The moment you introduce a scenarion like this, you are taking the person out of the empirical realm, and then asking them how they knew something when hallucinating. — Garrett Travers

I honestly don’t understand why this is problematic.

Has any other system produced actionable knowledge? — Garrett Travers

Well, if you really think about it, there's not anything that you ever do for your entire life that doesn't fall into the realm of action. — Garrett Travers

That would make all knowledge “actionable” regardless of what “system” produced it.

Circular only applies to our concepts, not our actual physical methods as living beings with an ever working brain that is collecting data ad infinitum. — Garrett Travers

Isn’t empiricism a concept?

The brain accrues sensory data of the world in manner of complexity so sophisticated that we can't comprehend it. — Garrett Travers

Sensory data is so vague it could include the so called “sixth sense”. What is a sense? What is nonsense? I’m just taking the piss by the way.

I’m not a skeptic — Average

Why not? Answer me, god damn it! Answer me! :grin:

That being because, such standards come from abstractions, which come from data accrued. — Garrett Travers

Why do you believe this?

I don’t appreciate your belligerence but I will answer you. I don’t believe that knowledge is impossible because I believe that I have some.

I believe that I have some — Average

Pray tell, edify us as to what it is that you (seem to) know.

I don’t think it’s my job to edify anybody.

how do I know that the surgeon is real? — Average

Then this is not about the OP anymore. If you wanted to discuss justified belief, be explicit. And I say this because in the OP, it reads like you wanted to sift though good and bad information and how to go about that. This is different from justified true belief.

I’m not a platonist so idk. I don’t know how you could possibly sift through good and bad information if you don’t know what is true or false.

Obviously, you have some idea of what is true or false, else you wouldn't be questioning the information you come upon. Why don't you start there, define what ought to be true. Then, you can critique how we dish out "truths", which could be misinformation.

define what ought to be true. — L'éléphant

I don’t know what you mean by “ought”.

I don’t know what you mean by “ought”. — Average

Probably I shouldn't use ought. But must. What must be true if xyz argument is sound and valid.

that’s a good question.

What must be true if xyz argument is sound and valid. — L'éléphant

You’re not really referring to a specific argument. Also I’m not a logician. But from what I know about soundness in arguments it means that the premises are true and the argument is valid. My understanding of validity is that the conclusion can’t possibly be false if the premises are true. I’m not sure if I answered your question.

I’m not a platonist so idk. I don’t know how you could possibly sift through good and bad information if you don’t know what is true or false. — Average

And yet we do every day. We couldn't interact with others, hold down a job, study or walk down the street safely if we didn't know pragmatically what is true or false. The fact that I can drive a car means I have knowledge of true and false when it comes to negotiating roads and traffic. If not, I would run into a bus or some other inconvenience.

If one were to take a radical view that everything is an illusion, all I can say to that is I have no choice but to believe it is real? What other plausible option do we have?

I think we should talk more often about our values than our knowledge, because I think many of the errors in truth that we make (especially the deliberate ones) are informed by our worldviews and desires, much more than they are informed by a sincere understanding of truth.

For example, I value creative and critical thinking above (most) else, so the above paragraph aligns strongly with my worldview. Any investigation into truth I undertake will be informed by my desire not to be constrained into thinking boxes or dead ends (like the dead end imposed when one "attains" knowledge. Knowledge means [sadly] there are no more questions).

With this in mind, I assert that people who claim to have knowledge are always deceiving themselves or us, or both, and that they aren't very adventurous in their thought (and that that's a bad thing). Is this assertion informed by knowledge? Certainly! [Or so I will devotedly purport to everyone on whom I wish to extend my worldview, including myself].

I would not be surprised if the whole apparatus of truth and knowledge was ultimately ONLY a rhetorical device. That's how everyone seems to use it anyway.

I would not be surprised if the whole apparatus of truth and knowledge was ultimately ONLY a rhetorical device. That's how everyone seems to use it anyway. — SatmBopd

I try to avoid using truth and knowledge as rhetorical devices.

With this in mind, I assert that people who claim to have knowledge are always deceiving themselves or us, or both, and that they aren't very adventurous in their thought (and that that's a bad thing). Is this assertion informed by knowledge? Certainly! — SatmBopd

How am I supposed to take these sentences seriously? You say that have knowledge that informs your assertion but then you claim that anyone who claims to have knowledge is deceiving themselves or us, or both.

When you say [or think] something its whatever.
When you say [or think] something that's also true it is thought to have more merit.

It's mostly only a guess but I think that truth was basically naturally selected for as a valued concept because of this practical appeal. That's why I think truth and knowledge [could be] reducible to nothing more than a rhetorical device whether you try to avoid using it as one or not.

You aren't supposed to take it seriously

If one were to take a radical view that everything is an illusion, all I can say to that is I have no choice but to believe it is real? What other plausible option do we have? — Tom Storm

I don’t think that everything is an illusion. But if you don’t have a choice when it comes to what you believe then it doesn’t seem like you have any freedom.

To assess familiarity, comfortability with (discussing, reading, hearing) the subject is the most telling sign

But if you don’t have a choice when it comes to what you believe then it doesn’t seem like you have any freedom. — Average

The theme of freedom (where did that come from?) has never interested me. Life feels like free choice, That'll do me.

to each his own I suppose.

We couldn't interact with others, hold down a job, study or walk down the street safely if we didn't know pragmatically what is true or false. — Tom Storm

I don’t know a lot about pragmatism so I won’t be able to truly understand your argument until I take the time to investigate the subject.

I don’t know a lot about pragmatism so I won’t be able to truly understand your argument until I take the time to investigate the subject. — Average

I was using the word in its ordinary sense not the philosophical one. There is some overlap but basically it means if your belief about the world works then it is pragmatically true.

how do you measure whether or not it “works”? You gave me an example of driving but let’s say that at some point in the future you got into a tragic traffic accident. Would you still put your beliefs into the category of “pragmatically true”? At what point would something become pragmatically false? I suspect your answer would be if it worked or not but I’d still want to know how you measure that.

Based on our pragmatic common sense understanding of how driving works in a pragmatic world, a crash is always a possibility. So what? One of the pragmatic truths about driving is that it has risks. And we know there are things you can do (truths) which decrease and increase risk. I don't generally measure anything in life, I go by common sense and inference. We all do.