Yes. That's why Russell thought that knowledge by acquaintance was important - and different from knowledge by description (i.e. at second hand).
Odd, though, that direct experience of an event is well known not to make one a reliable witness. Perhaps it is over-rated? — Ludwig V
The issue with this is that people perceive things with certainty through their senses all the time and yet are mistaken in their conclusions. Given this, I am skeptical that we can readily identify how we can tell when someone knows something this way. Something else needs to be present. — Tom Storm
You could have woken up from a dream or a coma years later. Note: I am not arguing you should go around doubting such things.There are counterexamples. I am certain, for instance, that this post is in English, and my certainty is not a theory that I could revise if further evidence came along. — Banno
I can certainly live with this version and in many ways do. I suppose it depends on how long I worked with the 'knowledge'. The notion of absolute space and time, it seems to me we can place in the history of knowledge. If it was more hypothetical or worked for a very short time, then no.I'd just say that if we counted something as knowledge and later it turned out to be false, then we were wrong, that it wasn't knowledge, and we have now corrected ourselves. — Banno
I didn't undersand this. I do think people can be wrong. I am not saying that we don't make mistakes or we don't have mistaken theories, even, let alone hypotheses that seem to work for a while, but are false.But the idea that folk can be wrong has fallen into disfavour, and it seems it is now considered no more than bad manners, even in a philosophy forum, to point out people's mistakes. Oh well. — Banno
Agreed, again. I can see, I guess how what I wrote might seem to mean that we are always right. Hm. My point is more that we don't need to go back and say X wasn't really knowledge. I am looking at the term 'knowledge' as a term meaning here's stuff we categorize as very trustworthy because of Y (our batch of rigorous criteria). So some now no longer consider true theory from the past is still part of our history of knowledge. The stuff we arrived at rigorously. Oh, it wasn't really knowledge. No, it was. Now we know better.Of course, if folk are never wrong, then they have no need to correct themselves, and hence no way to improve their understanding. — Banno
I don't see how a person's own feelings of certainty can assist us with this. — Tom Storm
I can doubt anything. — T Clark
A property with no contamination is not considered a site under site cleanup regulations. — T Clark
I guess I was unclear. I do not consider JTB as useful definition of knowledge. I do not think knowledge has to be true, only that I believe it is true and am justified in that belief. Those are the only things I have control of. — T Clark
You speak as if you had been practicing and become a champion doubter! Or is it that you can ask yourself of any empirical proposition whether it could possibly be wrong and answer "Yes" just because it is not self-contradictory to do so. — Ludwig V
But the idea that folk can be wrong has fallen into disfavour, and it seems it is now considered no more than bad manners, even in a philosophy forum, to point out people's mistakes. Oh well. — Banno
But I still think that first-hand experience is the best way to learn something and therefore the best way to obtain knowledge. — Bret Bernhoft
My point is more that we don't need to go back and say X wasn't really knowledge. I am looking at the term 'knowledge' as a term meaning here's stuff we categorize as very trustworthy because of Y (our batch of rigorous criteria). So some now no longer consider true theory from the past is still part of our history of knowledge. The stuff we arrived at rigorously. Oh, it wasn't really knowledge. No, it was. Now we know better. — Bylaw
So when you create a site conceptual model, you must be certain that there is some contamination. Right? — Ludwig V
Then you will also also know that your justification was insufficient and will stop having faith in it. At that point, you will want to say that you did not know, after all. — Ludwig V
All that anyone can ask of you is that you do your bit, and you clearly do that. But I don't think it follows that the outcome (success/failure) is always defined by that. Sometimes success or failure is assessed by other people. You can try your best to win the race. Whether you do win or not is not in your control. For me, knowledge is a success and other people are entitled to assess that for themselves. — Ludwig V
In philosophy, "contingent" doesn't mean "open to rational doubt". It means it is not self-contradictory to assert the opposite. — Ludwig V
There is a category of doubt that Hume calls "excessive"; for Hume it was invented by Pyrrho, the ancient Greek. It's very liek Cartesian doubt. He recommends ordinary life and concerns as the best cure for it. He also identifies "moderate" doubt, which I would call a healthy scepticism. Hume thinks it is an excellent policy in general life. — Ludwig V
Descartes' arguments for scepticism consist of an invalid argument and a paranoid fantasy. That's about it. It's not enough to establish what he wants to establish. — Ludwig V
I agree that first-hand experience is often the best way. But sometimes text-books and classrooms are useful. It depends what you are trying to learn. — Ludwig V
First, that anyone who passes on knowledge has to endorse it. That's the consequence of the Truth clause in the JTB account. Second, the authority of the source can be a justification for passing on - and therefore endorsing - knowledge. — Ludwig V
And that's the problem with Justified true belief. One wants the justification to be strong. But logical implication is too strong, leading to an oversupply of justifications. And mere opinion appears too weak, being little more than one's personal belief. So instead we have something like a general acceptance by a community, without the rigour for which one might have hoped.One of the reasons is that the Justification condition is very, very hard to articulate in the way one would expect for a definition. — Ludwig V
Oh, nor do I. Accepting that one is wrong and seeking correction is the beginnings of rationality, and of philosophy, as you point out. Rather, it seems to me that in recent times it has become less acceptable to point out that someone is wrong. But that might just be my curmudgeon speaking.I don't think there's anything very new about people accepting they can be wrong. — Ludwig V
Waggishly accurate. :smile:Descartes' arguments for scepticism consist of an invalid argument and a paranoid fantasy. That's about it. — Ludwig V
...you only know something when you have perceived it undoubtably through your senses. — Bret Bernhoft
In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. — T Clark
You need knowledge of the likely facts and understanding of the level of uncertainty. — T Clark
Dependent on other conditions or circumstances; conditional: synonym: dependent — T Clark
So both first-hand experience and the theoretical approach are essential for learning and gaining knowledge. — Bret Bernhoft
So instead we have something like a general acceptance by a community, without the rigour for which one might have hoped. — Banno
Engineers and scientists need to be careful and accurate. Lawyers, with their concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" are similar. I don't have a problem with philosophers adopting the same policy. Ordinary life will no doubt continue with its rather slapdash ways. — Ludwig V
But if there is some poisonous chemical contaminating your site, do you say that maybe it isn't a poison after all? You would be asked for evidence. You don't have any. You know that compound XYZ is poisonous, and you would have a bad time in court if you messed about with the process of removing it. Of course, you wouldn't ever just say it is poisonous. You would say it is poisonous at such-and-such a concentration and you would have evidence what the concentration is. If there was doubt about it, that would have to be mentioned and rationally justified as well. All those things are things that you know. Perhaps the problem is not that knowledge is uncertain, but that it is complicated. — Ludwig V
So when you create a site conceptual model, you must be certain that there is some contamination. Right? — Ludwig V
You could have woken up from a dream or a coma years later. — Bylaw
Sounds fine. Knowledge is a composite notion, having a family resemblance of uses. No one definition will do, which is where we came in. But most especially, knowledge is not just useful information.I am suggesting is that we don't give knowledge some utterly distinct ontological quality — Bylaw
The comment was just this curmudgeon grumping about the apparently thin-skinned. Nothing too significant.I didn't understand this. — Bylaw
It's interesting that "true" and "trustworthy" have the same PIE root "*deru-" ...as does "tree". All good solid upstanding words. So to Foucault's brilliant analysis of truth and power. Curious that he has not been mentioned here until now, since his work is important - yet overly emphasised in some circles.I am looking at the term 'knowledge' as a term meaning here's stuff we categorize as very trustworthy because of Y — Bylaw
Your three examples are trivial. — T Clark
In engineering, yes. But not everything is engineering. Philosophy, like life, is complicated.Nothing is absolute. There can always be doubt. It only matters how uncertain things are. — T Clark
We cannot doubt everything, because doubting requires a background against which the doubt is formulated — Banno
I just explained why it wasn't as simple as that. So, yes, it's complicated, but it's complicated because of the uncertainty in our knowledge. — T Clark
That's one of the lessons learned, and subsequently taught, by the natural language approach. — Banno
foundationalist epistemology — Tom Storm
But if we keep truth small and simple then it is undeniable that there are true statements. Like that you are now reading this. — Banno
It may be just a linguistic issue, but I prefer to say, not that knowledge is uncertain, but that we know less than we think we do. — Ludwig V
The endless and fruitless search for foundations of knowledge certainly looks like a misapplication of an idea like the format of Euclid's writings about geometry. — Ludwig V
And the justification for the skills, is, in the end, pragmatic. Evolution takes care of that. — Ludwig V
Our posts don't seem to be very responsive to each other. — T Clark
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.