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. — Hanover
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
Taken together, CASE 1 and CASE 2 have covered every possibility and show that I am not guilty of murder. — PhilosophyRunner
Proof by case analysis is not something I just invented, it is widely used. — PhilosophyRunner
I have a problem — PhilosophyRunner
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
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
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
That's actually quite clever. I suggest you examine justification more closely. — Agent Smith
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.