Government is a kind of technology, except it’s an immoral one. It’s premised on monopoly, plunder, and coercion. Not only that but it’s entirely inefficient. Besides, Government has been the greatest progenitor of the threat of mass-extinction since the meteor. — NOS4A2
How would that look? — flannel jesus
There's my proof that there's an unproven truth. — 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
Can you prove it? — flannel jesus
How in the world do you figure that? — flannel jesus
You don't think there are any unproven truths? — flannel jesus
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.
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
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.
But if it's true, then it's justified, right? That's what you said. — flannel jesus
If I believe it, and it's true, then it's justified, regardless of if I'm certain — flannel jesus
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
Again, just what are the devastating effects caused by scientific progress? — ssu
Without scientific progress there sure would be devastating effects. Not just potential. Have you thought about this question from this viewpoint? — ssu
So let's assume there wouldn't have been any Renaissance and further age of Enlightenment in the West, but the Church would have held power as in the Muslim World. Where would be now? — ssu
I guess because the purpose of devastating tech (nukes) is to destroy, there is no abuse since there is only one purpose.Ok, but why isn't then this more of a problem of basically the abuse of technology? — ssu
Tech has evolved at an astronomical pace while the species itself hasn't. Given this disparity it is quite possible we could destroy ourselves with it. But it is for this same reason that a world government is out of the question. — NOS4A2
Rather, the objection is that any solution which requires that a small minority maintain power indefinitely will eventually fail. — Leontiskos
ofc. not, it should be worded as unjustified belief because it's not true.I beleive or disbelieve statements. Those statements can be true or false. But if I believe in a statement, and that statement is also false, I would never word that as "I believe in false" — flannel jesus
I would word that as "I believe in that statement, and <later when I discover it's false> I was wrong about that belief. I was incorrect." — flannel jesus
So, with that in mind, the question I guess is, "Can you ever be justified in believing in a statement when that statement is false?" — flannel jesus
"Can you ever be unjustified in beleiving in a statement that's true?" — flannel jesus
Banno and I both say, YES, both of those things are possible. — 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
Yes, I understand. We are talking about beliefs. Everything I'm saying is about beliefs. — flannel jesus
The article doesn't say "you're justified when it's true, and youre unjusitified when it's false". — flannel jesus
It's not ommitted, it's a given. We're talking about a belief. — flannel jesus
That means, for any belief you have, it's either (true and justified), or its (untrue and unjustified), right? — flannel jesus
Yes.If you believe something that's true, then it's justified. — flannel jesus
Yes.If you believe something that's not true, then it's not justified. — flannel jesus
No.That means, for any belief you have, it's either (true and justified), or its (untrue and unjustified), right? — flannel jesus
Which is incorrect because P2 (S believes that p;) was removed but is required for belief to be justified.P1: p is true;
P3: S is justified in believing that p.
If what you say is right, that Justified <-> True, then it's pointless to say both. — flannel jesus
That tripart seems to be doing exactly what I'm doing - separating "justified" and "true". It doesn't seem to me to support what you're saying. — flannel jesus
Sorry but this makes no sense to me, how could "true" statement be superfluous?If that were how people were using the word 'justified', then either the T or the J would be superfluous in JTB. I don't think many people think that way. — flannel jesus
No because believing something which is false is not justified belief, because precondition for justification is that true is not false.I certainly don't think that way. Someone could have a justified belief that's false. — flannel jesus
The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:
S knows that p if
- p is true;
- S believes that p;
- S is justified in believing that p.
The T in JTB is kinda awkward. If someone says they believe something, they're already saying they think it's true. If someone says they're justified in believing something, they're saying they think it's true, and their thought is justified. — flannel jesus
Thank you, I might read about it some time, didn't know it's antiquated, but is that your personal opinion or is it established that JTB is out of date?"JTB" is antiquated. Much more cogent: — 180 Proof
Every 'civilization' is always most vulnerable to (thermodynamic and/or information) entropy. — 180 Proof
Everything will be just engineers improving current machines and concepts. But once you have developed the pencil, the written book, the spoon etc. there's not much to improve there. Spoons and books have stayed the same for quite a while. No incentive or reason to improve a technology that works so well. — ssu
I suspect so. Global travel increases the likelihood of a global pandemic, excessive industrialisation increases the use of non-renewable resources and the likelihood of harmful climate change, and automated systems controlled by an artificial intelligence is vulnerable to coding errors and sabotage. — Michael
Knowledge consists of truths or not-yet-falsified claims the statuses of which are independent of dis/belief. — 180 Proof
If you take JTB (above) into the picture then that's an argument against it because belief only is insufficient.Chet says that statement is incontrovertible. I would like to see an argument to support that contention. — Janus
Must be really some awesome technology of the future, because the fact is that even an all-out nuclear war between US/Russia and China wouldn't devastate everything and kill everybody. It might be a well respected mantra to say to voice opposition to nuclear weapons, but destroying everything is a lot harder than we think. — ssu
Agree but I think it's not wrong to say "scientific progress" when addressing this question because without scientific progress there is no technological progress.There really is a difference between science and technology. Your simply not using the definition of technology and just putting it together with everything being 'science'. However there's a reason why the standard definitions are different. Let's define first what they mean: — ssu
There's a lot of examples that show that we aren't as vulnerable as earlier: we don't die as early as before. If there are bad harvests, we don't in the industrialized World die of famine. Actually famines have become more rare. We don't just have to raise our hands up and hope that the God's wouldn't be angry at us, we have an idea just how we changing (destroying?) our environment. — ssu
So you could think of the individualism-framed problem as a problem of the ratio between adults and toddlers, and the ensuing probability that any given random individual will be a "toddler." The government solution is based on the idea that a minority of adults will maintain control over time, thus preventing toddlers from accessing dangerous weapons. — Leontiskos
I think maturation is needed, including moral maturation. — Leontiskos
What happens next in your view? — Baden
Truth cannot be a lie. Otherwise the foundations of our court/judiciary system is completely faulty and evidence and justice are total nonsense. — Benj96
Truth cannot be esoteric, because it spans the range from basic/simple to complex. — Benj96
Truth cannot not exist, otherwise all of science is debased. — Benj96
Therefore truth exists. And as a spectrum of all true things, some are more longstanding, more consistent, more fundamental, than others.
I just drank some water is true.
Civilisation has been around for millenia is true.
Animals exists for millions of years is true.
The planet condensed via gravity is true... — Benj96
That is, approach in which there is search for "esoteric truth"consists in postulating the existence of a "universal esotericism" of which
it would be a matter of discovering, of explicating the “true” nature
consists in positing that, to validly study a religion, a tradition, a spiritual trend, and so on - and, consequently, "esotericism" - it is necessary to be a member of it oneself on pain of not
understanding very much about it
How does one prove their validity as the claimant to objective morality in this dilemma? When everyone is prepared to project delusion, judgement, intolerance, envy and hatred onto them despite their noble attempt?
The answer is a 3 step process: ... — Benj96
1). Speak the truth, if it is indeed as powerful as it ought to be - because of its logical and revelatory nature, the truth speaker ought to gain some attention and fandom, rising from obscurity to the height of politics and media coverage. — Benj96
Why would a fundamental, profound or simple/basic truth be esoteric (specialised and inaccessible).
The whole point of truth and it's "acknowledgement" ie "knowledge of what's true" is that it very much is accesible by following basic logic and reasoning to their ends.
Truths make sense to people. Strings of lies do not because theyre "inconsistent" (false) ie not true and thus not sensible. — Benj96
Socrates concludes that the prisoners, if they were able, would therefore reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them out of the cave
I would say it applies to both but more leaning toward institution, it depends on what is meant by 'truth' or how is it defined.Secondly you speak in doubles first saying "one who has some revelation" and then "such as institutions" which is it? One person does not an institution make. — Benj96
What you're talking about is exactly "esoteric" truth, meaning not only that it would not be understood by cave men (it blinds them) but also unwillingness of those circles which know it to share, both applies.I think it's far more reasonable that an "institution" or hierarchy of power, withholds the truth from the top (manipulator/truth with-holder) downward not because the general public couldn't understand it but rather because they don't want the public to understand it as if they did, they wouldn't be in a position of power anymore would they? — Benj96
Yes, agree.Also the publics lack of understanding of it is literally caused by whoever withholds it from them. It's in effect keeping the public distracted and uneducated (without knowledge). It's easier to deceive and manipulate someone without much understanding of anything. — Benj96
The public would of course care but I don't think they would believe it.If you asked the public would they like to know who is fooling them and misguiding them. Who is spreading prooganada and misinformation. Do you genuinely think they wouldnt care? — Benj96
Well, Jesus also proclaimed truth and we all know people *did* care but didn't believe it.Imagine going up to someone and saying "so I have this big super important super powerful secret which let's me manipulate others. And I'm not telling you what that is."
You think people "wouldn't care". — Benj96
Conclusion: Any individual in possession or "revelation" of such a truth has 2 options: conceal it/keep it to oneself. In which case one cannot tell the truth. And so becomes a liar by definition.
This is basis for powerful and dangerous propaganda - from the word "to propagate" - as in to propagate delusions, deceptions and misinformation. To be deceitful. This is therefore wholly immoral as it disempowers others/misleads them and reduces their ability to be moral or take control. It is manipulative.
So to know the truth and not speak it is the archetype of the "villain", "antagonist" or "evil doer". — Benj96
So, there is nothing in the definition of God that commits a Christian to the belief that God created the world. — Bartricks