My original general assertion, is that we should dispense with the T in JTB.

JTB asserts that the T is objective, absolute truth.

If there is no absolute objective truth, we dispense with the T because there is no T. This is the trivial solution, end of discussion!

If there is a T, then, the discussion we were having ensures. So we can have this discussion. In this case I am also arguing that we should dispense with the T in JTB as it is useless.

So in either worldview, I assert that the T in JTB should be dispensed with, and replaced with more justification. The dispersal of the T is not dependent on worldview - it should be got rid of either way!

So in either worldview, I assert that the T in JTB should be dispensed with, and replaced with more justification. — PhilosophyRunner

You've got to pick a position and you can't toggle back and forth between them because the conversation won't be coherent.

Either you believe there is a truth or you don't.

If you do, you must, per your own stated method, offer your justification for it. Once you do, your problem will be in ignoring it.

If you don't, you must explain how subjectivism offers a meaningful view of the world.

You've got to pick a position and you can't toggle back and forth between them because the conversation won't be coherent. — Hanover

I disagree. I can structure an argument such as as follows:

I will show X

1) If Y is not true ... Then X
2) If Y is true ... Then X

Therefore X

If I do the above, I do not need to show Y is true.

My knowledge of myself is both infinite and out of reach.

‘Knowledge’ for me is just ‘that which is under scrutiny’. ‘Pure Knowledge’ is that which I pay no heed to, such as the fact that I breath … but once it is brought under ‘scrutiny’ (into conscious attention) it is necessarily ‘questioned’ as an item rather than blindly happening whilst my focus is elsewhere.

It boils down to how you wish to use the term ‘knowledge’ and how, if you so desire, you wish to communicate this idea rather than just using it in a colloquial sense.

The ‘truth’ of lived life is often something I ignore entirely. I am very much in favour of the Husserlian attitude being that the ‘existence’ of something is irrelevant and only ‘experience of’ matters. So in terms of consciousness ‘truth’ is neither here nor there, it is just a term smuggled in from strictly delineated areas where it is of use. In life ‘truth’ is not clear because the rules and boundaries of life are indeterminate/undetermined … all we have is the ‘experience of’ and it can be too easy to extrapolate some rigid claim of ‘truth’ from that.

disagree. I can structure an argument such as as follows:

I will show X

1) If Y is not true ... Then X
2) If Y is true ... Then X

Therefore X

If I do the above, I do not need to show Y is true. — PhilosophyRunner

No, you're arguing contradictory claims in the alternative simultaneously, and it's incoherent.

Consider:

(1) I am not guilty of murder because I did not shoot the gun.

(2) I am not guilty of murder because I shot the victim in self defense.

That is, whether I shot him or not, I am not guilty of murder.

Under #1, I should be expected to give all sorts of details about what I was doing other than shooting the victim.

Under #2, I should be expected to describe in detail how I shot the victim

What you can't do, which you do in fact do, is refuse to provide the details under #2 by telling me you don't know how you shot him in self-defense because under #1 you already indicated you didn't shoot the him. You can't jump back and forth in your competing arguments.

This is to say, if (1) you're going to argue there is no truth, you have to describe what that universe looks like.

If (2) you're going to argue there is truth, but it doesn't matter, you have to explain what it is and why it doesn't matter, but you can't just refer to your contradictory argument in the alternative (in #1) where you made an entirely different claim that truth doesn't exist.

So, do you argue #2, and if you do, what is your justification that there is truth? And you cannot refer to argument #1 to deny you assert the existence of truth because in #2 (that is now being discussed) you assert truth does exist.

What you have missed in that example is the conditional statements (or if statements, or case statements).

I am going to argue that I am not guilty of murder.

(1) CASE 1 - IF I did not shoot the gun

I did not shot the gun, therefore I am not guilty of murder. trivial argument.

(2) CASE 2 - IF I did shoot the gun

I shot the gun but it was in self defense because of....

Therefore I am not guilty of murder.

Taken together, CASE 1 and CASE 2 have covered every possibility and show that I am not guilty of murder.

Do I take your post to mean you don't support the JTB of knowledge for most instances when you use "I know..."?

Taken together, CASE 1 and CASE 2 have covered every possibility and show that I am not guilty of murder. — PhilosophyRunner

And yet you'd be found guilty because to argue that you didn't shoot the gun but if you did it was in self defense assumes both X and not X and that impossibility would result in the rejection of everything you say.

The assumption of X and the assumption of not X are in two different cases.

Each case is separate, there is no incoherence.

Proof by case analysis is not something I just invented, it is widely used.

Of course not. It is outdated and useless.

Proof by case analysis is not something I just invented, it is widely used. — PhilosophyRunner

1. You stated you can't know T because it doesn't exist.
2. You stated you can't know T and it does exist.
I asked under #2 how you knew T existed.
You said you had a justified belief T existed under #2.
I asked what that justification was under #2.
You said you didn't know because under #1 you already told me T didn't exist.

You used 1 to support 2, yet they're contradictory.

If my rendition of this is incorrect, then tell me specifically what your justified belief is in knowing truth independent of your justifications exists as assumed in #2.

If you don't have one, then we can move beyond this and discuss the ramifications of metaphysical subjectivism, namely how it slips into idealism and solipsism. It's the position that Descartes started with.

If, however, you do believe truth does exist independent of justification, then you'll have to explain why it is irrelevant when we execute the wrong person.

The OP says I know ...

I have a problem — PhilosophyRunner

How come, especially when he ends with ...

It seems to me that no one who has ever said "I know... ." has ever checked that their claim meets the criteria of JTB. If this is indeed the case, may JTB be useless? — PhilosophyRunner

?

If you don't have one, then we can move beyond this and discuss the ramifications of metaphysical subjectivism, namely how it slips into idealism and solipsism. It's the position that Descartes started with.

If, however, you do believe truth does exist independent of justification, then you'll have to explain why it is irrelevant when we execute the wrong person — Hanover

Do you believe that radically relativistic perspectives of truth within philosophy, such as we see with postmodernist and post-structuralist writers, are examples of metaphysical subjectivism?

Not absolutely sure of your point, are you asking how could I say "I know..." about anything, if I am not using JTB?

The answer is simple - I use a different system as described in my second post - What I called JMAOJB (the acronym is whimsical I know, but the point I describe is not).

How different is JMAOJB from JTB?

1. You stated you can't know T because it doesn't exist.
2. You stated you can't know T and it does exist. — Hanover

No.

1)In the case that T exists, then X
2)In the case that T does not exist, then X

As long as I cover every case for T, then I do not need to justify T in order to justify X.

I also explained it using IFs. All your replies ignore the case statements (or if statements). Argument (and proofs) by case analysis is both formally accepted, but also very intuitive. Take the following simplistic, intuitive example.

John is meant to be executed at dawn tomorrow. However I have intel that John may have built a plane to escape before that. Question: Will john die tomorrow?

If John has built the plane, then our air defense will shoot it down and he will die
If John has not built the plane, then he will be executed and he will die

Either way he will die by tomorrow.

You objection is - "You are incoherent. How can you say John built a plane and then say John did not build a plane. You must pick one." But surely you can see that is not what the if statements are saying. That is not how "if" works, either in formal logic or colloquial English.

You also protest "What justification do you have to for your intel about him building a plane?" But I do not need to justify my intel about his plane in order to answer the question "will john die tomorrow," as I have demonstrated either way he will die tomorrow.

It does away with the T, and replaces it with more justification.

Because I do not have direct access to Truth (as in objective truth independent of what I think, what you think, what anyone else thinks). I can only justify my beliefs, and after some point I start saying "I know..."

I put forward everyone does this - regardless of their worldview.

what is true according to humanity is what is currently most justified. However, like many things, in science for example, the justification can be overturned by new evidence.

Before the Copernican revolution, it was justified and believed that the earth was the center of the solar system, then it was taken as mere fact. Until Copernicus demontrated a better more explanatory (less subject to empirical contradiction) set of reasoning as to why the earth actually revolves around the sun.

This led to a huge revolution in our understanding of the earth's place in the solar system and advanced astronomy a great deal. Now it is taken as fact.

In truth, nothing is 100% certain, only confident. We can never exclude the possibilities that future theories may roive our current ones obsolete. Facts do not always remain facts, at best they are "almost certain beliefs".

If we had the full, total, unanimous truth, there'd be little reason to question or investigate anything as we would already have a definitive answer.

You can believe something, you can justify it, but it doesn't mean it's always true.

what is true according to humanity is what is currently most justified. However, like many things, in science for example, the justification can be overturned by new evidence. — Benj96

Absolutely, that is exactly my point.

So when anyone says "I know..." this indicates they have a justified belief.

The T in JTB is objective truth, and that truth plays no part when you or I say "I know..."

That's actually quite clever. I suggest you examine justification more closely.

@Banno, would you be so kind as to leave a comment. I have a feeling you'll take this discussion forward.

That's actually quite clever. I suggest you examine justification more closely. — Agent Smith

Yes the justification does a lot of heavy lifting. I need to give it more thought, but there are two ways in which I see this justification happening when someone says "I know..."

First is internal justification - they subjectively find the evidence they have gives a sufficient probability that their belief is knowledge. I have seen pictures of the Earth as a sphere so I am justified in believing the Earth is not flat.

Secondly is a societal justification - the society in which they exists has a consensus that the evidence they have gives their belief is knowledge. Scientists have a consensus that the Earth is a sphere, so I am justified in believing the Earth is not flat. I defer the justification to an external body that I trust, and accept their recommendation as justification.

*

Wonderful! What I find interesting is you removed truth from the equation. That's a grandmaster move in me book mon ami. What is the criterion for truth?