But surely some knowledge must be true or false. — Cornwell1

The point I've tried to make in this thread is that knowledge, from a pragmatic point of view, isn't made up of facts that are true or false. It's made up of conceptual models that are accurate or inaccurate.

On the other hand, "The capital of France is Paris," is a true statement and I agree that it constitutes knowledge. I do knock my head against that a bit.

When assessing a site, and another pragmatic epistemogist comes up with different knowledge as you do, are you both telling the truth? — Cornwell1

"Telling the truth" refers to whether or not someone is lying or not, which is not the issue. The question is whose conceptual model is more accurate. Whose will lead to the most successful action.

this isn't to deny the concept of truth or to identify truth with utility. — sime

As I noted in another post, the Pragmatic understanding of "truth" takes some getting used to. I'm still working on it. Identifying truth and utility has it's problems. I get around that by saying truth and utility aren't the same thing, but utility is the one that matters. As I said, I'm still working on that.

If two different models are equally accurate then they are both true? There are domains in the world where two or more mutually excluding conceptual models lead to succesful interaction. Don't you want true stuff to interact with? Isn't assigning a truth value (instead of a pragmatic value) to you conceptual model a drive to investigate the world?

Some people...? If you are calling me a patronising, bossy arsehole I ask you to refrain from this in future. — Tom Storm

I'm pretty sure that at work, you had to have some mandatory seminars on "assertive communication" or something similar, had you not?

If two different models are equally accurate then they are both true? — Cornwell1

As I've said, conceptual models are more or less accurate, not true or false.

There are domains in the world where two or more mutually excluding conceptual models lead to succesful interaction. — Cornwell1

I wouldn't think that two different conceptual models of the same phenomena would be mutually excluding, e.g. Newton's laws of motion are consistent with relativity at velocities less than about 0.7c. Above that velocity, relativity is a more accurate model.

On the other hand, "The capital of France is Paris," is a true statement and I agree that it constitutes knowledge. I do knock my head against that a bit — T Clark

Just an interesting twist..... If I said the capital of France is F, this would be true from the standpoint that F is the only capital letter used in the word France.
The capital CITY of France is Paris. Am I being more pragmatic here or more intuitive?
or would you insist on The capital LETTER of France is F.
It's a matter of interpretation but perhaps such nuances would be missed without the kind of 'out of the box' thinking that the emotional content of your personality might encourage.

I wouldn't think that two different conceptual models of the same phenomena would be mutually excluding, e.g. Newton's laws of motion are consistent with relativity at velocities less than about 0.7c. Above that velocity, relativity is a more accurate model. — T Clark

General relativity and Newtonian gravity are conceptually different. General relativity doesn't consider gravity a force and space and time are relative. The numerical predictions are the same but the concepts are mutually exclusive. Likewise for statistical and classical thermodynamics (even phlogiston in certain areas).

General relativity and Newtonian gravity are conceptually different. General relativity doesn't consider gravity a force and space and time are relative. — Cornwell1

I was talking about Newton's laws of motion and special relativity. I should have been clearer.

I was talking about Newton's laws of motion and special relativity. I should have been clearer. — T Clark

Also these are mutually exclusive.

Also these are mutually exclusive. — Cornwell1

I don't think you and I mean the same thing by "mutually exclusive." No need to take that up now.

Say you have a conceptual model of a site that uses different concepts as mine, but insofar pragmatics is concerned there is no difference. Your model is as accurate as mine. Does the pragmatic value equalize them?

Say you have a conceptual model of a site that uses different concepts as mine, but insofar pragmatics is concerned there is no difference. Your model is as accurate as mine. Does the pragmatic value equalize them? — Cornwell1

Here's a link to an interesting video explaining why the speed of light in glass is different than in a vacuum. 16 minutes long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHN0ZWE5bk

After the presenter goes through his explanation, he says - oh, by the way, here are two other ways to look at it, and he briefly describes them. So, he has three apparently different ways of modelling the phenomenon, one classical and two quantum mechanical. He gives a very interesting description of the differences between the three models and the value of each.

But only one is right. Photon absorption and re-emission.

But only one is right. Photon absorption and re-emission. — Cornwell1

You got something different out of the video than I did.

You got something different out of the video than I did. — T Clark

There is only one speed of light. In the vacuum. The smaller speed comes in handy in using glass fibres, but the concept of speed of light in glass is weird.

There is only one speed of light. In the vacuum. The smaller speed comes in handy in using glass fibres, but the concept of speed of light in glass is weird. — Cornwell1

You missed the point I was trying to make when I provided the link. Let's leave it at that.

What then is the point?

What then is the point? — Cornwell1

I don't think this line of discussion is getting us anywhere. Let's drop it.

I'll just provide a final comment on your theory about knowledge and then leave you alone. Pragmatic epistemology is an unsupported, far-fetched theory of knowledge. As far as I can tell, "pragmatic epistemology" is just another name for your attempts to use the so-called "scientific method" to explain knowledge, with no scientific basis. This is not science, it's pseudo-science.