it's raining. — Michael

How is this an answer?

"What does 'it's ambiguous' mean?"
"It means it's ambiguous"

"What does 'he knows' mean?"
"It means, he knows"

No one considers those to be answers to an enquiry about the meaning of words. So what makes you think "they mean it's raining" is a satisfactory answer to an investigation into what people mean by "it's raining"?

Then you tell me. What does the "it's raining" part of "I believe that it's raining" mean?

What does the "it's raining" part of "I believe that it's raining" mean? — Michael

Nothing at all. Partial expressions don't mean anything, it just 'bewitchment by grammar' to think they do.

What does 'for a quick' mean in "I'm going to go for a quick walk now"?

What does 'for a nice' mean in "It's about time for a nice cup of tea"?

When people say things like "it's raining", they mean that they have a belief that it's raining (in this case, one they're very confident in ,one with good justifications. — Isaac

I would disagree. Its raining is an axiomatic statement based on an independent variable. That is, it is independent from belief. If it was a belief, they would pose it as an opinion such as: I think it is raining. Calling water falling from the sky a "good justification" for a belief that it is, in fact raining is a bit of an understatement.

If it was a belief, they would pose it as an opinion such as: I think it is raining. — john27

So when I say "it's raining" I don't believe it's raining?

Nothing at all. — Isaac

Beliefs have propositional content. I understand what the "it's raining" part of "I believe that it's raining" means and I understand what the "it's sunny" part of "I believe that it's sunny" means, and I understand the difference between them.

What does 'for a quick' mean in "I'm going to go for a quick walk now"?

What does 'for a nice' mean in "It's about time for a nice cup of tea"? — Isaac

Nothing. But "a quick walk" and "a nice cup of tea" have a meaning.

No, you believe it is raining.

Or he's guessing, or he's lying. You don't know what's going on inside his head, only what he says. Yet you understand the meaning of his assertion, which refers to the belief-independent weather, and the alleged fact that water is falling from the clouds – which is why you look out the window to verify his claim, not interrogate him to confirm what he believes.

Likewise, "I think it is raining" would mean that his assertion is reliant on his belief. I think thats what I was trying to get across.

I would disagree. Its raining is an axiomatic statement based on an independent variable. That is, it is independent from belief. If it was a belief, they would pose it as an opinion such as: I think it is raining. Calling water falling from the sky a "good justification" for a belief that it is, in fact raining is a bit of an understatement. — john27

People have a confusing tendency to say "I believe X" when exhibiting doubt or a granting concession that one might be wrong - the very opposite qualities to the supposed meaning of "belief".

Also, a person's spoken beliefs often belie their actions.

People have a confusing tendency to say "I believe X" when exhibiting doubt or a granting concession that one might be wrong - the very opposite qualities to the supposed meaning of "belief".

Also, a person's spoken beliefs often belie their actions. — sime

Is that so... The more you know.

But "a quick walk" and "a nice cup of tea" have a meaning. — Michael

Yes. And "it's raining" has a meaning too, but not within "I believe it's raining". Having established that some portions of expressions can be expressions in their own right yet others can't, it seems you're missing the step in your argument where you demonstrate that the 'it's raining' (within "I believe it's raining") is of the former type and not the latter (as I've argued).

No, you believe it is raining. — john27

But you said...

If it was a belief, they would pose it as an opinion such as: I think it is raining. — john27

...they didn't, so we conclude that it wasn't a belief.

I can believe 1+1 is 2, and believe that it is correct; that doesn't change the fact its an axiomatic statement independent of belief.

If it was a belief, they would pose it as an opinion such as: I think it is raining. — john27

This is meant to describe that my statement of truth is based on my belief; that in my opinion it is positively possible that the supposed fact is currently enacted.

And "it's raining" has a meaning too, but not within "I believe it's raining". — Isaac

Yes it does, and any reasonable person understands this. Frankly, your position is untenable and you're just being stubborn. I'm tired of it.

I honestly don't think you believe what you're saying anymore.

I can believe 1+1 is 2, and believe that it is correct; that doesn't change the fact its an axiomatic statement independent of belief. — john27

It seems to. Why do you think it doesn't?

it is positively possible that the supposed fact is currently enacted. — john27

I can't make sense of that sentence I'm afraid.

Ah, the classic.

"The world is as it seems to me to be, therefore anyone who thinks otherwise must be mistaken, lying, or deliberately obtuse"

Do you really struggle that much with the idea of things seeming to other people to be different to the way they seem to you?

It seems to. Why do you think it doesn't? — Isaac

Because I'm not the center of the universe.

it is positively possible that the supposed fact is currently enacted. — john27

It is more or less possible that a fact (it is raining, it is snowing) is happening, is being conducted.

Do you really struggle that much with the idea of things seeming to other people to be different to the way they seem to you? — Isaac

How the world seems and how the world is aren't the same. I've spent weeks trying to explain this to you. There is a fact of the matter, independent of what you or I believe, such that one of us is right and one of us is wrong. And as I'm the one arguing this and you're the one arguing against this, I'm right and you're wrong.

I can believe 1+1 is 2, and believe that it is correct; that doesn't change the fact its an axiomatic statement independent of belief. — john27

..because...

I'm not the center of the universe. — john27

Could you join the dots any further. I don't see how you not being the centre of the universe determines what "1+1=2" means.

And as I'm the one arguing this and you're the one arguing against this, I'm right and you're wrong. — Michael

The point I'm highlighting is not that you think I'm wrong, it's that you seem to think I must be lying or stubborn... that you can't just think I've reached a different conclusion to you because we're different people.

[

Could you join the dots any further. I don't see how you not being the centre of the universe determines what "1+1=2" means. — Isaac

When did I say that I determine that 1+1=2? My whole point is that:

I can believe 1+1 is 2, and believe that it is correct; that doesn't change the fact its an axiomatic statement independent of belief. — john27

because I am insignificant in its apparent truth. it is not reliant on me, or anyone whatsoever.

Another source of conflict and confusion, especially among Bayesian statisticians, concerns the distinction between uncertainty and imprecision.

The typical breed of Bayesian accepts premise A.

Premise A: Tomorrow's weather is physically certain, but epistemically uncertain.

On the other hand, a modern physicist with a distaste for folk-psychology (and hence for conventional epistemology and Bayesian statistics) might reject A in favour of the "direct realist" premise B:

Premise B: From the perspective of today, tomorrow's weather is physically imprecise.

Here, physical imprecision refers to the fact that the physical information constituting "today" does not imply a precise weather-outcome tomorrow and that any accurate model of today's information translates this physical imprecision into an imprecise estimation.

When did I say that I determine that 1+1=2? — john27

Not at any time as far as I recall.

I am insignificant in its apparent truth. it is not reliant, on me, or anyone whatsoever. — john27

What's 'it' here? 'It', the statement, seems entirely reliant on you. Without you there'd be no statement.

'It', the fact, doesn't seem reliant on you, but no one claimed it was.

I'm talking about what statements mean, not about how facts obtain. Two different topics.

1+1=2 obtains because of the rules of mathematics.

"1+1=2" is a statement, a speech act, it has a meaning. Determining that meaning is not, by necessity, the same as determining why or how the fact expressed obtains.

I'm claiming that the meaning is determined by the full expression, in context. It requires a speaker and a listener, and it has no meaning at all out of context.

If you think it has a meaning outside of any language game it might form part of, then you'd have to say where we look to find that meaning. In what does the meaning inhere?