But what's wrong with saying something false? — Isaac

What do you mean by "wrong"? If by "wrong" you mean "false" then it's a truism that an asserted falsehood is wrong.

What do you mean by "wrong"? If by "wrong" you mean "false" then it's a truism that an asserted falsehood is wrong. — Michael

I mean why does it matter? Why correct the errant child? To what end?

I mean why does it matter? Why correct the errant child? To what end? — Isaac

People tend to want to know the truth. Correcting falsehoods is a normal thing that people do.

But I don't understand the relevance of your question. My point is that your use of the term "correct" is ambiguous, and open to equivocation. If by "correct" you mean "true" then your claim that "it is true that 'I know where my hat is', because I used the term correctly" begs the question. And if by "correct" you mean something else then your claim is prima facie a non sequitur: how does "correctness" (whatever that means) entail truth?

If I wanted a lecture I'd visit the university. I came here for a discussion. If you can't even be bothered to justify your assertions, then there's no point continuing. Things are not the case simply because they seem that way to you. — Isaac

Whatever dude. You are wrong, obviously wrong, and I made it abundantly clear. If your can't admit it, that's on you.

If you can't address the arguments I made, you can say so. No one will think less of you (in fact they would think better). But instead you leave in a huff. What more can one expect of a pro Russian anti vaxxer?

People tend to want to know the truth. Correcting falsehoods is a normal thing that people do. — Michael

I don't see what that's got to do with the 'correctness' of a word.

If, instead of 'car' I said 'voiture', that's the 'wrong' word in English, but it's not false, it is une voiture.

I don't see what that's got to do with the 'correctness' of a word. — Isaac

And I ask again, what do you mean by a word or phrase being correct? At first you said "'to be understood, to make sense", but a phrase can be understandable but also false, so even if it is correct to say "I know where my keys are" it may be false that you know where your keys are. You then went on to say that a word or phrase being correct has something to do with an ideal, and that's where you lost me.

But you know what I mean when I say 'voiture' is not the correct word for a car in English, yes?

It's not a falsehood. The four-wheeled personal transportation machine is une voiture. But it's the wrong word, in English.

You may not understand the way I'm trying to put that into words, but we can skip that bit, it's irrelevant if you already know what I mean.

I mean 'correct' in the sense that 'car' is correct and 'voiture' is not.

Or...

If I say "I to the shops go" that's not correct either. I haven't said anything false, and you'd probably understand what I mean, but it's not correct.

Or...

Language has rules, just like chess. If I move a piece the wrong way in chess it's not correct. If I use a word other than by the rules of my language it's not correct.


Any of those any clearer?

Knowledge is adequately justified belief, whether or not it is true. — T Clark

This is untrue (and therefore, not knowledge).

Did the ancient Greeks know the earth was the center of the universe? This is bad English. It is proper to say, they believed, or thought they knew.

If I say "I to the shops go" that's not correct either. I haven't said anything false, and you'd probably understand what I mean, but it's not correct. — Isaac

You're talking about grammatical correctness. I'm not sure what grammatical correctness has to do with truth. I agree that "I know where my keys are" is grammatically correct, but it doesn't then follow that it's true.

But you know what I mean when I say 'voiture' is not the correct word for a car in English, yes?

It's not a falsehood. The four-wheeled personal transportation machine is une voiture. But it's the wrong word, in English.

You may not understand the way I'm trying to put that into words, but we can skip that bit, it's irrelevant if you already know what I mean.

I mean 'correct' in the sense that 'car' is correct and 'voiture' is not. — Isaac

There are two parts to this. The first part is that "car" is the English word for a car, and the second is that your claim that there is a car is true. In the context of this discussion, I agree that "knowledge" is the English word for knowledge, but I question your claim that you have knowledge.

So going back your problematic claim:

"it is true that 'I know where my hat is', because I used the term correctly"

I accept that "I know where my hat is" is a grammatically correct English sentence. But it doesn't then follow that it's true. You must mean something else by "correct" in this claim. So can you explain to me the meaning of "correctly" such that it entails truth?

"I like this home. At least I think I do. But do I really know that? What if it is a passing whimsy? How do I distinguish my preference of the moment from a stable preference that will endure 10 years from now. — hypericin

Ok, thanks for that response. I understand that people do sometimes ruminate over basic life decisions. But I don't consider that kind of quotidian decision making (or lack thereof) philosophy. It may be how philosophy begins and then from it an ontology and epistemology is gradually built.

There are lots of times in the regular old everyday world when it's important that I know how I know something and how certain I am — T Clark

Of course.

whether or not this activity is in itself philosophy, you must agree that it does, or can, bring the decider into contact with philosophical issues.

Such confrontations happen throughout everyone's life.

whether or not this activity is in itself philosophy, you must agree that it does, or can, bring the decider into contact with philosophical issues — hypericin

I already said this:

It may be how philosophy begins and then from it an ontology and epistemology is gradually built. — Tom Storm

But none of this is very far from saying that making a sandwich is a philosophical enterprise...

Knowledge is adequately justified belief, whether or not it is true.
— T Clark

This is untrue (and therefore, not knowledge). — hypericin

Justified true belief is not a statement of fact, it is a definition of knowledge, and a non-standard one at that. Here is what I think of as a pretty good standard definition:

Knowledge is a familiarity or awareness, of someone or something, such as facts (descriptive knowledge), skills (procedural knowledge), or objects (acquaintance knowledge), often contributing to understanding. By most accounts, knowledge can be produced in many different ways and from many sources, including but not limited to perception, reason, memory, testimony, scientific inquiry, education, and practice. — Wikipedia

What good is a definition that does not represent what people normally mean when they say the word? Answer - not much.

Did the ancient Greeks know the earth was the center of the universe? — hypericin

There were Greeks as long ago as 500 bce who theorized that the earth revolves around the sun. Just type in ancient Greeks heliocentrism.

But none of this is very far from saying that making a sandwich is a philosophical enterprise... — Tom Storm

A peanut butter and mayonnaise sandwich made with Jiffy peanut butter and Helman's mayonnaise on white bread is the only truly philosophical sandwich.

I agree that "I know where my keys are" is grammatically correct, but it doesn't then follow that it's true. — Michael

I accept that "I know where my hat is" is a grammatically correct English sentence. But it doesn't then follow that it's true. — Michael

Ah, I remember our conversation on this last time now. I think we got about as far.

To be clear, I'm not looking for someone to clarify what the standard theory is, I'm trying (or was) to explain a different theory (broadly Ramseyan - or my interpretation of it). If you're not interested, that's fine, I've no compulsion to persuade you of it, but it's pointless you just repeating the standard theory back at me, I'm quite aware of it already and although I'm sure I don't have any more than the superficial grasp of the layman, I'd probably turn to the books if I wanted a deeper one.

This is untrue (and therefore, not knowledge).

Did the ancient Greeks know the earth was the center of the universe? This is bad English. It is proper to say, they believed, or thought they knew. — hypericin

'Knew' is the past tense. We use the past tense differently to the present tense.

'I know' is a description of a relationship between one's mental state (in relation to, maybe an image of the kitchen, my keys), and the world as I (the speaker) understand it to be. To say "I know my keys are on the table" is to say they match with some certainty - I'm not 'filling in the blanks' with guesswork, I'm pretty sure my mental image matches the world.

So in the past tense we're describing a previous mental image (or state), but still comparing it to the current understanding of the speaker, never the past one. So if I now have mental image of the the kitchen table sans keys, I can only say, of my past state of mind "I thought I knew where my keys were, but I didn't".

That doesn't change what 'I know' means in the present tense. It can still be an expression of the relationship it seems to be describing.

The trouble with your dogmatism is that you've no root for it. Why must we use the present tense and the past tense the same way? Why must there be some universal one-size-fits-all definition of 'knowledge' which matches every single use case? You've no Ten Commandments of language for your absolutism, your theology is missing a God.

A peanut butter and mayonnaise sandwich made with Jiffy peanut butter and Helman's mayonnaise on white bread is the only truly philosophical sandwich. — T Clark

I've recorded this in my philosophical notebook next to the section on Heidegger.

What good is a definition that does not represent what people normally mean when they say the word? Answer - not much. — T Clark

Yeah, that was pretty much my starting point too. "It's true that the grass is green" adds nothing to "the grass is green". The 'it's true' bit is implied by the statement within the context of a particular language game, there's nothing more to the truth of 'the grass is green' than the grass being green. Likewise with 'I know' (again, in certain contexts), where "I know the grass is green" adds nothing to the statement "the grass is green". After all, to use a famous example, I can hardly say "I merely believe it's raining outside, and it's raining outside", It wouldn't make sense. The expression "It's raining outside" already entails that I know it to be the case.

The problem people have is with their conception of truth differing from their conception of knowledge or beliefs. Personally, I'm not a strong realist, so I don't necessarily think there is a truth about certain propositions (some, but not all), but let's say there is, I think we'd all agree that it's an asymptote at best, something we approach with better models but never reach. So a Justified True Belief model of knowledge would have no-one ever having knowledge, it too would become an asymptote because of the nature of one of it's requirements (I suspect one could even demonstrate this mathematically - but I won't attempt it). So one could only properly make claims to knowledge, or claims to truth, never assertions (without dogmatism).

But then we go back to where I (and you) started. That's simply not how the word(s) is used. We don't use either 'know' or 'true' as if we were making claims to an asymptotical ideal which we will never reach (for a start, with the latter we already have such an option - we'd use 'truer', or 'more true'). If we don't use the words that way, then how can that be their meaning? Hence the need for a different understanding of them.

I just don't see the point of @hypericin's quest to tell us what the word ought to mean. We seem to have got by quite well enough with it meaning what it currently does mean thus far.

There were Greeks as long ago as 500 bce who theorized that the earth revolves around the sun. Just type in ancient Greeks heliocentrism. — T Clark

Yeah yeah. From what I read this was a minority view. But this is utterly beside the point. Answer the question. Did MOST of the ancient Greeks know the earth was the center of the universe?

This is not even philosophy anymore, just basic English.

'Knew' is the past tense. We use the past tense differently to the present tense. — Isaac

So now meaning shifts with tense to keep your account coherent. And I'm the dogmatist.

Yet, tense has absolutely nothing to do with it.

He knows that 8*8 is 63.

This is simply bad English, given that the speaker presumably knows that it does not. "Know" in English cannot be applied to something that is known to be false. Similarly, it cannot be applied to a guess, and be good English. This is not how "know" ought to be used, it is how it is used. These are the rules that JTB captures.

JTB is not perfect (which I pointed out in my op). But it is a far better model of how we actually use the word than your mental state theory.

to be clear, I'm not looking for someone to clarify what the standard theory is, I'm trying (or was) to explain a different theory (broadly Ramseyan - or my interpretation of it). — Isaac

Please.

So now meaning shifts with tense to keep your account coherent. And I'm the dogmatist. — hypericin

Difference is I'm not claiming your account is factually wrong, you are mine, hence dogmatism.

This is simply bad English, given that the speaker presumably knows that it does not. "Know" in English cannot be applied to something that is known to be false. Similarly, it cannot be applied to a guess, and be good English. This is not how "know" ought to be used, it is how it is used. — hypericin

I don't know what this is supposed to be a counter-example to, but no-one has suggested it's correct English to use 'know' about something known to be false.

to be clear, I'm not looking for someone to clarify what the standard theory is, I'm trying (or was) to explain a different theory (broadly Ramseyan - or my interpretation of it). — Isaac


Please. — hypericin

If I've misunderstood Ramsey, I'd be grateful for your (well sourced) corrections.

This is not even philosophy anymore, just basic English. — hypericin

No. This is basic English.

knowledge
noun
uk
/ˈnɒl.ɪdʒ/ us
/ˈnɑː.lɪdʒ/
B1 [ S or U ]
understanding of or information about a subject that you get by experience or study, either known by one person or by people generally — Cambridge

knowledge
(nɒlɪdʒ IPA Pronunciation Guide )
1. uncountable noun
Knowledge is information and understanding about a subject which a person has, or which all people have. — Collins

Definition of knowledge

1a(1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique — Merriam (for the Yanks)

No mention of truth in any of them. If you want to start a crusade against ordinary use, crack on, but don't try and claim it's just basic English.

Note how they all mention the importance of the method of acquisition (the justification). None mention the veracity of the information thereby gained.

If I've misunderstood Ramsey, I'd be grateful for your (well sourced) corrections. — Isaac

@hypericin I mean this last quite seriously, by the way. Ramsey is the only philosopher I've made any significant study of and I'm something of a collector of both his works and secondary sources. So insults are secondary to the opportunity to get new information.

Yeah, that was pretty much my starting point too. "It's true that the grass is green" adds nothing to "the grass is green". The 'it's true' bit is implied by the statement within the context of a particular language game, there's nothing more to the truth of 'the grass is green' than the grass being green. Likewise with 'I know' (again, in certain contexts), where "I know the grass is green" adds nothing to the statement "the grass is green". After all, to use a famous example, I can hardly say "I merely believe it's raining outside, and it's raining outside", It wouldn't make sense. The expression "It's raining outside" already entails that I know it to be the case. — Isaac

The problem is when you claim that because we use the phrase "I know where my keys are" when we have a strong belief then having a strong belief is all there is to knowledge, which is like saying that because we use the phrase "the grass is green" when we believe that the grass is green then believing that the grass is green is all there is to the grass being green, whereas most people understand that the grass being green has nothing to do with what we believe and that our beliefs can be mistaken.

Yours just seems a fallacious interpretation of ordinary language philosophy, or some sort of idealism that rejects the notion of there being objective facts, and if the latter then we can dismiss it outright as this isn't a discussion on metaphysics.

So a Justified True Belief model of knowledge would have no-one ever having knowledge, — Isaac

Yes. Which makes the whole thing ridiculous and, as I noted, it's not the way the word is used by regular people. You don't need philosophy to know things.

But then we go back to where I (and you) started. That's simply not how the word(s) is used. We don't use either 'know' or 'true' as if we were making claims to an asymptotical ideal which we will never reach (for a start, with the latter we already have such an option - we'd use 'truer', or 'more true'). If we don't use the words that way, then how can that be their meaning? Hence the need for a different understanding of them. — Isaac

Agreed.

As I said previously, I see knowledge as information ready to be used. Adequately justified for the purpose intended. We can never be absolutely certain the information we have is correct, but we usually can't wait around forever before acting. So we do our due diligence and get on with it. If it turns out later that our information was incorrect...oops. We'll just have to live with it.

Did MOST of the ancient Greeks know the earth was the center of the universe? — hypericin

Most ancient Greeks didn't know anything about philosophy or science. They knew about raising goats, making shoes, fishing, killing other Greeks. I wonder if most people now know the earth isn't the center of the universe. I would say 100 years ago they probably didn't. Do most people know that nothing can exceed the speed of light? In the US, almost half the people don't believe in evolution as described by Darwin.

We can never be absolutely certain the information we have is correct — T Clark

By "correct" do you mean "true"? Because then this very sentence accepts that there is such a thing as the truth which is independent of whatever we believe, so you appear to be contradicting yourself.

This is simply bad English — hypericin

Perfectly good English, just wrong.

JTB is not perfect (which I pointed out in my op). But it is a far better model of how we actually use the word than your mental state theory. — hypericin

I disagree. As Isaac and I noted, it's not how people use the word in the regular old world.

The problem is when you claim that because we use the phrase "I know where my keys are" when we have a strong belief then having a strong belief is all there is to knowledge, which is like saying that because we use the phrase "the grass is green" when we believe that the grass is green then believing that the grass is green is all there is to the grass being green, whereas most people understand that the grass being green has nothing to do with what we believe and that our beliefs can be mistaken. — Michael

You left out the most important part - justification. Knowledge is information adequately justified for it's intended use. Different uses required different levels of justification. No knowledge can be absolutely certain.