Hence, if you believe the Earth is not flat, you cannot consistently deny (3). — Banno
3) It is tru.. . Wait a minute, I do not have direct access to the truth. I am stumped. — PhilosophyRunner
may JTB be useless? — PhilosophyRunner
Does that answer your objection? — PhilosophyRunner
Is that true?All truth is provisional. — T Clark
So, if you want to say you know something and you're worried people will doubt your knowledge, just add a statement about how you know it and how certain you are. — T Clark
And to put my views more succinctly, JBT is defying knowledge (epistemology) is being defined in terms of metaphysics (absolute objective truth). But since we can never actually access this, instead I propose to define knowledge in epistemological terms - provisional truth that can be justified using the best current justification methodology. That to me is what most are referring to when they say "I know" — PhilosophyRunner
So how do you know that all truth is provisional and how certain are you? — Banno
Sure, you have false beliefs. But if you believe that the Earth is not flat, then you are committed to the truth of the sentence "the Earth is not flat". Step (3) is already done for you. — Banno
Part of the problem is that JTB is a definition of knowledge, rather than a method for finding it. It doesn't tell you what is true and what isn't. You will have to work that out some other way. — Banno
:up:I think JTB is useless. I propose different factors for identifying knowledge. Rather than belief, justification, and truth; I think belief and adequate justification are the right factors and are all that's required. I'll bring out one of my favorite quotes, from Stephen J. Gould - "In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." — T Clark
That's what knowledge is about - it is a tool to help decide what action to take. — T Clark
How do you know they could be wrong?"I am unsure if my beliefs are an accurate reflection of reality - they could be wrong" — PhilosophyRunner
How do you know they could be wrong? — Banno
And again, note that JTB is a definition, not a method. — Banno
And so in practice, everyone uses JMAOJB (Justified Massive Amounts Of Justification Belief) when using "I know..."
If everybody uses JMAOJB when invoking knowledge, then is it not the case that knowledge is actually JMAOJB and not JTB in any practical use. A meaning of a word is what is in common usage, after all. — PhilosophyRunner
Because I believe I have justification that beliefs can be wrong. — PhilosophyRunner
Sophistry, intentional, as are many of your comments. — T Clark
The situational component of what is needed for practical knowledge is a good point. — PhilosophyRunner
That truth is evasive is just the truth about truth — Hanover
It's redundant in that "the earth is flat" will be true exactly if the Earth is flat; no extra meaning is added to the sentence by saying it is true. But it can change what we might do with the sentence. :wink:what you seem to be suggesting is that T is redundant and not used. — PhilosophyRunner
Well, yes - there's knowing how to do things as well as knowing what is the case. But the two are not entirely unrelated.there exists another definition for knowledge... — PhilosophyRunner
That allows us to ignore any inconvenient truth. If the election were not stolen, then I must accept rule by my opponents, and I'd prefer not to, so I arrive at my knowledge, with all my justifications, without regard for truth. — Hanover
Well, yes - there's knowing how to do things as well as knowing what is the case. But the two are not entirely unrelated. — Banno
Surely you also recognize that something you completely and utterly believe today may turn out to be wrong? — PhilosophyRunner
Yeah, sure, we don't have access to "objective metaphysical truth", whatever that might be. — Banno
Ah but see I am not yet sure that is true. Though I reserve the right to invoke that at a later point in the discussion if need be!Some things, such as that Banno can be bloody annoying, are true.
The point here is that dispensing with the T element dispenses with a meaningful K. That truth is evasive is just the truth about truth, and ignoring it doesn't resolve any issue. — Hanover
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.