Right. Notice you wrote this all in the present tense. I know you have a more nuanced understanding of this. But I just want to immediately mention that I am looking at what happens through time and what we know/think/have access to at any given moment.Foremost, you can't know something if it is not true. This is how the grammar of "know" works. If you hold it to be true, but it isn't, then you only believe it, you don't know it. — Banno
yes, I think you are still assuming that I think we can't know anything.Secondly, it is plain that there are true statements. This statement is true. So are the theorems of arithmetic and logic. That you are reading this is also true. — Banno
Of course not. But I think my response to you makes it clear that there are things we can know. You seem to be arguing that extreme skepticism is problematic. I agree, that's not my point at all. Of course, I could be wrong about what just happened, what my opponent just did, in the checkers game, but that's not what I'm arguing.This works only in limited cases. Some counterexamples have already been given. Here's another: Supose you are playing Checkers and your opponent reaches over and moves one of your pieces - yo say "You can't move my pieces!" Would you accept their reply if it were "HA, but there you have it - I have falsified that rule: I can move your pieces!" — Banno
Sure, knowledge is a rigorously arrived at belief in JTB theories of truth.The JTB definition of knowledge involves belief, and we might say that it frames knowledge as a "form of belief": namely justified true belief, but it does not follow that it is nothing more than belief, because the 'justified' and the 'true', as conceived, have nothing to do with belief. — Janus
Sure, knowledge is a rigorously arrived at belief in JTB theories of truth. — Bylaw
Agreed. Which is close to the reason I think the T is superfluous and misleading.The rigor is all in the J - the J is where all our confidence in the T comes from. — flannel jesus
To me it works to add in 4 further letters and take out the T. (this is partly ironic since it's too many letters to be useful, but it reflects my thinking.If it's rigor we're looking for, then we should place a threshold on the minimum amount of J before we call it "knowledge". Which is probably what we do anyway, given we don't have access to a universal dictionary of objective truths. — flannel jesus
And then we just have beliefs with varying levels of justification, and the ones with the most justification we call "knowledge" - and some of that knowledge is probably wrong. — flannel jesus
…..is a judgement of truth the same as truth? I don't think that is how the two are commonly conceived. — Janus
Yes, there are different kinds of knowing. There is 'knowing how', there is the knowing of familiarity and there is 'knowing that'. I think the salient question in this thread concerns only 'knowing that' or propositional knowing, because the other two categories do not necessarily involve belief. — Janus
For example, in practice belief is often used as qualitatively identical to knowledge, just less certain. Your understanding seems to exclude this common meaning of belief. — Leontiskos
Throw it in! That's absolutely part of knowledge and belief's relationship. — fdrake
If the dictionary sufficed, you can end the thread here. — fdrake
How do you know it's unjustified? You said beliefs are justified if they're true and unjustified if they're false. You can't know I'm unjustified unless you also know my house isn't there. — flannel jesus
I believe my house is going to still be there when I get home. I think I'm pretty justified in that. — flannel jesus
The JTB definition of knowledge involves belief, and we might say that it frames knowledge as a "form of belief": namely justified true belief, but it does not follow that it is nothing more than belief, because the 'justified' and the 'true', as conceived, have nothing to do with belief. — Janus
Thus your belief is not justified because what you believe is not true for certain. — SpaceDweller
If you believe something that's true, then it's justified.
— flannel jesus
Yes. — SpaceDweller
If I believe it, and it's true, then it's justified, regardless of if I'm certain — flannel jesus
Anyway "certain" or "proof" is same thing here. you have no proof that your house will be there in the future. — SpaceDweller
But if it's true, then it's justified, right? That's what you said. — flannel jesus
When did PROOF become the T condition? T stands for "true", not "proof".
Do you think JTB stands for "Justified Proved Belief"? — flannel jesus
Sometimes when people are very confident of something that turns out to be wrong, we use the word “knows” to describe their situation.
Something’s truth does not require that anyone can know or prove that it is true. Not all truths are established truths.
I hope this helps you to understand my stance? — SpaceDweller
No, unfortunately it doesn't. Your use of various terms in this conversation has seemed wildly and irreconcilably inconsitsent to me. — flannel jesus
Yesterday, before I went home, I believed my house was still there and was still going to be there when I got home - you said this was unjustified, but I went home and it turned out to be true! So if it was true — flannel jesus
Either way, externalism eliminates the normative dimension of epistemology which many philosophers find problematic, and which is a common characteristic of naturalised epistemology. — sime
Does the article say "proof" and "truth" are synonyms? Because that's what you're saying.and yes there is mention of proof in the article but you're reluctant to study it — SpaceDweller
We have already been over this before and I replied to you that this is not how epistemology works — SpaceDweller
Does the article say "proof" and "truth" are synonyms? Because that's what you're saying. — flannel jesus
truth is a matter of how things are, not how they can be shown to be.
but the context is that for something to be true you need proof. — SpaceDweller
How in the world do you figure that? — flannel jesus
You don't think there are any unproven truths? — flannel jesus
No, I don't think there are unprooven truths. — SpaceDweller
Can you prove it? — flannel jesus
One of those two claims is an unproven truth. The other one is unproven and false. — flannel jesus
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/#MathSignPlatAccording to working realism, these and other classical methods are acceptable and available in all mathematical reasoning. But working realism does not take a stand on whether these methods require any philosophical defense
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.