That is to draw a distinction between mimicry and mimicking for the sake of mimicking. — creativesoul
The content of the cat's belief is meaningful to the cat. — creativesoul
I mean that is just some sort of gloming onto 'their' sentiment. I would maybe see one of 'them' also suggesting that we not use the the derogatory word 'subset' implying inferiority. No, 'only' and 'mere' are PRECISELY the same (to me) in meaning and they are certainly no worse than 'subset'. So, I confess, I do not get this complaint. It's like saying to 'them' that 'OK, if you concede the main point about your door, we will agree to paint it chartreuse, as you direct.'My statements are intended precisely to call this foolishness into question. A fact or knowledge, both, are only a subset of beliefs.
— Chet Hawkins
I wouldn't use the word only (or mere). It's a subset. — Bylaw
Most 'grouping up' as a fallacious attempt to argue by mass or numbers, is cowardly, if you follow, an approach/need of fear and order. Anger does not care if others agree or not. It will hold the line to the balance of its own belief, regardless. At least that is GOOD anger.Even if (perhaps especially if) you assess certain groups (scientists, intellectuals) you will narrow that spread because all of them are closing ranks as a rep of the group DESPITE personal feelings or beliefs or 'known (ha ha) facts' to the contrary, because they would rather do that than let chaos get a toehold further into their protected spaces.
— Chet Hawkins
Yes, groups can do this. On the other hand, given their methodologies, I trust the information I get from some groups and some individuals more than others. I'm not exactly sure what you meant in the two parts I quoted here. — Bylaw
And this last bit is another appeasement of 'them'. It surreptitiously implies that maybe this application of the word 'subset; even works, but not well.All sorts of categories can have as subsets, members that work much better than others. — Bylaw
Knowledge is ENTIRELY belief. Knowledge is ONLY belief because in the sense that I am referring to it is entirely belief. Knowledge is MERELY belief because belief itself is more interesting and useful than 'they' give it credit for.There are chess players. Magus Carlsen is a chess player. He's not only a chess player or a mere chess player (the word 'only' her taken in a similar sense to 'mere.' But he is an individual subset of the set of chess players. — Bylaw
Yes, on some of that we can agree. But we both know that in reality and especially human reality, there are many situations where the fox ends up guarding the henhouse. Why is that? I 'know' (ha ha) why. It's fair to use the fox's tricks against them, maybe (not really) The fox is likely to sell out truth. The fox is likely to call it doubters facetious when they are the serious ones. The fox was appointed by other foxes. It's there to corrupt the serious nature of truth, precisely to let slip things in a certain way. We are all beset by wisdom, by truth. It is too hard to live up to. The 'powers that be' have to make sure that some roads to truth are obscured. This aids in the pragmatic short cutting of truth in daily life. This aids in immorality, the opposite of wisdom.While there are bad dentists, I don't go with a toothache to prison guards or stock traders. — Bylaw
This complaint has no quality. You are just repeating the same mistake. You offer no argument.That is to say, the deadly serious idea of accuracy is not being treated properly at all when we say we 'know' something.
— Chet Hawkins
But we do know things, all sorts of different things, often with good reason. — Banno
I cannot tell who you are not quoting here. Quote for better responses.Science is not the world. Limiting your examples by presuming that science is the only, or even the best, way to determine truth will lead you astray. — Banno
And your fear here is correct. There is no other way than belief. It is the strength or quality of the belief that is critical. That strength includes elements of the other two paths, desire, and anger.You want a moral argument.
As I already pointed out, if all we have is belief, then there is no correcting ourselves. If there is only opinion, then one cannot be mistaken, for to be mistaken is to believe something that is not the case, not true. In the place of learning, there would only be changing one's opinion. If there is no difference between believing and knowing, one cannot cease to believe a lie and so know the truth. — Banno
Most people would not know the difference in these terms. That is my point. I contend that in fact those most people are more correct than anyone claiming as you are here.You are confusing absolute knowledge with knowledge. — Bob Ross
All of these other angles on the same thing are just more subterfuge, more deception. Justification can be in error and is only belief as well. What is believed as true is again, also, only a belief. So error creeps in. Blah blah blah.If knowledge is a justified belief that has a high enough probability of being true, then you can know you know X IFF you have a justified belief that has a high enough probability of being true that X. — Bob Ross
I would say that saying 'to know x' does imply absoluteness. That is the colloquial understanding.All you have noted, is that you can’t be absolutely certain that it is true; which is not a qualification of knowledge. — Bob Ross
I agree that there is no helping some folk.↪Chet Hawkins Meh. You are presenting a pretty stock pop version of pragmatism. You are unwilling to consider where it goes astray.
No helping some folk. — Banno
And all of that is fine. It's all error, not truth in any way. But you can bet on it as highly probable and be correct.Normally, colloquially, knowledge does not refer to absolute truth. When someone says "I know that the distance to my local grocery store is 10 miles", they do not mean that they are absolutely certain nor that it is absolutely true that <...>; rather, they mean that they are (1) have a belief that , (2) are justified in, (3) and have high enough credence levels to claim that it is true that <...>. — Bob Ross
That is to draw a distinction between mimicry and mimicking for the sake of mimicking.
— creativesoul
I would say the difference there would be intention, not belief. — Janus
The content of the cat's belief is meaningful to the cat.
— creativesoul
Sure. The meaning is just what the cat does. — Banno
No, but we see meaning in how someone uses words as well as with other things. The indiscernibility of identity is just using words coherently.Meaning is not equivalent to behaviors. — creativesoul
Yep. Turns out Chet's position was pretty shallow.you and I are in near complete agreement when it comes to the OP — creativesoul
Both cases require believing that there is something to be mimicked; believing that another individual behaved in some certain way; believing that someone else did something or another — creativesoul
As far as the OP goes, you and I agree much more than disagree. It's when we unpack our respective notions of knowledge and belief that things begin to get more contentious. It seems that way to me anyway. — creativesoul
That you are reading this now is not just "plausible"; rather if that is to be doubted, we no longer have a footing for this conversation to proceed.
I'm certain I am writing this reply.Are you saying that we must be certain — Bob Ross
In order to get things done, one must hold certain things to be the case, not to be in doubt. One must hold some things as certain. — Banno
I agree with you on this, but I wonder whether you think that those things we hold certain are in any degree fallible. Do you think they could ever be falsified? — Janus
I agree with your point that to doubt anything other things must be certain, or at least held to be certain.
The infinite nature of perfection, even as a concept, is shown in every experience, and in every philosophical concept in many ways.It seems that most forms of "we cannot know anything about the world," rely on a certainty that there is indeed a world and a real truth about it out there. I just don't know how advocates of these theories can claim to know this given their position. — Count Timothy von Icarus
It is inherently more correct to applaud and suffer with the person only claiming some awareness. — Chet Hawkins
It seems that most forms of "we cannot know anything about the world," rely on a certainty that there is indeed a world and a real truth about it out there. I just don't know how advocates of these theories can claim to know this given their position. — Count Timothy von Icarus
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.