Perhaps pragmatism works for deciding if the sun will come up tomorrow. Does it work for deciding if you should kill Mum for her inheritance? — Banno

This is not a question of fact, i.e knowledge, it is a question of values, which you know. More sophistry.

I don't know what "objective absolute truth" is. Presumably something intentionally sophistical.

The account in the Theaetetus is about truth.

How does adding "objective" and "absolute" help?

Your example is very consequential, thus a higher burden of justification is needed to claim something as knowledge. — PhilosophyRunner

I agree.

allows us to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. That includes most decisions. In a related fashion, it allows us some control over the risks of decisions we make. — T Clark

I've not suggested you must possess the truth to make decisions. I'm saying that Ptolmey didn't know the earth was in the center of the universe, regardless of how helpful that belief might have been to him.

I'm saying that Ptolmey didn't know the earth was in the center of the universe, regardless of how helpful that belief might have been to him. — Hanover

I disagree.

How does adding "objective" and "absolute" help? — Banno

It says it is independent on your view on the matter, my view on the matter, anybodies' view on the matter.

This truth plays no part in my use of "I know ..."

Your example is very consequential, thus a higher burden of justification is needed to claim something as knowledge. — PhilosophyRunner

That's exactly why I must insist upon at arriving at further justifications to substantiate my knowledge the election was stolen, else I'll have to submit to the authority of my nemesis.

This seems to celebrate confirmation bias as opposed to starting from the notion that there is a truth.

This is not a question of fact, i.e knowledge, it is a question of values... — T Clark

So said the Vienna Circle, and some of their followers. I'm not so sure the distinction can be maintained. One might even claim that their pushing such a break between fact and value was intentional sophistry. That's the contention of much of the biographical stuff to come out recently concerning the women of Oxford in the forties and fifties - that they were reacting against such rejection of the application of rationality to ethics.

Are you really wanting to maintain that values do not have a truth value? SO it's not true that I like vanilla, that Putin is a bit of a dick, that Hendrix was better than Hilton Valentine? Who shouldn't such sentence have truth values - apart from special pleading by sophists in defence of their pet theory of knowledge?

I disagree. — T Clark

Then we need a new term.

I say Ptolmey didn't know the earth to be in the center of the universe.

You say he knew it.

We both agree he was wrong.

What is the term you'd prefer to designate JTB if not "knowledge"? Let us use the word "tnow" for that.

Ptolmey didn't tnow the earth to be the center of the universe, although he thought it. We in agreement now?

Does this resolve the issue, or is there something bigger at play?

One might even claim that their pushing such a break between fact and value was intentional sophistry. — Banno

Particularly lame sophistry.

Are you really wanting to maintain that values do not have a truth value? — Banno

Yes.

SO it's not true that I like vanilla, — Banno

That you like vanilla is a statement of fact. Your liking of vanilla is a statement of value.

Who shouldn't such sentence have truth values — Banno

It's not that it shouldn't. It's that it doesn't.

There wasn't actually an argument in that post.

That's exactly why I must insist upon at arriving at further justifications to substantiate my knowledge the election was stolen, else I'll have to submit to the authority of my nemesis.

This seems to celebrate confirmation bias as opposed to starting from the notion that there is a truth. — Hanover

And are you able to get this justification? If you are not able to, you do not know the election is stolen. So go away, look at the evidence and try to find justification. If you can find substantial evidence the election was stolen, then you can validly say "I know the election was stolen".

The same would happen under JBT. If you went away and found enough evidence to provide sufficient justification the election was stolen, then you would say "I know the election was stolen". You would say "It is true the election is stolen." The additional T makes no difference to what you say.

I, on the other hand, have looked at the evidence and consider it enough justification to consider the election was not stolen. So I say "I know the election was not stolen." Do I say this because I have direct access to truth? Absolutely not. Rather I am inferring truth using evidence (which is a form of justification). Because there is good justification I have great confidence in this, but it is not direct access to metaphysical truth.

What is the term you'd prefer to designate JTB if not "knowledge"? Let us use the word "tnow" for that. — Hanover

As I stated previously, knowledge is adequately justified belief. As to what JTB is...I guess I think it's meaningless, or at least useless. That's a position I've been pretty consistent about throughout my brilliant philosophical career here on the forum.

There wasn't actually an argument in that post. — Banno

Agreed, but there were statements of opinion.

Because there is good justification, I have great confidence in this, but it is not direct access to metaphysical truth. — PhilosophyRunner

As I stated previously, knowledge is adequately justified belief. As to what JTB is...I guess I think it's meaningless, or at least useless. That's a position I've been pretty consistent about throughout my brilliant philosophical career here on the forum. — T Clark

Your argument here is that you can't "know" truth because you lack a justification you've arrived at truth, which is to acknowledge the significance of truth and JTB.

If, however, you claim there is no truth, that is a different matter.

there were statements of opinion. — T Clark

Which, on your account, have no truth value...?

My argument is that I cant directly "know" Metaphysical truth. That is absolute, objective truth. That is what is true regardless of what I think, regardless of what you think, regardless of what anyone thinks.

Instead the best I can do if follow the path of best justifications in order to infer this metaphysical truth. I am simply using justifications and more justifications until I am happy to call the result "the truth." But that is not the metaphysical truth the JTB refers to.

Which, on your account, have no truth value... — Banno

I didn't say anything about the truth value of opinions. Let me think about them now... I think you're probably right that opinions are not either true or false. That doesn't mean they aren't useful. I've been consistent here on the forum that I believe usefulness is more important than truth.

My argument is that I cant directly "know" Metaphysical truth. — PhilosophyRunner

How do you know this?

That doesn't mean they aren't useful. — T Clark

Hmm. A veritable definition of sophistry: what counts is what serves my purpose.

because I have justification and I believe it.

Which is all anybody needs in order to say "I know..."

A veritable definition of sophistry: what counts is what serves my purpose. — Banno

That's not what sophistry means. You should look it up.

I'd be happy to discuss opinion sometime, but it's outside the scope of this discussion, which is about knowledge.

That's not what sophistry means. — T Clark

No, but it is what sophists do.

Thanks for the chat.

because I have justification and I believe it. — PhilosophyRunner

What is your justification that there is a truth independent of personal justification? Why do you believe there is an ultimately correct view of the world? What leads you to think that if you've led a life only experiencing best guesses?

What is your justification that there is a truth independent of personal justification? — Hanover

This truth is what T in JTB refers to (as far as I understand - I am not an expert on the matter). So really you should be asking proponents of JTB that question.

From the SEP section on JTB:

Something’s truth does not require that anyone can know or prove that it is true. Not all truths are established truths. If you flip a coin and never check how it landed, it may be true that it landed heads, even if nobody has any way to tell. Truth is a metaphysical, as opposed to epistemological, notion: truth is a matter of how things are, not how they can be shown to be. — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

This is the truth being referenced in JTB. I am not arguing for that worldview - JTB implicitly accepts that worldview. I am arguing against JTB.

Another way to put my argument is:

Knowledge is epistemology, yet JTB attempts to define it in terms of metaphysics.

However, when anyone says "I know ..." they are using epistemology not metaphysics. So they ignore the metaphysical T and just use epistemology to formulate the "I know ..." sentence.

This truth is what T in JTB refers to (as far as I understand - I am not an expert on the matter). So really you should be asking proponents of JTB that question. — PhilosophyRunner

What you said earlier was:

My argument is that I cant directly "know" Metaphysical truth. That is absolute, objective truth. That is what is true regardless of what I think, regardless of what you think, regardless of what anyone thinks. — PhilosophyRunner

That is to say, you previously asserted your justification for your belief in what "True" means.

Now you relent, and say you don't know what truth means, and by this, you mean you haven't an adequate justification to assert a belief in what it means and so I should ask someone who might know better.

That's why I asked how you knew there was a truth, to which you said:

because I have justification and I believe it. — PhilosophyRunner

But now you don't.

If you don't know whether there is a truth, then, as I said, that's a different matter.

That's metaphysical subjectivism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism#:~:text=Metaphysical%20subjectivism%20is%20the%20theory,that%20is%20reality%20(idealism).

Knowledge is epistemology, yet JTB attempts to define it in terms of metaphysics. — PhilosophyRunner

Knowledge is knowledge of something, and it necessarily implicates the metaphysical. As noted above, if your position disregards an independent anchor of reality for knowledge, that doesn't disregard metaphysics. It just substitutes one metaphysical position for the other.

No my justification if for my belief in what the T means in the formulation of the JTB theory.

I am arguing against the T in JBT. That is the T that we have been referring to here.

If the T in JBT is a wrong, then I am correct in saying that JBT is wrong, and nothing further needs to be said. In order for a discussion to happen, it is required that the T in JTB is a valid worldview.

I am arguing against the T in JBT. That is the T that we have been referring to here. — PhilosophyRunner

Initially, you were arguing against the necessity of the T for a belief to be referred to as knowledge,. You didn't explicitly say there was no truth.

Is that what you're saying? We should dispense with the T because there is no T?